DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 6-11 and Species III, Figure 3 in the reply filed on 21 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 12-21, 28, 31, and 35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Additionally, while Applicant states that claims 1-3 and 6-11 all read on the elected species, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The features of claim 6 are directed at the embodiment of Species I, and the features of claims 7 and 9 are directed at the embodiment of Species II. Accordingly, claims 6, 7, and 9 are also withdrawn from consideration, but may be subject to rejoinder upon allowance of a generic claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 21 August 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examples include the use of “optionally”, “contained”, absence of “with” (claim 8), etc. Applicant’s assistance in ensuring the claims correspond to U.S. practice is appreciated.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Examiner notes that broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires none of the listed optional features. If Applicant amends to require one or more of the optional features, Applicant should use caution to ensure that such features are readable on the elected species. Applicant should also use caution in ensuring that adequate support for structure(s) corresponding to any “subsystems” are present in the disclosure, as it appears that these terms, if required may invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claims 2-3, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Examiner notes that broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires none of the listed optional features.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein there is a single compressor”. Is this the same or different from the at least one compressor of claim 1? It is believed to be the same and that the claim should be amended to reflect that the at least one compressor includes a single compressor.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein a plurality of moisture removing driers”. Are these the same or different from the at least one drier of claim 1? It is believed that they are the same and that the claim should be amended to reflect that the at least one drier includes a plurality of driers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein a plurality of moisture removing driers”. Are these the same or different from the at least one drier of claim 1? It is believed that they are the same and that the claim should be amended to reflect that the at least one drier includes a plurality of driers. Further, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Examiner notes that broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires none of the listed optional features. Examiner notes that the “a second moisture removing drier” would likely also require amendment if the bypass were to be required by the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koban et al. (US 2019/0225905).
Regarding claim 1, Koban et al. shows a refrigerant system comprising a refrigeration circuit for conveying a fluoroolefin refrigerant composition (see at least Abstract; paragraph [0050]), the refrigerant circuit comprising at least one compressor (see at least compressor), at least one expansion device (see at least expansion valve/orifice tube), at least one evaporator (see at least evaporator), at least one condenser (see at least condenser), at least one drier for removing moisture (see at least receiver dryer), and optionally at least one component selected from the group consisting of:
a) at least one service valve configured to charge the refrigerant circuit with a fluoroolefin refrigerant composition;
b) a stabilized refrigerant charging subsystem;
c) a purified refrigerant charging subsystem, optionally contained an air/oxygen detector;
d) a subsystem for removing oxygen and/or oxidizing compounds including a deoxygenating agent, optionally responsive to the air/oxygen detector;
e) a subsystem for separating oligomer/polymer; and
f) an oligomer/polymer filter
(Examiner notes that while not required by the claim, it appears that Koban et al. includes a plurality of the above optional features).
Regarding claim 2, Koban et al. further shows wherein the refrigeration circuit is a closed loop and contains the fluoroolefin refrigerant composition, the fluoroolefin refrigerant composition comprising:
at least one of HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze, optionally at least one hydrofluorocarbon selected from the group consisting of HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-152a, HFC-236fa, E/Z-R-1132, and HFC-227ea, and optionally carbon dioxide (see at least Abstract; paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Koban et al. further shows wherein the at least one drier is selected from the group consisting of a single filter drier, a single drier containing an absorbent bed for removing moisture, and a single column housing a filter section and a drier section (see at least paragraph [0085]).
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (JP 2010098516: cited with English Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Sato shows a refrigerant system comprising a refrigeration circuit for conveying a fluoroolefin refrigerant composition (see at least Figures 1, 3; translation “In the above embodiment, the refrigerant sealed in the refrigeration apparatus is a hydrofluoroolefin, for example, tetrafluoropropene (HFO1234yf) as a basic component, either difluoromethane (HFC32) or pentafluoroethane (HFC125). Or it is the refrigerant | coolant which mixed 2 components or 3 components, respectively, so that a global warming potential (GWP) might be 5 or more and 750 or less, desirably 5 or more and 300 or less. Alternatively, a single refrigerant (GWP = 4) of hydrofluoroolefin may be used.”), the refrigerant circuit comprising at least one compressor (see at least compressor #1), at least one expansion device (see at least expansion mechanism #3), at least one evaporator (see at least indoor heat exchanger #4), at least one condenser (see at least outdoor heat exchanger #2), at least one drier for removing moisture (see at least strainer #8/8a/#8b), and optionally at least one component selected from the group consisting of:
a) at least one service valve configured to charge the refrigerant circuit with a fluoroolefin refrigerant composition;
b) a stabilized refrigerant charging subsystem;
c) a purified refrigerant charging subsystem, optionally contained an air/oxygen detector;
d) a subsystem for removing oxygen and/or oxidizing compounds including a deoxygenating agent, optionally responsive to the air/oxygen detector;
e) a subsystem for separating oligomer/polymer; and
f) an oligomer/polymer filter
(Examiner notes that while not required by the claim, it appears that Sato includes a plurality of the above optional features).
Regarding claim 2, Sato further shows wherein the refrigeration circuit is a closed loop and contains the fluoroolefin refrigerant composition, the fluoroolefin refrigerant composition comprising:
at least one of HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze, optionally at least one hydrofluorocarbon selected from the group consisting of HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-152a, HFC-236fa, E/Z-R-1132, and HFC-227ea, and optionally carbon dioxide (see at least translation “In the above embodiment, the refrigerant sealed in the refrigeration apparatus is a hydrofluoroolefin, for example, tetrafluoropropene (HFO1234yf) as a basic component, either difluoromethane (HFC32) or pentafluoroethane (HFC125). Or it is the refrigerant | coolant which mixed 2 components or 3 components, respectively, so that a global warming potential (GWP) might be 5 or more and 750 or less, desirably 5 or more and 300 or less. Alternatively, a single refrigerant (GWP = 4) of hydrofluoroolefin may be used.”)
Regarding claim 3, Sato further shows wherein the at least one drier is selected from the group consisting of a single filter drier, a single drier containing an absorbent bed for removing moisture, and a single column housing a filter section and a drier section (see at least translation “In addition, for the purpose of removing trace moisture in the refrigeration cycle, a molecular sieve may be installed adjacent to the fibrous filter.”).
Regarding claim 8, Sato further shows wherein there is a single compressor with a discharge outlet connected to and in fluid communication a polymer separator (see at least compressor #1 in communication with #8/#8a/#8b; see also translation “strainer 8 having a fibrous filter which can trap an organic solid polymer in the refrigerant circulation path.”)
Regarding claim 10, Sato further shows wherein a plurality of moisture removing driers are serially arranged in flow communication with said circuit (see at least Figure 3, strainer #8a and #8b; see at least translation “In addition, for the purpose of removing trace moisture in the refrigeration cycle, a molecular sieve may be installed adjacent to the fibrous filter.”: Examiner notes that #8/#8a/#8b include the filter).
Regarding claim 11, Sato further shows wherein a plurality of moisture removing driers are arranged in-line and in flow communication with said circuit, and said circuit optionally including a valved by-pass for a second moisture removing drier (see at least Figure 3, strainer #8a and #8b; see at least translation “In addition, for the purpose of removing trace moisture in the refrigeration cycle, a molecular sieve may be installed adjacent to the fibrous filter.”: Examiner notes that #8/#8a/#8b include the filter; Examiner notes that bypass is not required but would appear to be obvious over Sato alone and/or Sato in combination with the cited by not relied upon reference).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights