`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`wwwnsptogov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`12/300,706
`
`09/23/2009
`
`Katsuji Takasugi
`
`080481
`
`1825
`
`23850
`
`7590
`
`07/02/2014
`
`KRATZ,QUINTOS&HANSON,LLP
`1420 K Street, NW.
`4th Floor
`
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`LANDEROS, IGNACIO EMMANUEL
`ART UNIT
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3744
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`07/02/2014
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 12/300,706 TAKASUGI, KATSUJI
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`3744IGNACIO E. LANDEROS first“
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`-
`-
`
`Status
`
`1)IXI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 12/17/2013.
`[I A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)lX| This action is non-final.
`2a)I:| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under EX parte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`3) I] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`2) E Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date 02/28/2013 11/15/2013.
`4) D Other: —-
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20140608
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)|XI Claim(s) 1 and 3-11 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6 III Claim s) _ is/are allowed.
`s
`1 and 3-1 1 is/are rejected.
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`) )
`
`_
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)|:l Claim(s
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
` S
`htt
`://www.usoto. ov/ atentS/init events) .h/index.‘
`
`
`
`
`
`, or send an inquiry to PF"I-Ifeedback{<‘buspto.qov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|:I The drawing(s) filed on _ is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`b)I:I Some” c)I:I None of the:
`a)I:I All
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.I:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attach ment(s)
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`This action is in response to the amendment filed on 01/16/2013. Claim 2 has
`
`been cancelled; claims 3-11 have been added to the prosecution; and claims 1 and 3-
`
`11 are currently pending, all as amended directly or indirectly.
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
`
`IN GENERAL—The specification shall contain a written description of the
`(a)
`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 orjoint 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 5-10 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of
`
`the claimed invention.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`Claims 5 and 11 recite, “wherein the first non-azeotropic refrigerant has a
`
`solubility in the oil greater than the second non-azeotropic refrigerant,” which constitutes
`
`new subject matter because the original disclosure does not support such a limitation.
`
`The original disclosure only supports that at least one refrigerant has satisfactory
`
`solubility in oil, the original disclosure fails to make any comparison in solubility between
`
`any of its individual refrigerants. Claims 6-10 are rejected based on their dependency of
`
`claim 5.
`
`Claims 5 and 11 also limit the invention such that the radiator is configured to not
`
`condense/liquefy a part of the second non-azeotropic refrigerant, which constitutes new
`
`subject matter because the original disclosure fails to disclose what the radiator does
`
`and does not condense, specifically. Claims 6-10 are rejected based on their
`
`dependency of claim 5.
`
`Claim 10 recites, “the radiator is structured configured to decrease a temperature
`
`of the second non-azeotropic refrigerant by about 20 deg. C," which constitutes new
`
`subject matter because this is not supported in the original specification.
`
`Claim 8 recites, “a weight of the first non-azeotropic refrigerant with respect to a
`
`weight of the first and second non-azeotropic refrigerants is in a range of 0.5 wt% to 2
`
`wt%," which constitutes new subject matter because the original disclosure fails to
`
`support such a limitation. Paragraph 47 of the current published specification only
`
`states, “it is to be noted that in the present embodiment, 4 wt% n-pentane (in a range of
`
`0.5 to 2 wt% with respect to the total weight of non-azeotropic refrigerants) may be
`
`added to R404A. In this portion of the specification, however, there seems to be more
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`than just two non-azeotropic refrigerants in the cycle. Therefore it does not support that
`
`this wt°/o is maintained amongst only two non-azeotropic refrigerants, thus the claim is
`
`considered new subject matter.
`
`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 and 3-11 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 pre-AIA
`
`the applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Claims 5 and 11 recite, “wherein the first non-azeotropic refrigerant has a
`
`solubility in the oil greater than the second non-azeotropic refrigerant," which renders
`
`the claim indefinite because the oil recited is unknown, both in the claims and in the
`
`specification. The solubility of a refrigerant differs depending on the oil. Therefore the
`
`metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined. As best understood,
`
`the first non-azeotropic refrigerant must be either R600 or n-pentane. Claims 6-10 are
`
`rejected based on their dependency of claim 5.
`
`Claim 8 recites, “a weight of the first non-azeotropic refrigerant with respect to a
`
`weight of the first and second non-azeotropic refrigerants is in a range of 0.5 wt% to 2
`
`wt%," which renders the claim indefinite because the recitation is unclear if the weight of
`
`the first non-azeotropic refrigerant is with respect to the addition of the first and second
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`non-azeotropic refrigerant or with respect to the second non-azeotropic refrigerant. As
`
`best understood, the first non-azeotropic refrigerant must be less than the total sum of
`
`the entire mixed refrigerant.
`
`Claim 1 recites, "the evaporator of the low-temperature-side refrigerant circuit is
`
`configured to obtain an extremely low temperature," which renders the claim indefinite
`
`because it is unclear what the term "extremely low" entails. As best understood,
`
`“extremely low” means a temperature below 0 deg. C. Claims 3-11 are rejected based
`
`on their dependency of claim 1.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`The factual
`
`inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966),
`
`that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`Considering objective evidence present
`in
`the application indicating
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`Claim 1
`
`is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Takemasa et al. (US Pat. No. 4,788,829, herein referred to as "Takemasa ‘829"), in
`
`view of Hashizume (US Pat. No. 4,777,805).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Figure 1 of Takemasa ‘829 clearly discloses a refrigeration
`
`apparatus (also, see title and abstract) comprising a high-temperature-side refrigerant
`
`circuit (2) and a low-temperature-side refrigerant circuit (3) each constituting an
`
`independent refrigerant closed circuit (see fig. 1) in which a refrigerant discharged from
`
`a compressor (4, 10) is condensed (8, 23A, 23B) and then evaporated (14A, 14B, 32,
`
`42, 44, 47) to exert a cooling function (implicit), the low-temperature-side refrigerant
`
`circuit (3) having the compressor (10), a condenser (23A, 23B), an evaporator (47), and
`
`a plurality of intermediate heat exchangers (32, 42, 44) and a plurality of pressure
`
`reducing units (36, 40, 46) connected in series so that the refrigerant fed back from the
`
`evaporator (47) circulates (implicit), wherein a plurality of types refrigerants (R-12,
`
`R13B1, R-14, etc.) (see col. 6, lns. 4-17) are introduced, a condensed refrigerant in the
`
`refrigerants passed through the condenser (23A, 23B) is allowed to join the intermediate
`
`heat exchangers (32, 42, 44) through the pressure reducing units (36, 40, 46), a non-
`
`condensed refrigerant in the refrigerants is cooled by the intermediate heat exchangers
`
`(32, 42, 44) to successively condense the refrigerant having a lower boiling point (col. 6,
`
`ln. 46-col. 7, In. 24), the refrigerant having the lowest boiling point is allowed to flow into
`
`the evaporator through the final stage of the pressure reducing units (46), an evaporator
`
`of the high-temperature-side refrigerant (14A, 14B) and the condenser of the low-
`
`temperature-side refrigerant circuit (23A, 23B) constitutes a cascade heat exchanger
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`(col. 6, lns. 30-32), and the evaporator (47) of the low-temperature-side refrigerant
`
`circuit is configured to obtain an extremely low temperature (interpreted as below 0 deg.
`
`C; in this case the prior art teaches a temperature of -140 deg C) (col. 7, lns. 17-24), the
`
`refrigeration apparatus further comprising an oil separator (18) provided on the
`
`discharge side of the compressor (10) of the low-temperature refrigerant circuit (3) so
`
`that oil is separated from the mixed refrigerants to return the oil (via stream 19) to the
`
`compressor (10), and a radiator (17) interposed between the oil separator (18) and the
`
`compressor (10), wherein at least one of the refrigerants has a boiling point greater than
`
`a temperature of the mixed refrigerants exiting the radiator (i.e. the boil point
`
`temperature of R-12 which runs through conduit 34 has a boiling point temperature of -
`
`71.95 deg. F which is inherently greater than the boiling point temperature of the mixed
`
`refrigerant leaving the radiator 17 because it includes all of the refrigerants, and in
`
`particular includes refrigerants R-50 and R-14 have has a boiling point temperatures of -
`
`259.6 deg F and -198 deg F, respectively) and a high boiling point as compared with at
`
`least another second refrigerant (i.e. R-40 contained in evaporator 47 has a boiling point
`
`temperature of -259.6 deg F which is substantially lower than the boiling point
`
`temperature of R-12 at -71.95 deg. F), wherein at least the first one of the refrigerants is
`
`soluble in the oil (i.e. R-12 - Dichchlorodifluoromethane — is old and well known to be
`
`soluble in oil but insoluble in water).
`
`Takemasa ‘829 discloses the claimed invention, except that the plurality of
`
`cascading mixed refrigerants (i.e. R-12, R1381, R-14, etc) (see col. 6, lns. 4-17) are
`
`non-azeotropic mixed refrigerants.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`Hashizume, however, discloses a cascade refrigeration system that uses non-
`
`azeotropic mixed refrigerants (see col. 1, lns. 48-59). Therefore it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify
`
`the plurality of cascading mixed refrigerants (see col. 6, lns. 4-17) of Takemasa ‘829 to
`
`be non-azeotropic mixed refrigerants, as taught by Hashizume, for the purpose of
`
`suppressing irreversible energy losses (see col. 1, lns. 58-59 - Hashizume).
`
`Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Takemasa ‘829 and Hashizume, and further, in view of Weng (US Pub. No.
`
`2004/0124394, herein referred to as "Weng").
`
`Regarding claim 3, Takemasa ‘829, as modified, discloses the claimed invention,
`
`except for the first one of the non-azeotropic refrigerants to be R600. Weng, however,
`
`discloses a cascading refrigerator that uses R-600 as a refrigerant (see para 27).
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the invention was made to modify the first refrigerant (R-13B1 and R-12 that flows
`
`through conduit 34) of Takemasa ‘829 to be R-600 refrigerant, as taught by Weng, for
`
`the purpose of providing a refrigerant that is environmentally friendly and non-HCFC
`
`(see Abstract of Weng).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`Claim 4 is
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Takemasa ‘829 and Hashizume, and further,
`
`in view of Takemasa (US Pat. No.
`
`6,363,741, herein referred to as "Takemasa ‘741").
`
`Regarding claim 4, Takemasa ‘829, as modified, discloses the claimed invention,
`
`except
`
`for
`
`the first one of
`
`the non-azeotropic refrigerants to be n-pentane (e.g.,
`
`pentane). Takemasa ‘741, however, discloses a cascading refrigerator (see fig. 7) that
`
`uses an n-pentane (see Abstract) as a refrigerant. Therefore it would have been
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
`
`modify the first
`
`refrigerant
`
`(R-13B1 and R-12 that
`
`flows through conduit 34) of
`
`Takemasa ‘829 to be n-pentane refrigerant, as taught by Takemasa ‘741, for the
`
`purpose of providing a refrigerant
`
`that
`
`is more environmentally friendly (i.e. R-12
`
`refrigerant is characterized by high ozone depletion potential ODP = 1).
`
`Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Takemasa ‘829 and Hashizume, and further, in view of Takemasa ‘741; or as being
`
`unpatentable over Takemasa ‘829 and Hashizume, and further, in view of Weng.
`
`Regarding claims 5, 6, 7, 9 and 11, figure 1 of Takemasa ‘829 discloses a
`
`refrigerant circuit (1) including;
`
`a refrigerant including an oil (i.e. there is an oil separator 18 and hence there
`
`must be oil in the refrigerant), a first refrigerant (Pi-12 via conduit 34) and a second
`
`refrigerant (R-50 via evaporator 47) having a boiling point lower than a boiling point of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`the first refrigerant (i.e. boiling point of R-12 is -71.95 deg. F while the boiling point of R-
`
`50 is -295.6);
`
`a compressor (10) discharging the refrigerant (compressor 10 discharges the
`
`mixed refrigerant and supplies it to radiator 17);
`
`an oil separator (18) provided on the discharge side of the compressor (i.e. oil
`
`separator 18 is on the discharge of the compressor 10), said oil separator (18)
`
`configured to separate the oil from the first and second refrigerants (i.e. oil is returned to
`
`the compressor via conduit 19, while the entire mixed refrigerant - which includes R-12
`
`and R-50 - is supplied to dryer 20);
`
`a condenser (23A, 23B) provided on a downstream side of the oil separator (18),
`
`said oil separator configured allow entrance of the first and second refrigerant separated
`
`by the oil separator (18);
`
`a radiator (17) disposed between the oil separator (18) and the compressor (10),
`
`said radiator being structured to liquefy at least a part of the first refrigerant by radiating
`
`sufficient heat from the first refrigerant during the passage of the same through the
`
`radiator, said radiator being structured not to liquefy a part of the second refrigerant (this
`
`is a functional limitation in which the radiator 17 of Takemasa '829 is fully capable of
`
`performing, the functional limitation fails to set forth any structural limitation that might
`
`otherwise distinguish over the prior art of record. Further, the first refrigerant — R-50 — of
`
`Takemasa ‘829 has an extremely low boiling point temperature of -259.6, and therefore
`
`not all of the second refrigerant will liquefy/condense);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`wherein said oil separator (18) is configured to return the oil and the liquefied part
`
`of the first refrigerant to the compressor (oil and any liquid found in the discharged
`
`stream of compressor 10 is returned to compressor 10 via conduit 19);
`
`wherein said condenser (23A, 23B) is configured to accept a gaseous part of the
`
`first refrigerant (i.e. any gaseous portion of the entire mixed refrigerant — which includes
`
`the first refrigerant R-12 - will be supplied to the condenser 23A, 23B);
`
`whereby the temperature of the other part of the first refrigerant entering the
`
`condenser is lowered by the radiator (i.e. any fluid entering the radiator from circuit 3 will
`
`experience a decrease in temperature).
`
`Takemasa ‘829 discloses the claimed invention, except that the plurality of
`
`cascading mixed refrigerants (i.e. R-12, R13B1, R-14, etc) (see col. 6, lns. 4-17) are
`
`non-azeotropic mixed refrigerants.
`
`Hashizume, however, discloses a cascade refrigeration system that uses non-
`
`azeotropic mixed refrigerants (see col. 1, lns. 48-59). Therefore it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify
`
`the plurality of cascading mixed refrigerants (see col. 6, lns. 4-17) of Takemasa ‘829 to
`
`be non-azeotropic mixed refrigerants, as taught by Hashizume, for the purpose of
`
`suppressing irreversible energy losses (see col. 1, lns. 58-59 - Hashizume).
`
`Takemasa ‘829 discloses the claimed invention, except for the first non-
`
`azeotropic refrigerant to be (i) R600 or (ii) n-pentane.
`
`(i) Weng discloses a cascading refrigerator that uses R-600 as a refrigerant (see
`
`para 27).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`(ii) Takemasa ‘741, however, discloses a cascading refrigerator (see fig. 7) that
`
`uses an n-pentane (see Abstract) as a refrigerant.
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time the invention was made to modify the first refrigerant (R-12) of Takemasa
`
`'829 to be either R600, as taught by Wen; or n-pentane, as taught by Takemasa '741,
`
`for the purpose of providing a refrigerant that is environmentally friendly (i.e. R-12
`
`refrigerant is characterized by high ozone depletion potential ODP = 1).
`
`Regarding claim 8, Takemasa ‘829, as modified, discloses the claimed invention.
`
`Takemasa ‘829 further discloses that the weight of the first non-azeotropic refrigerant is
`
`less than the total weight of the entire mixed refrigerant (i.e. R-12 makes up only 35% of
`
`the entire mixed refrigerant col. 6, lines 5-12).
`
`Regarding claim 10, Takemasa ‘829, as modified, discloses the claimed
`
`invention. The radiator (17) of Takemasa '829 is capable of decreasing the temperature
`
`of the second non-azeotropic refrigerant (R-50) by 20 degrees C (Le. the present
`
`limitation is a functional limitation that fails to set forth any structural limitation that might
`
`otherwise distinguish over the prior art of record).
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2013 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive, unless otherwise noted below.
`
`On page 8, first full paragraph, Applicant argues that the advantages to the
`
`claimed invention are that locking of the compressor can be prevented by returning an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`oil mixed with liquid back to the compressor; and that the temperature of the
`
`compressor can be lowered by returning liquid refrigerant back to the compressor. In
`
`response, Takemasa '829 discloses an oil separator (18) downstream of the
`
`compressor (10) which uses an oil return line (19) to return a mixture of liquid refrigerant
`
`and oil back to the compressor (10). Thus, the same benefits argued by the Applicant
`
`applies to the Takemasa '829 reference.
`
`On page 8,
`
`lines 9-17, clogging will be prevented resulting from less oil being
`
`carried downstream. Applicant argues that this occurs because the proportion to oil
`
`downstream of the compressor is less relative to the other fluids and also because there
`
`is greater volume of liquid entering the oil separator and therefore greater chance that
`
`droplets of mist will adhere to each other or the larger surface area of the increased
`
`volume of liquid.
`
`In response,
`
`it
`
`is noted that these advantages are due to the combination of
`
`having a radiator directly downstream of the compressor and an oil-separator directly
`
`downstream of said radiator. This exact structure is also disclosed by Takemasa '892 -
`
`see fig.
`
`1
`
`-
`
`in radiator 17 and oil separator 18. Thus, the cited advantages are also
`
`present in Takemasa '892. The claimed invention fails to distinguish over the prior art.
`
`The argument is unpersuasive.
`
`On page 9,
`
`lines 1-26, Applicant argues that a greater purity of refrigerant is
`
`provided downstream [of the compressor]; and even the compressors having the same
`
`capability can cool the inside of the storage chamber as a cooling target having a larger
`
`value to a predetermined extremely low temperature, and the storage capacity can be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`increased without enlarging the whole refrigeration apparatus due to the fact that a large
`
`part of the liquid from the oil-separator is fed back to the compressor.
`
`In response,
`
`it
`
`is noted that these advantages are due to the combination of
`
`having a radiator directly downstream of the compressor and an oil-separator directly
`
`downstream of said radiator. This exact structure is also disclosed by Takemasa '892 -
`
`see fig.
`
`1
`
`-
`
`in radiator 17 and oil separator 18. Thus, the cited advantages are also
`
`present in Takemasa '892. The claimed invention fails to distinguish over the prior art.
`
`The argument is unpersuasive.
`
`On page 10, second paragraph, Applicant argues that the Examiner’s position
`
`that it is inherent that the refrigerants in a mixture would have various boiling points and
`
`solubilities is now improper because it is not inherent that the one with the higher boiling
`
`point would be the one that is soluble in oil, rather than the one with the lower boiling
`
`point.
`
`In response,
`
`it
`
`is noted that these advantages are due to the combination of
`
`having a radiator directly downstream of the compressor and an oil-separator directly
`
`downstream of said radiator. This exact structure is also disclosed by Takemasa '892 -
`
`see fig.
`
`1
`
`-
`
`in radiator 17 and oil separator 18. Thus, the cited advantages are also
`
`present in Takemasa '892. The claimed invention fails to distinguish over the prior art.
`
`The argument is unpersuasive.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to IGNACIO E. LANDEROS whose telephone number is
`
`(571)270-1875. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9am-
`
`5pm.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Judy Swann can be reached on (571) 272-7075. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`/|. E. L./
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 3744
`
`/John Frank Pettitt, Ill/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3744
`
`