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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. (emphasis by examiner.)
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not presented in narrative form (e.g., using complete sentences and grammar) but is instead presented as a claim (i.e., “A refrigeration cycle device including…”). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 8 of claim 1 (as counted within the claim rather than by the page-by-page line numbering presented in the claims as filed) teaches “an HSP distance” without previously defining this acronym. “HSP” in this line should be replaced with “Hansen Solubility Parameter (HSP) where it is first used in line 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2002/0035848 A1 to Komatsubara et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
302
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Komatsubara teaches limitations from claim 1 in fig. 1, shown above, a refrigeration cycle device comprising:
a refrigerant circuit (shown in fig. 1) comprising a compressor (100),
wherein a refrigerant is enclosed in the refrigerant circuit (as taught in ¶ 26),
the refrigerant contains a hydrocarbon having 1 to 4 carbon atoms (“The main component of the refrigerant of the present invention is a hydrocarbon having 1 to 4 carbon atoms” with propane [C3H8] or isobutane [HC(CH3)3] with 3 and 4 carbon atoms respectively given as exemplary refrigerants in ¶ 26) and a sulfur-based odorant (tetrahydrothiophene (THT), taught in ¶ 28 and known in the art to be an organosulfur compound with formula (CH2)4S),
the compressor (100) is filled with a refrigeration oil (as taught in ¶ 33),
the refrigeration oil contains a base oil (described in ¶ 37).
Komatsubara does not teach that “a difference between an HSP distance between the base oil and the sulfur-based odorant and an HSP distance between the base oil and the hydrocarbon having 1 to 4 carbon atoms is -2.0 or more”, that is that a factor representing the solubility between the odorant in the base oil is greater than, equal to, or no more than two units less than the solubility between the base oil and the hydrocarbon. Komatsubara teaches the hydrocarbon may be propane (also known as R-290) (in ¶ 26), the oil to be polyalkylene glycol (PAG) (in ¶ 37) and the odorant to be THT (in ¶ 28). Although applicant teaches in ¶¶ 144-149 that these compounds are capable of satisfying the claimed relationship, it is recognized that this capability is dependent upon the particular formulation and molecular structure of the PAG oil and that Komatsubara is silent with regard to the specific structure of this oil as applied in the system of his invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found the exact composition and thus the resulting chemical properties including relative solubility of the machine oil, odorant, and refrigerant used in practicing the system of Komatsubara to be a matter of obvious optimization through routine experimentation. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05 II. Routine Optimization, the courts have held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) and “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” (See In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969)).
Further, it is found that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the significance of these solubility properties and values and would therefore have been motivated to perform optimization of these properties. As evidence, attention is directed to WIPO Publication No. 2015141677 A1 to Ueno et al. and WIPO Publication No. 00/60021 A1 to Kurachi et al., an English-language translation of each of which is provided with this Office Action.
Ueno teaches in ¶¶ 13 and 85-96 a refrigerant into which a number of additives are mixed and teaches the relative solubility of these additives to be a factor requiring consideration, including teaching the calculation of the HSP of these additives in such analysis and specifically discussing in ¶¶ 148-153 the inclusion of an odorant in the refrigerant for the purpose of leak detection, mentioning the relevance of the solubility of such an agent. These teachings demonstrate the at the importance of solubility of additives in a refrigerant, including of an odorant used for leak detection, is well-known and recognized in the art so that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize these values.
Similarly, Kurachi teaches in ¶¶ 4-5 a refrigerant for use with a compression cycle refrigerator, the refrigerant including a hydrocarbon such as propane into which are mixed a machine oil and an odorant used for the detection of refrigerant leakage. Kurachi further teaches in ¶ 83 and 93 that the relative solubilities of the odorant and the oil and of the oil and the hydrocarbon should be considered, teaching an odorant with low solubility in the oil used and this oil in turn having high solubility with the hydrocarbon, teaching that these solubility values and the difference between this is relevant to the design and function of a refrigeration system and thus shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize these values.
Ueno and Kurachi are not relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 but are presented to demonstrate what was known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to show the significance of the solubility of refrigerant and additives included therein and to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the value of optimizing these properties for a given set of refrigerant, oil, and odorant such as those taught by Komatsubara.
Komatsubara teaches limitations from claim 2, the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 1 wherein the base oil is at least one selected from the group consisting of an oxygen-containing oil (excluding polyalkylene glycol) and a hydrocarbon oil (in ¶ 37, Komatsubara lists various oils which are suitable for use in the device of his invention, including polyvinylethers [sic.] and polyol ester oil which are given as exemplary oxygen-containing oils in ¶ 46 of the instant application, as well as petroleum oils such as paraffin oils and naphthene oils which are hydrocarbon oils).
Komatsubara teaches limitations from claim 5, the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 1, wherein
the sulfur-based odorant is tetrahydrothiophene (as taught in ¶ 28), and
the refrigerant is propane (as taught in in ¶ 26).
Regarding claim 6, Komatsubara does not teach that the concentration of the sulfur-based odorant is greater than or equal to 50 ppm and less than 1,100 ppm, by mass as taught in claim 7. Komatsubara does teach in ¶ 29 that “The added amount of the odorant in the refrigerant is preferably 10 wt ppm to 0.5 wt %.” One of ordinary skill in the art at before the application was effectively filed would have recognized the specific concentration of this odorant to be a result effective variable as it determines how easily a leak of refrigerant may be detected and the ease of handling of the refrigerant and the odorant as taught by Komatsubara in ¶ 29 and would thus have found the determination of an optimum range to be a matter of obvious design choice (for example, responsive to the size of the space in which the refrigerant and odorant are to be used so that the scent is not too faint to detect a refrigerant leak in a large and sparsely occupied space). Further, it has been held that determining an optimum or workable value for a result effective variable by routine experimentation is a matter of routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 and MPEP 2144.05 II. Obviousness of Ranges.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsubara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2016/0347982 A1 to Fukushima et al.
Regarding claim 3, Komatsubara teaches a refrigerant cycle device comprising a compressor for compressing a refrigerant to circulate in a refrigerant circuit, the refrigerant being a hydrocarbon with between 1 and 4 carbon atoms such as propane, and having a sulfur-based odorant such as tetrahydrothiophene mixed therein. Komatsubara further teaches that the compressor is filed with a refrigeration oil and states that a petroleum oil such as a paraffin oil or a naphthene oil may be preferably used. Komatsubara does not explicitly teach the polyalkylene glycol oil of the system of his invention being represented by the formula of claim 10, including the number of ethylene oxide groups m and the number of propylene oxide groups n so that the end groups of the polymer “are a hydrogen atom or a hydrocarbon chain having one or more carbon atoms” as taught in claim 3.
PNG
media_image2.png
165
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fukushima teaches in ¶ 183 a “polyalkylene glycol refrigerant oil” which may be structured per Formula 11, shown above, corresponding to the Formula 1 of claim 10, also shown above for clarity and ease of comparison. As taught by Fukushima, R1 and R2 of claim 3’s chemical formula 1 are each a methyl group [CH3], that is “a hydrocarbon chain having one or more carbon atoms”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Komatsubara with the polyalkylene glycol oil and the formulation thereof taught by Fukushima because such an oil is known in the art as an effective, reliable, compatible refrigerating machine oil and because “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” (in this case, choosing from a number of known and commercially available formulations of PAG refrigerating machine oil) has been set forth as an exemplary rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsubara and Fukushima as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2015/0041705 A1 to Saito et al.
Komatsubara as modified by Fukushima as discussed in the above rejection of claim 3 teaches limitations from claim 4, the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 3, wherein m and n satisfy the following formula (1) …:
m+n ≤ 100 … (1) (Fukushima teaches in ¶ 183 that the values i and j, equivalent to the claimed values m and n respectively) have a sum between 6 and 80, and thus less than 100).
Neither Komatsubara nor Fukushima teaches that the values m and n further satisfy the formula n/(m+n)≥0.20, as taught in claim 4. Saito teaches in ¶ 94 that in a polyalkylene glycol formulation for use as a base oil in a refrigerating machine working fluid, that it preferable that “the proportion (EO/(PO+EO)) of the oxyethylene group in the sum of the oxyethylene group and the oxypropylene group is preferably in a range from 0.1 to 0.8 and more preferably in a range from 0.3 to 0.6 in terms of baking load and viscosity-temperature characteristics”, thus leaving the remaining fraction of propylene oxide groups (called “oxypropylene groups” by Saito) in the range of 0.2 to 0.9 and in the embodiment of the more preferred range between 0.4 and 0.7, all of which are greater than or equal to 0.2 as recited in claim 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Komatsubara with the ratios of taught by Saito in order to provide a base oil having high compatibility with working fluids and with desirable viscosity-temperature characteristics as taught by Saito in ¶ 94.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights