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 .
Claims 1-18, 20 are currently pending. Claims 1-17 are allowed. Claims 18, 20 are rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9-10 of the response, filed April 23, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Grieb (US 4,874,287 A).
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant explains how the edges of Hall et al. (US 2023/0066627 A1) do not expressly meet the amended limitations. Applicant notes the trailing edges (255, 240) are aligned. The Office agrees. Therefore the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, the claim is still believed to be unpatentable in view of Grieb as detailed below.
No further arguments have been provided regarding the remaining claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 10-12 of the response, filed with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant explains how the shafts of Hall fail to teach the second shaft rotatable coupled to the inner radial surface of the outer casing independently from the variable inlet guide vane as amended. The Office agrees. Therefore the previous rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding Claim 12, Applicant explains how the shafts of Hall fail to teach the shafts extending from the outer radial edges as amended. The Office agrees. Therefore the previous rejection has been withdrawn.
No further arguments have been provided regarding the remaining claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Regarding Claim 20, Line 3 recites “the radial direction that defines the height of the flow path”. It is unclear how to interpret the height limitation. Claim 18 establishes antecedent basis of a “radial direction”, but does not relate it to the height of the flow path. Claim 18 also states “a first distance from the first inner radial edge to the first outer radial edge defines a height of a flow path”. In other words, the first distance defines the height. Thus, it is unclear what structure is intended for Claim 20, which states the radial direction defines the height of the flow path, since the scope of the claim appears to define the height differently before this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grieb (US 4,874,287 A), hereinafter Grieb.
Regarding Claim 18, Figures 1-2A of Grieb teach an apparatus comprising: a first variable inlet guide vane (31), the first variable inlet guide vane (31) comprising a first shaft (left shaft in annotated figure below) extending along a first direction, the first variable inlet guide vane (31) being rotatable about the first shaft, the first variable inlet guide vane (31) including a first inner radial edge and a first outer radial edge, wherein a first distance from the first inner radial edge to the first outer radial edge defines a height of a flow path (path where vanes 31, 32 reside); and a second variable inlet guide vane (32) downstream of the first variable inlet guide vane (31) in the flow path, the second variable inlet guide vane (32) comprising a second shaft (right shaft in annotated figure below) extending along a second direction, the second variable inlet guide vane (32) being rotatable about the second shaft, the second direction being parallel to the first direction (see extension of shafts), wherein the second variable inlet guide vane (32) includes a second inner radial edge and a second radial outer edge, and wherein a second distance from the second inner radial edge to the second outer radial edge is less than the first distance (note 32 being shorter than 31 in the radial direction, i.e. vertical, in Figures 1-1A), wherein each of the first shaft and the second shaft extends along a radial direction (vertical in Figures 1-1A), wherein the first variable inlet guide vane (31) includes a first leading edge and a first trailing edge and the second variable inlet guide vane (32) includes a second leading edge and a second trailing edge, and wherein the second leading edge is positioned downstream of the first leading edge and upstream of the first trailing edge and the second trailing edge is positioned downstream of the first trailing edge in the flow path (Col. 3, Lines 11-38 and Col. 4, Lines 1-28). See also annotated Figures 1A’ and 1A’’ below. Note also the positioning of the arms (33) associated with first vane (31) and arms (34) associated with second vanes (32) in Figures 2-2A to see how the vanes (31, 32) are oriented with respect to each other circumferentially.
PNG
media_image1.png
517
1037
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
474
1037
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claim 20, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grieb in view of Hosaka et al. (US 11,236,630 B2), hereinafter Hosaka.
Regarding Claim 20, Grieb teaches the apparatus as set forth in Claim 18.
Grieb does not expressly teach wherein the first variable inlet guide vane includes a third outer radial edge positioned between the first inner radial edge and the second outer radial edge in the radial direction that defines the height of the flow path as claimed. However, a third outer radial edge would have been obvious in view of Hosaka.
Figure 2 of Hosaka teaches an apparatus wherein a guide vane (12) includes a clearance (32), forming an outer radial edge of the guide vane (12). Note that this is inwards from the outer radial edge (16a) forming the height of the flow path, thus in an area positioned between the first inner radial edge and the second outer radial edge in the radial direction that defines the height of the flow path when in view of Grieb. The clearance (32) is what allows the variable guide vane to swing in motion (Col. 1, Lines 54-56). Particularly, this ensures that no interference with the casing (7) occurs (Col. 5, Lines 6-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus taught by Grieb with a clearance, resulting wherein the first variable inlet guide vane includes a third outer radial edge positioned between the first inner radial edge and the second outer radial edge in the radial direction that defines the height of the flow path as suggested by Hosaka, to provide the benefit of allowing the variable vane to move during operation without interfering with the adjacent wall.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowed.
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, the art of record Hall et al. (US 2023/0066627 A1) and Ress, Jr. et al. (US 2012/0163960 A1) do not expressly teach the first and second shafts as claimed. Particularly, Claim 1 now requires the shafts be rotatably coupled to the inner radial inner surface of the outer casing independently. Claim 12 requires the shafts extending from an outer radial edge of their respective variable inlet guide vanes. These limitations further narrow the overall structure of the vanes such that the shafts (235, 248) of Figure 8 of Hall no longer meet the broadest reasonable interpretation. See the shafts (248) connecting the vane (252) to the larger vane (232) along the leading edge portion of vane (252). As such, the claimed structure is no longer met by the art of record. See also Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 12 addressed above.
Claims 2-11, 13-17 subsequently depend upon Claims 1 and 12, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights