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 .
Continued Prosecution Application
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Applications including No. 18512520, filed 11/17/2023, No. 18/084201, filed 12/19/2022 and No. 13/207,557, filed 5/12/2008 and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a fluoroolefin working fluid comprising C2 fluoroolefins and C3 fluoroolefins” which is not supported by the written description and was not in the previously filed application from which one this depends. While the specification does discuss that the heat transfer composition can include a fluoroolefin with 2 to 12 carbon atoms, there is no teaching of a mixture as claimed and no support for using C2 and C3 fluoroolefins together as claimed.
Claims 2-16 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-16 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 recitation of “providing flow” in lines 24, 25, and 27 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.”
Claims 2-16 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that while the previous filings and the specification use the terminology HFC-1234ze while mentioning E isomers and HFC-1234yf that the present claims using the terminology HFO-1234ze(E) and HFO-1234yf is not considered new matter. It is recognized that these terms are identical in usage and the use of HFO instead of HFC reflects changing terminology in the art since the originally filed application but does not provide any change at all to the scope. It is further recognized in the art that any reference of HFC-1234ze or HFC-1234yf is understood to be a reference to HFO-1234ze or HFO-1234yf.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11867436 in view of Minor (US PG Pub 20060243944), hereinafter referred to as Minor and D’Aubarede et al. (US Patent No. 6054064), hereinafter referred to as D’Aubarede.
Claim 1 of the allowed application can be said to teach the entirety of the present application except that the working fluid comprises (a) a fluoroolefin working fluid comprising C2 fluoroolefins and C3 fluoroolefins,
(b) at least one hydrofluorocarbon selected from at least one of HFC_32, HFC-124a, HFC-134, HFC-152a
wherein C3 fluoroolefin comprising one of HFO-1234ze(E) and HFO-1234yf.
Minor teaches a refrigerant mixture can be made of a composition of HFC-1234ze and at least one compound including HFC-32 or HFC-134 (paragraph 9) that is designed to meet demands of low or zero ozone depletion (paragraph 8) and the HFC-1234ze can be the trans isomer (paragraph 91) which is HFC-1234ze(E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the HFC-1234ze(E) fluoroolefin as a mixture with either HFC-32 or HFC-134 of Minor in the allowed claims as the refrigerant of the allowed claim 1 for the purpose of providing an environmentally friendly working fluid.
D’Aubarede teaches that refrigerant mixtures that include refrigerants such as R-32 can include 1,1-difluoroethylene (VF2) and different refrigerant mixtures have different temperature maxes (see Table 1) and refrigerants should have minimal environmental impact (Column 1, lines 57-60).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included in the working fluid of the allowed claim as modified 1,1-difluoroethylene (a C2 fluoroolefin) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby one having common knowledge in the art would recognize that as it is a refrigerant meant for having minimal environmental impact that can be mixed with other refrigerants, it would have been obvious to have included it with the mixture of the allowed claim based on the desired overall temperature range the refrigerant is used in as well as the desired performance of said refrigerant.
In view of the rejection above, the remaining present claims are rejected in view of the allowed claims as follows:
Present Claims Allowed Claims
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 2
6 3
7 5
8 6
9 6
10 4
11 18
12 2
13 7
14 8
15 17
Claims 1-16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12287129 in view of Minor (US PG Pub 20060243944), hereinafter referred to as Minor and D’Aubarede et al. (US Patent No. 6054064), hereinafter referred to as D’Aubarede.
Claim 1 of the allowed application can be said to teach the entirety of the present application except that the working fluid comprises: (a) a fluoroolefin working fluid comprising C2 fluoroolefins and C3 fluoroolefins,
wherein C3 fluoroolefin comprising one of HFO-1234ze(E) and HFO-1234yf.
Claim 1 of the allowed application does teach that the fluoroolefin working fluid include at least one compound with 2 to 12 carbon atoms but does not specifically say what those are.
Minor teaches a refrigerant mixture can be made of a composition of HFC-1234ze and at least one compound including HFC-32 or HFC-134 (paragraph 9) that is designed to meet demands of low or zero ozone depletion (paragraph 8) and the HFC-1234ze can be the trans isomer (paragraph 91) which is HFC-1234ze(E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the HFC-1234ze(E) fluoroolefin the refrigerant of the allowed claim based on the teaching of Minor as the refrigerant of the allowed claim 1 for the purpose of providing an environmentally friendly working fluid.
D’Aubarede teaches that refrigerant mixtures that include refrigerants such as R-32 can include 1,1-difluoroethylene (VF2) and different refrigerant mixtures have different temperature maxes (see Table 1) and refrigerants should have minimal environmental impact (Column 1, lines 57-60).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included in the working fluid of the allowed claim as modified 1,1-difluoroethylene (a C2 fluoroolefin) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby one having common knowledge in the art would recognize that as it is a refrigerant meant for having minimal environmental impact that can be mixed with other refrigerants, it would have been obvious to have included it with the mixture of the allowed claim based on the desired overall temperature range the refrigerant is used in as well as the desired performance of said refrigerant.
In view of the rejection above, the remaining present claims are rejected in view of the allowed claims as follows:
Present Claims Allowed Claims
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 2
6 3
7 4
8 5
9 6
10 7
11 8
12 9
13 10
14 11
15 12
16 1
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be considered allowable if the double patenting and rejections under 35 USC 112(a) rejections were resolved.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims contain the same allowable subject matter US Patent No. 11867436 and US Patent No. 12287129 from which this application depends on and to which the above double patenting rejections are drawn. The closest prior art is that applied in the rejection dated 5/18/2023 in application 18/084201 (now patent No. 11867436 is reflected below in view of 35 USC 103:
Ichimura et al. (US PG Pub 20040244411) and further in view of Wu (US PG Pub 20030024692), hereinafter referred to as Wu and Minor (US PG Pub 20060243944) and Tomlinson (US PG Pub 20060032244), hereinafter referred to as Tomlinson.
With respect to claim 1, Ichimura (Figures 1A/1B, 2A/B) teaches a vapor compression (the system as seen in Figure 1A is a vapor compression system) heat transfer system, comprising:
a closed circulation loop containing a working fluid composition for circulation therein (Figure 1A shows a closed loop refrigeration cycle, Paragraph 23, which would have a refrigerant in it), said loop at least comprising, in fluid communication, an evaporator (14a, paragraph 40), a compressor (11, paragraph 40), a condenser (condenser 12, paragraph 40), and an intermediate heat exchanger (IHX) (20A, paragraph 42),
b) said compressor having an inlet in fluid communication with said IHX and an outlet (the compressor receives fluid via 16, paragraph 41 which would be an inlet in fluid communication with 20A as the cycle goes from 20A to 11 via R7, paragraph 55)
c) said condenser having an inlet and in fluid communication with said outlet of said IHX (the condenser inlet (the entire cycle is on a closed loop so the inlet is connected to the outlet of the condenser),
and d) said IHX comprising: i. a first tube having an inlet connected to said second end outlet end of said condenser and an outlet connected to and in flow communication with said first inlet of said evaporator (the IHX is made up of two pipes the inner one, 21a receives fluid from the condenser outlet and pushes said fluid to the throttle 13 which then passes fluid to the evaporator, paragraphs 55-56)
ii. a second tube having an inlet connected to said back row outlet of said evaporator, and an outlet connected to said compressor inlet, wherein said first and second tubes are in thermal contact with one another (the second tube 22A receives fluid from the evaporator and passes it to the compressor, paragraph 43).
Ichimura does not teach that the refrigerant is a fluoroolefin.
Minor teaches a flurooelefin as a heat exchanging working fluid, such as one comprises a mixture of HFC-1234yf and CF3I (Paragraph 95) because it can be used in a system that is able to meet the demands of low or zero ozone depletion (Paragraph 8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the HFC-1234yf and CF3I fluoroolefin mixture of Minor as the refrigerant of Ichimura for the purpose of providing an environmentally friendly working fluid.
Ichimura as modified does not teach that the evaporator is a dual row evaporator a) said dual-row evaporator comprising: i. a front row comprising sets of tubes configured for both serial and countercurrent flow aligned along a first axis and having a front row inlet at a first end, and ii. a back row comprising sets of tubes configured for both serial and countercurrent flow aligned along said first axis and having a back-row outlet adjacent said first end , said front row inlet and said back row outlet being arranged along a second axis orthogonal to said first axis, and a manifold arranged along a third axis orthogonal to said first and second axes and providing fluid communication between said front and back rows.
Wu (Figure 6) teaches a double row heat exchanger (10/10’) with a front row comprising a front row comprising sets of tubes (the medium coils 122 of 10, labeled in Figure 5, paragraph 19, that can be seen in Figure 6) configured for both serial and countercurrent flow aligned along a first axis (the fluid flows in from 124 and out via 126, which means the inlet serial flow along the inlet across the heat exchanger, and then counterflow in the same way as in the present application, when they flow back across the heat exchanger, where the tubes are arranged along a axis of depth of the heat exchanger) and having a front row inlet at a first end (where the manifold 124 provides flow to the set of tubes), and ii. a back row comprising sets of tubes configured for both serial and countercurrent flow aligned along said first axis and having a back-row outlet adjacent said first end (10’s has the same tubes as 10 arranged in the same vertical axis, said front row inlet and said back row outlet being arranged along a second axis orthogonal to said depth axis, coming out from the end of the heat exchanger), and a manifold arranged along a third axis orthogonal to said first and second axes and providing fluid communication between said front and back rows (intake manifold 124 is along the vertical axis as seen in the figure which is thus orthogonal to both the other two axes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the evaporator of Ichimura as modified as a dual row heat exchanger as in Wu so that it would have: i. a front row comprising sets of tubes configured for both serial and countercurrent flow aligned along a first axis and having a front row inlet at a first end, and ii. a back row comprising sets of tubes configured for both serial and countercurrent flow aligned along said first axis and having a back-row outlet adjacent said first end , said front row inlet and said back row outlet being arranged along a second axis orthogonal to said first axis, and a manifold arranged along a third axis orthogonal to said first and second axes and providing fluid communication between said front and back rows in the configuration of Wu as described above since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby utilizing the heat exchanger of Wu in Ichimura would provide the predictable result of a thorough (multi pass and multi row) heat exchanging device suitable for use in an air conditioning.
Ichimura as modified does not teach does not teach that the condenser is a dual-row condenser c) said dual-row condenser having a back row with a top and bottom, a front row with a top and bottom, and a second inlet connected to the top of said back row and in fluid communication with said outlet of said IHX, said back row comprising first tubes for conveying said fluoroolefin working fluid composition along a fourth axis in a first direction to and through a third inlet located at a top of said front row, said dual-row condenser front row comprising sets of second tubes arranged for flow in said first direction as well as a second opposite direction and a discharge outlet located at the bottom of the front row for discharging.
Wu teaches a double row heat exchanger (Figure 6) which acts a condenser (paragraph 19) having a back row with a top and bottom (10 can be considered the back row, and has a top and a bottom), a front row with a top and bottom (10’ is the front row and has a top and a bottom), and a second inlet connected to the top of said back row (one of the tube of medium coils 122 of 10, labeled in Figure 5, paragraph 19 is at the top said back row), said back row comprising first tubes for conveying said fluoroolefin working fluid composition along a fourth axis in a first direction to and through a third inlet located at a top of said front row (the fluid flows into the top row, out the outlet of the first and then into an inlet of 10’s which has an inlet at the top, paragraph 20), said dual-row condenser front row comprising sets of second tubes arranged for flow in said first direction as well as a second opposite direction (the fluid flows initially in a direction of the inlet, then loops back and flow the opposite direction and out of the condenser) and a discharge outlet located at the bottom of the front row for discharging (there is an outlet at the bottom part of the condenser with the tubes located there).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the condenser of Ichimura as modified as a dual row heat exchanger as in Wu so that it would have: condenser is a dual-row condenser c) said dual-row condenser having a back row with a top and bottom, a front row with a top and bottom, and a second inlet connected to the top of said back row and in fluid communication with said outlet of said IHX, said back row comprising first tubes for conveying said fluoroolefin working fluid composition along a fourth axis in a first direction to and through a third inlet located at a top of said front row, said dual-row condenser front row comprising sets of second tubes arranged for flow in said first direction as well as a second opposite direction and a discharge outlet located at the bottom of the front row in the configuration of Wu as described above since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby utilizing the heat exchanger of Wu in Ichimura would provide the predictable result of a thorough (multi pass and multi row) condenser suitable for use in an air conditioning.
Ichimura as modified does not teach that the fluoroolefin working fluid composition from the condenser is at a sub-cooled temperature.
Tomlinson teaches that providing subcooling of refrigerant exiting a condenser provides improved thermodynamic efficiency (paragraph 33).
Therefore it would have been obvious to have provided cooling in the condenser of Ichimura capable of subcooling the refrigerant based on the teaching of Tomlinson so as to provide an improved overall thermodynamic efficiency to the refrigerant cycle.
In response to that office action applicant amended the claims do be effectively the same as the present claim except for the specific refrigerants which were shown to be obvious above in view of Minor and D’Auberede by providing the additional limitations requiring the specific configuration of the evaporator as claimed:
wherein said evaporator (a) comprises dual rows of serially connected tanks, a first tank of one of said rows having a feed end with an inlet, and a second tank of said other rows having a discharge end with an outlet, and said rows of said dual row evaporator fluidly connected to one another through a collector to convey fluoroolefin working fluid from said inlet end to said outlet end through said evaporator, said dual row condenser (c) comprises, (1) a back row having a first manifold for receiving and distributing the fluoroolefin working fluid to a plurality of channels for conveying the fluoroolefin working fluid to a downstream second manifold in only a first direction along a third axis, and (2) a front row comprising first, second and third sections connected for serial flow, a first one said sections located at an upper portion of said front row providing flow only in a second direction opposite to said first direction, an intermediate section providing flow in only a third counter-current direction, and a distal subcooling section located at a lower portion of said front row providing flow in only said second direction and having an outlet for discharging subcooled fluoroolefin working fluid, wherein each section of said front row comprises a plurality of tubes,
which limitation is its entirety is not taught by the previous rejection recited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights