Serial No. 15/057,950
`
`REMARKS
`
`After entry of the foregoing, claims 1-6 are pending examination, of which claim 1 is the
`
`independent claim. Claim 1 is amended herein. These amendments are made without prejudice
`
`or disclaimer of subject matter and without conceding the correctness of any rejections, and
`
`Applicant respectfully reserves the right to pursue the original, previously presented, or canceled
`
`subject matter in this application or continuing applications.
`
`Support for the amendment
`
`including any new claims is found in the original disclosure, including, for example, paragraph
`
`[0022] (cf. US2016/0178246 A1). No new matter is believed to have been added herein.
`
`Reconsideration and further examination are respectfully requested.
`
`After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2. 0 Request
`
`Pursuant to the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 (AFCP 2.0), Applicant
`
`respectfully requests participation in AFCP 2.0, and requests to have this response and
`
`amendment considered thereunder. Submitted herewith is a corresponding form PTO/SB/434.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 US. C. § 103
`
`Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Svendsen et al.
`
`(WO 2011/150940, hereafter “Svendsen”) in view of Sonnekalb et al. (DE 102008047753,
`
`hereafter “Sonnekalb”) and further in view of Yoshida et al.
`
`(JP 2001019944, hereinafter
`
`“Yoshida”). These rejections are respectfully traversed, and reconsideration and withdrawal of
`
`these rejections are respectfully requested.
`
`Independent claim 1
`
`Without conceding the correctness of the rejection, independent claim 1, as amended,
`
`recites, inter-aha, the newly added feature wherein:
`
`“the second refrigerant [is] added in a proportion that prevents the carbon dioxide (R744)
`
`from forming a solidified portion at a temperature lower than a boiling point of carbon dioxide.”
`
`The cited portions and proposed combination of the applied references are not understood
`
`to disclose or teach each and every feature of independent claim 1, particularly with respect to at
`
`least the newly added feature. More specifically, none of the references seems to indicate the use
`
`of “a second refrigerant” that is highly soluble in liquid C02, which provides the technical
`
`advantage of preventing formation of “dry” ice in the pipelines for the condenser of the first
`
`Page 4 of 7
`
`

`

`Serial No. 15/057,950
`
`refrigeration stage, thus reducing flow and cooling eff1ciency, among other complications, at
`
`operating temperatures below a boiling point of C02 (1'.e., below the triple point of C02).
`
`The FOA concedes that Svendsen fails to disclose “a second refrigerant [that] dissolves
`
`the carbon dioxide (R744).” However, the FOA contends that Svendsen discloses “a second
`
`refrigerant added in a proportion,” and Yoshida teaches a “refrigerant added in a proportion that
`
`prevents the carbon dioxide from forming a solidif1ed portion.” In fact, Yoshida teaches that “a
`
`low temperature working fluid composed of C02 and R170 is operated at
`
`an evaporation
`
`temperature of -56.6 0C or mgm, which is a triple point of carbon dioxide ...” (cf. Yoshida,
`
`paragraph [0026], emphasis added). Accordingly, Yoshida’s mixture operates at a temperature
`
`that is, by definition of the triple point of a substance, always above the operation of the claimed
`
`composition. Thus, Yoshida does not teach adding the second refrigerant in a proportion that
`
`prevents the carbon dioxide from forming a solidif1ed portion at a temperature lower than a
`
`boiling point of carbon dioxide,” as claimed.
`
`As for the other applied references, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited portions
`
`of such references do not remedy the above-noted deficiencies of the cited portions of Svendsen
`
`and Yoshida.
`
`Accordingly, the cited portions and proposed combination of the applied references are
`
`not understood to disclose or teach each and every feature of independent claim 1, which is
`
`believed to be in condition for allowance. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of
`
`independent claim 1 are respectfully requested.
`
`Dependent claims
`
`The other claims currently under consideration in the application are dependent from
`
`their respective independent claims discussed above and therefore are believed to be allowable
`
`for at least similar reasons. Because each dependent claim is deemed to define an additional
`
`aspect of the invention, the individual consideration of each on its own merits is respectfully
`
`requested. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of the dependent claims are
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`

`

`Serial No. 15/057,950
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the entire application is in condition for allowance,
`
`and such action is respectfully requested at the Examiner’s earliest convenience. Should the
`
`Examiner have any questions, please call the undersigned at the phone number listed below so
`
`that any such questions may be promptly resolved.
`
`Any remarks in support of patentability of one claim should not be imputed to any other
`
`claim, even if similar terminology is used. Any language or remarks referring to only a portion
`
`of a claim should not necessarily be understood to base patentability on solely that portion,
`
`rather, patentability rests on each claim taken as a whole.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that to the extent any disclaimers or statements were made
`
`previously during prosecution with respect
`
`to the scope of the claimed invention,
`
`such
`
`disclaimers and statements are hereby rescinded.
`
`Applicant respectfully reserves the right to traverse any of the rejections, assertions and
`
`submissions made in connection with the application, even if not discussed herein, including the
`
`right to challenge later whether any of the cited references is prior art. The absence of a reply to
`
`a specific rejection, issue, or comment does not signify agreement with or concession of that
`
`rejection, issue, or comment.
`
`In addition, because any arguments made may not be exhaustive,
`
`there may be other reasons that have not been expressed for patentability of any or all claims.
`
`When amendments are made to any claims, no acquiescence or estoppel is implied thereby, such
`
`amendments are made only to expedite prosecution of the present application and are without
`
`prejudice to the presentation or assertion, in the future, of claims directed to subject matter that is
`
`same as or similar to that previously presented. Nothing in this paper should be construed as an
`
`intent to concede, or actual concession of, any issue with regard to any claim, or to any cited art,
`
`except as specifically stated in this paper, and the amendment or cancellation of any claim does
`
`not necessarily signify concession of unpatentability of the claim prior to its amendment or
`
`cancellation.
`
`To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension of time under 37 C.F.R. 1.136 is
`
`hereby made. Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing of this paper,
`
`including extension of time fees, to Deposit Account 500417 and please credit any excess fees to
`
`such deposit account.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Page 6 of 7
`
`

`

`Serial No. 15/057,950
`
`500 North Capitol Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Phone: (650) 815-7465 RC:cb
`Facsimile: (202) 756-8087
`Date: February 7, 2018
`
`DM_US 88137530-10659330711
`
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`/Ricardo J. Claps/
`
`Ricardo J. Claps
`Registration No. 65,796
`
`Please recognize our Customer No. 53080 as
`our correspondence address.
`
`Page 7 of 7
`
`