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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 05/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 & 6-19 are pending in the application. Claim 5 is cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The gap depth
The gap width
The material filled area
The total area
The front disk periphery thickness
The gap length
No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because the lead lines in Figures 12-14 are not pointing to the correct structure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: material ratio.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-14 & 19 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 12 should read –The compressor device of claim 1, wherein: each of a rear disk portion rear surface region, a front surface region, and a front disk portion front surface region extend at an angle within plus or minus thirty degrees from a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation.—
Claim 13 should read --The compressor device of claim 1, wherein: each of a rear disk portion rear surface region, a rear disk portion front surface region, and a front disk portion front surface region extends at an angle within plus or minus ten degrees from a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation.—
Claim 14 should read --The compressor device of claim 1, wherein a diffuser structure comprises a diffuser cover and a diffuser back plate, and wherein the diffuser cover is press fit onto the diffuser back plate.—
Claim 19 should read –The compressor device of claim 18, wherein the motor-compressor housing side portion, the fixed group, and the rotatable group are configured to provide [[a]]the fluid flow path for the fluid to flow from the motor-compressor housing outlet port to the first stage compression passage.--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—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 or joint 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 1-4 & 6-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 1, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “the rotatable group…is constrained from rotating about any other axis”. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how the rotatable group is constrained from rotating about any other axis.
This is considered a negative limitation, which would prevent the rotatable group from rotating around any axis aside from the initial axis of rotation, including an axis of rotation developed due to tolerances in the claimed invention. The original disclosure does not have explicit support for this limitation. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would not conclude the original disclosure inherently disclosed this feature, since this feature would prevent any deviation from the original axis of rotation. As such, this limitation is considered new matter.
Applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “the aspect ratio and material ratio are configured to improve compressor efficiency and thermal performance by influencing heat transfer across the gap and fluid flow behavior within the second stage compression passage”. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how the aspect and material ratios improve the compressor efficiency and thermal performance.
The original disclosure does not explicitly connect how the respective ratios affect the efficiency and thermal performance. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would not conclude the original disclosure inherently describes this connection.
The term “efficiency” is not used in the original disclosure. Instant application Paragraph 0003 only states a more efficient compressor is an object of the invention, not how the respective ratios make the compressor more efficient.
The term “performance” is not used at all in the original disclosure.
As such, the limitation is considered new matter.
As to Claim 2, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “the aspect ratio of the gap is between 0.3 and 15”. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, sufficiently describe an aspect ratio between 0.3 and 15.
The original disclosure makes no reference to an aspect ratio between 0.3 and 15, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine an aspect ratio should be between 0.3 and 15 based on the original disclosure. The original disclosure does have support for wider ranges, but not the claimed narrower range. As such, the range claimed in Claim 2 is considered new matter.
As to Claim 3, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “the aspect ratio of the gap is between 4 and 20”. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, sufficiently describe an aspect ratio between 4 and 20.
The original disclosure makes no reference to an aspect ratio between 4 and 20, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine an aspect ratio should be between 4 and 20 based on the original disclosure. The original disclosure does have support for wider ranges, but not the claimed narrower range. As such, the range claimed in Claim 3 is considered new matter.
As to Claim 4, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “the aspect ratio of the gap is between 5 and 10”. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, sufficiently describe an aspect ratio between 5 and 10.
The original disclosure makes no reference to an aspect ratio between 5 and 10, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine an aspect ratio should be between 5 and 10 based on the original disclosure. The original disclosure does have support for wider ranges, but not the claimed narrower range. As such, the range claimed in Claim 4 is considered new matter.
As to Claim 7, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “the material ratio of is between 0.1 and 0.5”. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, sufficiently describe a thermal ratio between 0.1 and 0.5.
The original disclosure makes no reference to a material ratio between 0.1 and 0.5, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine a thermal ratio should be between 0.1 and 0.5 based on the original disclosure. The original disclosure does have support for wider ranges, but not the claimed narrower range. As such, the range claimed in Claim 7 is considered new matter.
As to Claim 8, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “the material ratio of is between 0.2 and 0.4”. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, sufficiently describe a thermal ratio between 0.2 and 0.4.
The original disclosure makes no reference to a material ratio between 0.2 and 0.4, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine a thermal ratio should be between 0.2 and 0.4 based on the original disclosure. The original disclosure does have support for wider ranges, but not the claimed narrower range. As such, the range claimed in Claim 8 is considered new 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 1-4 & 6-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim(s) are replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. An attempt to point out as much of the indefinite language as possible was attempted and shown below. However, due to the extensive amount of indefinite language, some of the indefinite language may have been missed. Applicant is advised to carefully review the claim language and amend any indefinite language to present a complete operative device.
As to Claim 1, the term “a fixed group”, in Line 3, is indefinite. The bounds of the term are not clear, rendering the claim indefinite. The specification provides some examples of structure which belongs to the fixed group, such as “a motor stator section, a first stage compressor wheel housing, a diffuser structure, and a second stage compressor wheel housing”. However, it is not clear if other structure which meets the definition of the fixed group, “all elements of the fixed group are fixed relative to the motor-compressor housing side portion so that they do not move relative to the motor-compressor housing side portion”, are part of the fixed group, or not. For example, the power converter is “fixed relative to the motor-compressor housing side portion so that [the power converter does] not move relative to the motor-compressor housing side portion”. As such, it is not clear if the power converter is one of the elements of the fixed group. In summary, it is not clear what elements are part of the “all the elements of the fixed group”, rendering the claim indefinite.
It is noted the claim provides some structure which the fixed group is comprised of. However, this does not fix the indefiniteness of the term, since the phrase “comprising of” is considered open ended, allowing for structure outside of the structure explicitly stated as comprising the fixed group.
The term “a rotatable group”, in Line 5, is indefinite. The bounds of the term are not clear, rendering the claim indefinite. The specification provides some examples of structure which belongs to the rotatable group, such as “a permanent magnet, a first stage compressor wheel; and a second stage compressor wheel”. However, it is not clear if other structure which meets the definition of the rotatable group, “all elements of the rotatable group are fixed to one another so that they do not move relative to one another”, are part of the rotatable group, or not. In summary, it is not clear what elements are part of the “all the elements of the rotatable group”, rendering the claim indefinite.
It is noted the claim provides some structure which the rotatable group is comprised of. However, this does not fix the indefiniteness of the term, since the phrase “comprising of” is considered open ended, allowing for structure outside of the structure explicitly stated as comprising the rotatable group.
The limitation “all elements of the fixed group are fixed relative to the motor-compressor housing side portion such that they remain stationary during operation so that all elements of the fixed group do not move relative to the motor-compressor housing side portion”, in Lines 7-9, is indefinite. Similar to the above rejections, it is not clear what structure, claimed or not, is included in the phrases “all elements of the fixed group” or “all elements of the rotatable group”, rendering the limitation indefinite.
It is not clear if the second instance of “all elements of the fixed group” in the limitation is the same as the second instance of “all elements of the fixed group” in the limitation. For the purpose of examination, each iteration of “all elements of the fixed group” will be interpreted as the same structure.
It is not clear which structure the term “they” refers to, since multiple structures were previously described. For the purpose of examination, the term “they” will be interpreted to refer to the fixed group elements.
The phrase “they remain stationary during operation” is a relative phrase requiring a reference structure which was not provided. As such, it is not clear what structure “they” are remaining stationary to.
The phrase “all elements of the fixed group do not move relative to the motor-compressor housing side portion” appears to be superfluous with the immediately prior phrase, except for providing a reference structure. As such, it is not clear why both phrases are provided.
The limitation “all elements of the rotatable group are fixed to one another so that all elements of the rotatable group do not move relative to one another such that they rotate together about the axis of rotation during operation”, in Lines 10-12, is indefinite. Similar to the above rejections, it is not clear what structure, claimed or not, is included in the phrase “all elements of the rotatable group”, used multiple times, rendering the limitation indefinite.
It is not clear if the second instance of “all elements of the rotatable group” in the limitation is the same as the second instance of “all elements of the rotatable group” in the limitation. For the purpose of examination, each iteration of “all elements of the rotatable group” will be interpreted as the same structure.
It is not clear which structure the term “they” refers to, since multiple structures were previously described. For the purpose of examination, the term “they” will be interpreted to refer to the rotatable group elements.
The term “the axis of rotation” lacks antecedent basis.
The limitation “the rotatable group is constrained so that it can rotate only about the axis of rotation”, in Lines 15-16, is indefinite. It is not clear which structure the term “it” applies to. For instance, the term may apply to the rotatable group as a whole, or any components of which the rotatable group is comprised of. For the purpose of examination, the term will be interpreted as the rotatable group.
The limitation “constrained from rotating about any other axis”, in Line 16, is indefinite. It is not clear how a rotational feature may be made preventing any deviation from an original axis of rotation, since even with the most advance manufacturing techniques, tolerances are still required.
The phrase “axially aligned apertures defined by the motor-compressor housing side portion”, in Lines 19-20, is indefinite, in light of the specification. When referencing instant application Figure 9, the motor-compressor housing side portion 7 only shows one aperture 94 which may constrain the rotatable group. As such, it is not clear how the motor-compressor housing side portion 7 has multiple apertures, as claimed. For the purpose of examination, the only one aperture will be required, to align with the original disclosure.
The phrase “at least one compressor wheel housing”, in Line 20, is indefinite. It is not clear if the at least one compressor wheel housing is one of the first/second stage compressor wheel housings, or if a new compressor wheel housing is being defined. For the purpose of examination, the compressor wheel housing of Line 20 will be interpreted as one of the first/second stage compressor wheel housings.
The terms “the rear disk portion” and “the front disk portion” in Line 65, lacks antecedent basis.
The limitation “an aspect ratio of the gap is between 3 and 20, the aspect ratio defined as gap depth divided by gap width”, in Lines 67-68, should read --an aspect ratio of the gap is between 3 and 20, the aspect ratio defined as a depth of the gap a width of the gap
The limitation “the aspect ratio and material ratio are configured to improve compressor efficiency and thermal performance by influencing heat transfer across the gap and fluid flow behavior within the second stage compression passage”, in Lines 72-74, is indefinite. As described in the 112(a) rejection above, the original disclosure does not provide sufficient written description on how the respective ratios result in an improved efficiency or thermal performance. As such, it is not clear how the respective ratios result in an improved efficiency or thermal performance. Additionally, it is not clear how the efficiency is determined, or what is considered improved thermal performance. For instance, one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret less heat as an improvement in a first application, but could interpret more heat as an improvement in a second application.
As to Claim 15, the limitation “a rear surface region of the motor-compressor housing end cap opposes the front portion” is indefinite. It is not clear if the term “the front portion” should be “the front disk portion” or if a new structure is being provided. If the term should be “the front portion”, the claim should be amended to say so.
If the term is defining new structure, the limitation is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structural relationship of the claimed front portion. Additionally, the term “the front portion” lacks antecedent basis.
As to Claim 16, the limitation "a volute defined by a recessed region of the motor- compressor housing end cap extending azimuthally around axis of rotation", is indefinite. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. V. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term "azimuthally" is used by the claim to mean "circumferentially" while the accepted meaning is "horizontal direction expressed as the angular distance between the direction of a fixed point (such as the observer's heading) and the direction of the object". The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 & 6-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As to Claim 1, the prior art of record teaches each of the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach “a material ratio of the material-filled area to the total area is between 0 and 0.5”. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to disclose each of the limitations of Claim 1. The closest art of record is Liu (CN110792615A), in view of Echenique (U.S. PGPub 2022/0049709). However, Liu, as modified, teaches either the total area is filled with material –i.e., air, resulting in a ratio of 1— or there is no material within the total area, resulting in a ratio of zero. Both interpretations result in a material ratio outside the claimed ratio of 0 and 0.5, since both 1 and zero are outside the claimed range. It would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu, as modified, without the benefit of hindsight. Therefore, this limitation, as claimed in Claim 1, is neither anticipated nor made obvious by the prior art of record.
Claims 2-4 & 6-19 depend on Claim 1, so would also be allowable once all of the 112 rejections and formalities are addressed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Drawing Objections, some of the objections are maintained. It appears the lead lines in Figures 12-14 are pointing to the wrong structures. Applicant should also amend the figures so each of the new dimension lines are properly labeled with an element number. The respective element numbers should also be amended into the specification.
Regarding the Specification Objections, Applicant failed to correct each of the problems, so the objections are maintained.
Regarding the 112(a) rejections, Applicant argues the claims have full support to show Applicant had possession of the invention at the time of filing. Examiner disagrees.
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claimed constraints. Examiner disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the axis of rotation changes due to tolerances, constantly moving from one axis to another during operation. Examiner suggests deleting this limitation, since it would not affect the allowability of the claim.
Applicant argues the original disclosure teaches each of the claimed benefits of the claimed aspect and material ratios. Applicant specifically points to instant applications Paragraphs 0080-0084 & 0122-0125. However, none of these cited paragraphs, nor any other portion of the original disclosure even touch on the benefits of the claimed ratios, only that the claimed ratios exist. Examiner suggests deleting this limitation, since it would not affect the allowability of the claim.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, Applicant argues each of the indefinite terms are definite, in light of the specification and the context of the claim as a whole. Examiner disagrees.
As described in the rejections above, the terms are not properly bound, since it is not clear which elements –either disclosed or not disclosed-- belong to the defined groups. Additionally, there are elements which may meet the provided definition, which one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude does not belong to the defined groups. As such, the groups are indefinite, since other elements meet the definition, but most likely do not belong to the groups.
Applicant did not address other 112(b) rejections, so those rejections are maintained. Examiner suggests using the defined components of each group instead of the term elements, to clarify which structural elements are being referred to. Examiner also suggests replacing any pronouns with the actual structure, since it generally is not clear which structure is being referred to by any given pronoun, especially when a large number of structures were previously defined.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights