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 .
Examiner’s note: Please provide future amendments with only black text, no color or greyscale.
37 CFR § 1.52 (b)(1)(i) requires the application to be “presented in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast” to permit “electronic capture by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition”; see 37 CFR § 1.52(a)(1)(v).
To meet this requirement, the Patent Center guidelines suggest that Applicant submit all text in only black.
In this case, it appears that Applicant may have submitted amendments (i.e., claims containing underlines, strikethroughs, or “track changes”, etc.) with text/font/characters in color or greyscale, rather than only black. This results in issues which delay prosecution, because USPTO systems/tools for recognition/conversion do not handle well claims/text which contain color or greyscale.
In the future, please follow Patent Center guidelines and provide claims and all text in only black. Failure to do so may result in a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment. Thank you.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior art rejection of independent claim 9, in paragraph 8 of page 5 through paragraph 5 of page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 9.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as identified below; please see the action below for details of new rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080185217 A1 (Baude) in view of EP 2821596 A1 (hereinafter Schmid) and US 10570922 B2 (French).
Examiner’s note: All mapping below (references made to reference characters, figures, paragraphs, etc.) is with regard to the base reference (the first reference identified above) unless otherwise noted.
Examiner's note: For the purposes of examining this patent application, the examiner's submitted English translation of Schmid, submitted with the office action mailed on 5/12/2025, is referenced hereinafter.
Regarding claim 9, Baude discloses:
An impeller containment system, comprising:
an impeller (10; Fig 1) mounted for rotation about an axis having an impeller hub and a set of blades extending radially outwardly from the impeller hub (Fig 1 shows all this);
an outer shroud (Annotated Fig 1a) extending radially outwardly of the impeller to define an annular flow path radially between the impeller hub and the outer shroud (Fig 1 shows this);
and an air inlet case (14; Fig 1) having
a radially outer wall (Annotated Fig 1a) operatively coupled to the outer shroud (Fig 1 shows this)
and a radially inner wall (Annotated Fig 1a) operatively coupled to the impeller hub (Fig 1 shows this),
the radially outer wall and the radially inner wall extending circumferentially about the axis (Fig 1 shows this configured analogously as Applicant’s configuration),
an annular passage (12; Fig 1) defined radially between the radially outer wall and the radially inner wall to fluidly couple the impeller to an upstream air inlet (Fig 1 shows all this; abstract),
Baude may not explicitly disclose:
the radially outer wall including a frangible element adjacent a junction between the radially outer wall and the outer shroud,
the frangible element operable to detach at an occurrence of an impeller burst event to interrupt a load path between the impeller and the air inlet case;
wherein the frangible element frangibly attaches the radially outer wall to the outer shroud.
However, Schmid, in the same field of endeavor, impellers, teaches:
the radially outer wall (24; Fig 4) including a frangible element (a portion comprising notches 25 combined with the ribbing in Annotated Fig 4a) adjacent a junction (“contact between the insert wall 15 and the air inlet housing 2” per lines 175-180; Fig 4 shows this) between the radially outer wall and the outer shroud,
the frangible element operable to detach (“In the region of the notches, predetermined breaking points are thus formed, which give way under load” per lines 90-105) at an occurrence of an impeller burst event to interrupt a load path between the impeller and the air inlet case (lines 90-105);
wherein the frangible element frangibly attaches the radially outer wall to the outer shroud (wherein a broadest reasonable interpretation of “attach” may be to fasten or affix; join; connect, per https://www.dictionary.com/browse/attach, such attachment occurs during contact described in lines 175-180).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Baude to include Schmid’s teachings as described above, having Baude’s outer wall of the inlet housing and its interface with the impeller’s shroud configured as Schmid’s shown in Fig 4, in order to introduce a predetermined breaking point and sufficient path for deformation at the inlet housing which gives way under load (e.g., abstract) if/when a compressor bursts and displaces axially (e.g., lines 175-190).
Baude as modified above may not explicitly disclose:
wherein the frangible element includes a circumferential groove extending fully circumferentially and uninterruptedly about an outer circumference of the radially outer wall.
However, French, in the same field of endeavor, impellers, teaches:
A frangible component (102a; Fig 2) of an impeller assembly which incorporates an annular groove 125 (Fig 2) which results in the section at the groove of the component 102a being thinner than other sections of the component 102a so that the annular groove 125 provides a region of weakness in the component 102a, which thereby defines, in a predictable manner, the initial point at which the component 102a would fracture upon impact by adjacent structure of a failed impeller assembly, in order to improve containment capability (col 6 lines 25-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Baude as modified above to include French’s teachings as described above, having the frangible element be a circumferential groove extending fully circumferentially and uninterruptedly about the outer circumference of the radially outer wall, in order to choose an alternative design for the frangible element at the outer wall, particularly, having the outer wall comprise French’s groove rather than Schmid’s notches. One would be motivated to make this change in order to choose a design which can be achieved with alternative manufacturing processes (wherein it may be easier to manufacture one continuous groove rather than a plurality of discrete notches, for example), or to define, in a predictable manner, the initial point at which the component would fracture upon impact by a failed impeller assembly to ensure that the outer wall is maintained as far as possible and thereby minimises the risk of fluid leakage (e.g., French col 6 lines 25-43).
Also, it is noted that Schmid’s notches and French’s groove are merely just different forms/shapes of a frangible feature meant to serve the same intended purpose (i.e. to enable controlled/predictable fracture). As such, courts have established that a change in shape will not sustain a patent and is not inventive, rather a form of routine optimization which would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In this case, a mere difference in form or shape of the frangible element, taking either the specific form/shape of Schmid’s notches or French’s groove, would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. In other words, it is not inventive to merely change the form/shape of the frangible feature to either Schmid’s notches or French’s groove. See MPEP 2144.04(IV). Even Applicant’s own para 0017 identifies that the frangible element may take various forms, such as a continuous groove (presumably similar to French’s groove) or a plurality of recessed portions (presumably similar to Schmid’s notches) or yet other arrangements “for instance one or more cutouts, or a selective removal of material”, all of which indicates that the specific form/shape of the frangible feature is not critical. Even if Applicant’s disclosure did identify criticality to a specific form/shape, motivation for each of Schmid’s or French’s unique configurations is evident from the respective disclosures, some of which is explicitly discussed above.
Broadest reasonable interpretations may be:
coupled = Tied, joined, linked, or associated together in pairs (https://www.oed.com/dictionary/coupled_adj)
frangible = Capable of being broken, breakable (https://www.oed.com/dictionary/frangible_adj)
impeller = A part of a machine or apparatus designed to impart motion to a fluid by rotation (https://www.oed.com/dictionary/impeller_n)
junction = The point or place at which two things join or are joined (https://www.oed.com/dictionary/junction_n)
join = to put or bring into close association or relationship (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/join)
PNG
media_image1.png
530
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1a
PNG
media_image2.png
498
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 4a
Regarding claim 11, Baude, as modified above, discloses:
upon the burst event the outer shroud is operable to displace axially towards the radially inner wall (Schmid “When bursting the compressor wheel, the leading edge 151 of the insert wall 15 is displaced axially in the direction of air inlet” per lines 175-177).
Regarding claim 12, Baude, as modified above, discloses:
the frangible element is recessed in a radially outer surface of the radially outer wall (Schmid Fig 4 combined with French Fig 2 shows this).
Regarding claim 15, Baude, as modified above, discloses:
the radially outer wall includes ribbing (Annotated Fig 4a) along its outer circumference,
the ribbing terminating axially upstream of the frangible element relative to a flow of air through the annular passage (Schmid Fig 4 shows this).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights