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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites a “second compressor” without reciting a “first compressor”, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. The fact that a “first compressor” is recited in claim 2 does not resolve this issue. If applicant wishes to recite the second compressor in claim 1, the first compressor should also be recited in that claim as well.
Claims 2-20 are also rejected since they depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Iyoshi et al.(WO 2021/225177 A1) in view of Fumitake et al. (JP 2003/262418 A). (Note that paragraph notations for Iyoshi et al. are based on corresponding US application US 2023/0057478 A1).
The applied Iyoshi et al. reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As per claim 1, Iyoshi et al. disclose refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising:
a first circuit 5a that circulates a first refrigerant; a second circuit 10 that circulates a carbon dioxide refrigerant and refrigerating machine oil; a cascade heat exchanger 35 that heats the carbon dioxide refrigerant with the first refrigerant; and a control unit 80 having processor circuitry,
wherein the second circuit includes
a second compressor 21 and
a container 30 that is provided on a suction side of the second compressor and that stores the carbon dioxide refrigerant and the refrigerating machine oil, and
the processor circuitry of the control unit is configured to cause the control unit to control an operation of the first circuit to achieve a target condensation temperature (para. 0134, 0162; etc.). Iyoshi et al. do not teach the control being performed so that a temperature or pressure of the carbon dioxide refrigerant and the refrigerating machine oil in the container is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature or predetermined pressure corresponding to a boundary temperature at which a density of the carbon dioxide refrigerant and a density of the refrigerating machine oil in the container become equal. Fumitake et al. teach the concept of controlling the relative densities of refrigerant and machine oil within an accumulator in order to prevent inversion (para. 0020; Fig. 3; etc.). In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly control the refrigerant and oil pressures within the accumulator 30 of Iyoshi et al. to be of equal value for this same basic purpose.
As per claim 2, Iyoshi et al. disclose wherein the first circuit includes a first compressor 71, and the processor circuitry of the control unit causes the control unit to control a rotational speed of the first compressor in the first circuit (paras. 0134, 0162)., although again does not teach the control being so that the temperature or pressure of the carbon dioxide refrigerant and the refrigerating machine oil in the container is equal to or higher than the predetermined temperature or the predetermined pressure. Also again, Fumitake et al. teach the concept of controlling the relative densities of refrigerant and machine oil within an accumulator in order to prevent inversion (para. 0020; Fig. 3; etc.). In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application control the first compressor control of Iyoshi et al. to similarly control refrigerant and oil pressures within the accumulator 30 of Iyoshi et al. to be of equal value for this same basic purpose.
As per claims 3 and 4, Iyoshi et al. disclose wherein the control unit is configured to switch operation of the cascade heat exchanger between a first mode of operation that heats the carbon dioxide refrigerant with the first refrigerant (Fig. 4; etc. re. heating operation) and a second mode of operation that cools the carbon dioxide refrigerant with the first refrigerant (Fig. 3; etc. re. cooling operation).
As per claims 5-8, Iyoshi et al. disclose wherein the second circuit further includes a sensor that measures at least one of the temperature and pressure of the carbon dioxide refrigerant and the refrigerating machine oil on the suction side of the second compressor (suction temperature sensor 88).
As per claims 13-19, Iyoshi et al. disclose wherein the first refrigerant contains R32, R454C, propane, R1234yf, R1234ze, or ammonia (para. 0196 re. propane; etc.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As per claims 9-12 (and claim 20 which depends from claim 9), there is no teaching or suggestion in the art to further modify the system of Iyoshi et al. wherein the second circuit further includes a suction pipe that connects the suction side of the second compressor to the container, an oil return passage that returns the refrigerating machine oil from a lower portion of the container to the suction pipe, and a valve that is provided in the oil return passage, and
the control unit is configured to change an opening degree of the valve on a basis of a degree of superheating of the carbon dioxide refrigerant discharged from the second 30 compressor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights