`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`12/3 00,706
`
`09/23/2009
`
`Katsuji Takasugi
`
`080481
`
`1825
`
`23850
`7590
`0117/2015
`KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP —
`1420 K Street, N.W.
`PETTITT’ JOHNF
`4th Floor
`
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`3744
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`04/ 17/2015
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`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
`
`3744John Frank Pettitt, III 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 g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions 0137 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 12/2/2014.
`[I A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:| This action is non-final.
`2a)IZ| 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.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)|XI Claim(s) 158 10 and 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.
`
`1 5 8 10 11 is/are rejected.
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`* 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
`htt
`://www.usoto. ov/ atents/init events"
`h/index.‘s
`
`
`
`
`
`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.|:| Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:| 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.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PT0_413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`—
`4) I:I Other'
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date .
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20150413
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`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 8, 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.
`
`In regard to claim 8, the recitation concerning the weight of the first refrigerant is
`
`not supported in specification in combination with all of the limitations of claim 5.
`
`In regard to claim 10, the recitation, “said radiator is structured configured to
`
`decrease a temperature of the second non-azeotropic refrigerant by about 20C” is new
`
`matter since the original application makes no limitation on the temperature as such.
`
`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, 5, 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA
`
`the applicant regards as the invention.
`
`In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “wherein a plurality of types of non-azeotropic
`
`mixed refrigerants are introduced,” (line 8) is indefinite as there is no telling where they
`
`are introduced or how introduction is related to the system structure being claimed, as
`
`the claim is an apparatus claim not a method claim.
`
`The recitation, “types” (line 8) is indefinite as there is no definite scope for what
`
`qualifies as a type.
`
`The recitation, “a condensed refrigerant in the refrigerants” (line 8-9) is indefinite
`
`as it is not clear how one can discern or separate the recited refrigerant from the other
`
`refrigerants while they are in the system and used together. Further it is not clear how
`
`this is related to the system structure, as the claim is an apparatus claim not a method
`
`claim.
`
`The recitation, “the pressure reducing unit” (line 10) is indefinite since the claim
`
`recites a plurality of pressure reducing units and it is not clear which is being recited.
`
`The recitation, “the intermediate heat exchanger” (line 11) is indefinite since the
`
`claim recites a plurality of intermediate heat exchangers and it is not clear which is
`
`being recited.
`
`The recitation, “the refrigerant” (line 11) is indefinite since the claim recites a
`
`plurality refrigerants and a recitation of "the refrigerant" creates ambiguity about the
`
`number of refrigerants.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`The recitation, “a lower boiling point” (line 11) is indefinite since there is nothing
`
`that the boiling point is compared to and there is no way to determine what it must be
`
`lower than.
`
`The recitation, “the refrigerant” (line 12) is indefinite since it appears that the
`
`claim is introducing a refrigerant not previously recited but the recitation is not
`
`consistent with the previous recitations of refrigerant.
`
`The recitation, “the final stage of the pressure reducing unit” (line 13) is indefinite
`
`as it lacks antecedent basis; no stage was recited previously. Further, the claim
`
`previously recited a plurality of pressure reducing units and this recitation is not
`
`consistent with the earlier recitation.
`
`The recitation, “has a boiling point greater than a temperature of the non-
`
`azeotropic mixed refrigerants” (line 24) is indefinite it is not clear what temperature is
`
`being compared to the boiling point of R600 or n-pentane.
`
`The recitation, “has a boiling point greater than a temperature of the non-
`
`azeotropic mixed refrigerants exiting the radiator” (line 24) is indefinite as it is not clear if
`
`the applicant is making a comparison of the thermophysical property of the first
`
`refrigerant or if the applicant is making a limitation on the function of the system and the
`
`exit temperature of the radiator. The thermophysical properties of the first refrigerant
`
`are set by the fact that the claims state what the first refrigerant is and therefore such a
`
`property is not able to change the structure of the system and therefore it is not clear
`
`how such a limitation would define the structure of the apparatus claim at all.
`
`In
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`addition, reciting what relative temperature the fluid at the exit of the radiator is at does
`
`not limit the structure of the system claim in any distinguishable fashion.
`
`The recitation, “the other second refrigerant” (line 25) is indefinite as it lacks
`
`proper antecedent basis.
`
`It appears intended --the another second refrigerant--.
`
`The recitation, “the other second refrigerant has a boiling point smaller than the
`
`temperature of the non-azeotropic mixed refrigerants exiting the radiator” (line 25) is
`
`indefinite as it is not clear if the applicant is making a comparison of the thermophysical
`
`property of the second refrigerant or if the applicant is making a limitation on the
`
`function of the system and the exit temperature of the radiator. The thermophysical
`
`properties of the second refrigerant are set by what the second refrigerant is and
`
`therefore such a property is not able to change the structure of the system and therefore
`
`it is not clear how such a limitation would define the structure of the apparatus claim at
`
`all.
`
`In addition, reciting what relative temperature the fluid at the exit of the radiator is at
`
`does not limit the structure of the system claim in any distinguishable fashion.
`
`The recitation, “the other second refrigerant” (line 28) is indefinite as it lacks
`
`proper antecedent basis.
`
`It appears intended --the another second refrigerant--.
`
`The recitation, “the other second refrigerant” (line 30) is indefinite as it lacks
`
`proper antecedent basis.
`
`It appears intended --the another second refrigerant--.
`
`The recitations of lines 27-31, appear to provide limitation on which refrigerant is
`
`returns with the oil to the compressor and which does not and it is not clear how the
`
`former recitations of lines 22-26 concerning the boiling points of the refrigerant provide
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`any further limitation whatsoever in this regard. However, the identification of the first
`
`refrigerant is seen as an improvement over former recitations in prosecution history.
`
`In regard to claim 5, the recitation, “said condenser configured to be entered the
`
`first and second non-azeotropic refrigerants” (lines 10-11) is indefinite as it does not
`
`make any grammatical sense.
`
`The recitation, “said radiator being structured to liquefy at least a part of the first
`
`non-azeotropic refrigerant” (line 13-14) is indefinite since there is no structure required
`
`of the radiator in order to liquefy the first refrigerant as the only aspect of a radiator that
`
`determines whether the first refrigerant liquefies is that of functional use. The use of the
`
`radiator is all that determines the liquefaction of the first refrigerant and therefore there
`
`is no structural limitation in this recitation, even though the recitation implies that there
`
`is.
`
`The recitation, “during the passage of the same through the radiator” (line 15-16)
`
`is indefinite as the scope of the recitation permits only the first refrigerant to flow through
`
`the radiator but this is not supported and therefore, the scope of the claims and the
`
`scope of the recitation are not commensurate.
`
`It is considered that a recitation of a flow
`
`through the radiator should be made more clearly with regard to the first and second
`
`refrigerants.
`
`The recitation, “said radiator being structured not to liquefy a part of the second
`
`non-azeotropic refrigerant” (line 16-17) is indefinite since there is no structure of a heat
`
`exchanger that prevents liquefaction of the second refrigerant other than the properties
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`of the second refrigerant and the functional use of the radiator. Therefore, there is no
`
`structural limitation in this recitation, even though the recitation implies that there is.
`
`The recitation, “in the oil in the oil separator” (line 23) is indefinite as it makes no
`
`grammatical sense.
`
`The recitation, “in the oil in the oil separator (line 24) is indefinite as it makes no
`
`grammatical sense.
`
`In regard to claim 10, the recitation, “said radiator is structured configured to
`
`decrease a temperature of the second non-azeotropic refrigerant by about 20C” is
`
`indefinite since “structured configured” makes no grammatical sense and since there is
`
`no structure of a heat exchanger that provides for a temperature reduction only the use
`
`of a heat exchanger and therefore the limitation is only a functional use of the radiator.
`
`Therefore, there is no structural limitation in this recitation, even though the recitation
`
`implies that there is.
`
`In regard to claim 11, the recitation, “said condenser configured to be entered the
`
`first and second non-azeotropic refrigerants” (lines 10-11) is indefinite as it does not
`
`make any grammatical sense.
`
`The recitation, “said oil separator configured to separate the oil from the first and
`
`second non-azeotropic refrigerants” (lines 8-9) is indefinite as it is not consistent with
`
`the recitations later in the claim: “returning, to the compressor from said oil separator,
`
`the oil and the liquefied part of the first non-azeotropic refrigerant” (lines 17-18) has that
`
`the oil is not separated from the first refrigerant.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`The recitation, “during the passage of the same through the radiator” (line 14-15)
`
`is indefinite as the scope of the recitation permits only the first refrigerant to flow through
`
`the radiator but this is not supported and therefore, the scope of the claims and the
`
`scope of the recitation are not commensurate.
`
`It is considered that a recitation of a flow
`
`through the radiator should be made more clearly with regard to the first and second
`
`refrigerants.
`
`The recitation, “the radiator is structured not to liquefy a part of the second non-
`
`azeotropic refrigerant” (line 21 -22) is indefinite since the claim is a method claim and the
`
`limitation is dressed as a structural limitation which is not appropriate for a method claim
`
`and particularly as the limitation is not a structure but is a mere step of not liquefying a
`
`part of the second refrigerant.
`
`The recitation, “in the oil in the oil separator” (line 24) is indefinite as it makes no
`
`grammatical sense.
`
`The recitation, “in the oil in the oil separator” (line 25) is indefinite as it makes no
`
`grammatical sense.
`
`The recitation, “the temperature of the gaseous part of the first non-azeotropic
`
`refrigerant” (line 23) lacks antecedent basis.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 —
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country
`or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application
`for patent in the United States.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`Claims 1, 5, 8, 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Takemasa (US 4788829).
`
`In regard to claims 1, 5, 8, 10, Takemasa teaches a refrigeration apparatus
`
`comprising: a high temperature refrigerant circuit (2) having an independent (column 4,
`
`line 19) closed circuit (column 4, line 18) and a compressor (4), an evaporator (14A,
`
`14B), and a condenser (8); a low temperature refrigerant circuit (3) having a mixed
`
`refrigerant (column 6, line 5-15) in an independent (column 4, line 19) closed circuit
`
`(column 4, line 18) and a compressor (10), an evaporator (47), and a condenser (23A,
`
`23B); a cascade heat exchanger (23A, 23B, 14A, 14B) having the evaporator of the
`
`high temperature refrigerant circuit (2) and the condenser of the low temperature
`
`refrigerant circuit (3); wherein the low temperature refrigerant circuit (3) has a plurality of
`
`intermediate heat exchangers (44, 42, 32), a plurality of pressure reducing units (36, 40,
`
`46), a radiator (17), an oil separator (18); the low temperature refrigerant circuit (3) is
`
`fully capable of all of the functional limitations as claimed, including providing a
`
`temperature of -150 C (column 7, line 19), condensing a portion of a first refrigerant of
`
`the low temperature mixed refrigerant, etc.
`
`It is further noted that the use of any
`
`particular refrigerant in either the low or high temperature circuits is purely a functional
`
`use of the system and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the structure of
`
`Takemasa.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AlA 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
`
`Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious
`
`over Takemasa (US 4788829) in view of Yuzawa (US 2006/0123805).
`
`In regard to claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, Takemasa teaches a refrigeration apparatus
`
`and method comprising: a high temperature refrigerant circuit (2) having an independent
`
`(column 4, line 19) closed circuit (column 4, line 18) and a compressor (4), an
`
`evaporator (14A, 14B), and a condenser (8); a low temperature refrigerant circuit (3)
`
`having a mixed refrigerant (column 6, line 5-15) in an independent (column 4, line 19)
`
`closed circuit (column 4, line 18) and a compressor (10), an evaporator (47), and a
`
`condenser (23A, 23B); a cascade heat exchanger (23A, 23B, 14A, 14B) having the
`
`evaporator of the high temperature refrigerant circuit (2) and the condenser of the low
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`temperature refrigerant circuit (3); wherein the low temperature refrigerant circuit (3) has
`
`a plurality of intermediate heat exchangers (44, 42, 32), a plurality of pressure reducing
`
`units (36, 40, 46), a radiator (17), an oil separator (18). Takemasa teaches that the low
`
`temperature refrigerant circuit (3) performs most of the method step limitations as
`
`claimed, including that the mixed refrigerant has a second refrigerant having a boiling
`
`point lower than the boiling point of R-600 (see R50 — column 6, line 8-10), and further
`
`that the radiator does not liquefy the second refrigerant (column 6, line 8-10, 41 -50,
`
`column 5, line 19) and does liquefy at least a portion of a first refrigerant (column 6, line
`
`41 -50); and teaches that the refrigerant mixture is non-azeotropic (interpreted to mean
`
`that the mixture has components that have different boiling points) and otherwise
`
`teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach that the mixed
`
`refrigerant of the low temperature refrigerant circuit (3) comprises first refrigerant being
`
`R-600.
`
`However, providing R-600 as a first refrigerant and a second non-azeotropic
`
`refrigerant to a mixed refrigerant is well known in the art as explicitly taught by Yuzawa
`
`(see R-600 and R-404A in abstract, para. 8, 10, teaching to use these in a low
`
`temperature refrigerant circuit for the purpose of providing low temperatures — para. 3).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
`
`invention was made, to modify the low temperature refrigerant mixture with Takemasa
`
`with a mixed refrigerant that is well performing, can operate to produce low
`
`temperatures, and is safe as taught by Yuzawa.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 11 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious
`
`over Takemasa (US 4788829) in view of Takemasa (US 6363741 ).
`
`In regard to claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, Takemasa teaches a refrigeration apparatus
`
`and method comprising: a high temperature refrigerant circuit (2) having an independent
`
`(column 4, line 19) closed circuit (column 4, line 18) and a compressor (4), an
`
`evaporator (14A, 14B), and a condenser (8); a low temperature refrigerant circuit (3)
`
`having a mixed refrigerant (column 6, line 5-15) in an independent (column 4, line 19)
`
`closed circuit (column 4, line 18) and a compressor (10), an evaporator (47), and a
`
`condenser (23A, 23B); a cascade heat exchanger (23A, 23B, 14A, 14B) having the
`
`evaporator of the high temperature refrigerant circuit (2) and the condenser of the low
`
`temperature refrigerant circuit (3); wherein the low temperature refrigerant circuit (3) has
`
`a plurality of intermediate heat exchangers (44, 42, 32), a plurality of pressure reducing
`
`units (36, 40, 46), a radiator (17), an oil separator (18). Takemasa teaches that the low
`
`temperature refrigerant circuit (3) performs most of the method step limitations as
`
`claimed, including that the mixed refrigerant has a second refrigerant having a boiling
`
`point lower than the boiling point of R-600 (see R50 — column 6, line 8-10), and further
`
`that the radiator does not liquefy the second refrigerant (column 6, line 8-10, 41 -50,
`
`column 5, line 19) and does liquefy at least a portion of a first refrigerant (column 6, line
`
`41 -50); and teaches that the refrigerant mixture is non-azeotropic (interpreted to mean
`
`that the mixture has components that have different boiling points) and otherwise
`
`teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach that the mixed
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`refrigerant of the low temperature refrigerant circuit (3) comprises first refrigerant being
`
`n-pentane.
`
`However, providing n-pentane as a first refrigerant to a mixed refrigerant is well
`
`known in the art as explicitly taught by Takemasa (741) (column 2, line 36; column 3,
`
`line 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the
`
`time the invention was made, to modify the low temperature refrigerant mixture with
`
`Takemasa with n-pentane to provide a mixture that is environmentally safe and
`
`compatible with compressor oil and is operationally safe as taught by Takemasa (741 ).
`
`Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 11 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious
`
`over Takemasa (US 4788829) in view of Weng (US 2004/0124394).
`
`In regard to claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, Takemasa teaches a refrigeration apparatus
`
`and method comprising: a high temperature refrigerant circuit (2) having an independent
`
`(column 4, line 19) closed circuit (column 4, line 18) and a compressor (4), an
`
`evaporator (14A, 14B), and a condenser (8); a low temperature refrigerant circuit (3)
`
`having a mixed refrigerant (column 6, line 5-15) in an independent (column 4, line 19)
`
`closed circuit (column 4, line 18) and a compressor (10), an evaporator (47), and a
`
`condenser (23A, 23B); a cascade heat exchanger (23A, 23B, 14A, 14B) having the
`
`evaporator of the high temperature refrigerant circuit (2) and the condenser of the low
`
`temperature refrigerant circuit (3); wherein the low temperature refrigerant circuit (3) has
`
`a plurality of intermediate heat exchangers (44, 42, 32), a plurality of pressure reducing
`
`units (36, 40, 46), a radiator (17), an oil separator (18). Takemasa teaches that the low
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/300,706
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`temperature refrigerant circuit (3) performs most of the method step limitations as
`
`claimed, including that the mixed refrigerant has a second refrigerant having a boiling
`
`point lower than the boiling point of R-600 (see R50 — column 6, line 8-10), and further
`
`that the radiator does not liquefy the second refrigerant (column 6, line 8-10, 41 -50,
`
`column 5, line 19) and does liquefy at least a portion of a first refrigerant (column 6, line
`
`41 -50); and teaches that the refrigerant mixture is non-azeotropic (interpreted to mean
`
`that the mixture has components that have different boiling points) and otherwise
`
`teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach that the mixed
`
`refrigerant of the low temperature refrigerant circuit (3) comprises first refrigerant being
`
`R-600.
`
`However, providing R-600 as a first refrigerant to a mixed refrigerant is well
`
`known in the art as explicitly taught by Weng (741) (para. 27). Therefore, it would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to
`
`modify the low temperature refrigerant mixture with Takemasa with R-600 to provide a
`
`mixture that is environmentally safe and compatible with compressor oil and is
`
`operationally safe as taught by Weng.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2014 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive and the applicant is directed to the rejections above.
`
`

`

`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 John Frank Pettitt, III whose telephone number is (571)
`
`272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8a-4p.
`
`If attempts to reach
`
`the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cheryl Tyler
`
`can be reached on 571 -272-4834. 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.
`
`/John Frank Pettitt, III/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3744
`
`JFP III
`
`April 15, 2015
`
`