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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, Species, claims 9-20 in the reply filed on 3/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 9-20 overlap in subject matter with claim 1-8. This is not found persuasive because claim 1 recites an inlet housing partially surrounding the rotor; an outlet housing comprising a forward face and a bearing support element extending from the forward face and being receivable in the pocket via the open end; one or more first bearings disposed within the bearing support element to support rotation of the foil bearing shaft; a second bearing interposed between the forward face of the outlet housing and the rear face of the rotor; and a third bearing interposed between the forward face of the rotor and the inlet housing which does not overlap in scope with claim 9 which recites one or more first bearings disposed on the shaft to support shaft rotation; a second bearing disposed on the rear face of the first rotor; and a third bearing disposed on the forward face of the first rotor. The different inventions would impose a search burden for the reasons cited in the previous office action and above. .
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-8 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/27/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/19/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 5/13/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al (US 20100142697) in view of Bastani et al (US 20180003078) and Philippe (US 20060123783).
Regarding claim 9, Chan teaches an air cycle machine (ACM) (fig. 5), comprising: first (10) and second (20) rotors, each of the first and second rotors comprising rear and forward faces (annotated fig. below) and a central portion (annotate fig. below) interposed between the rear and forward faces with outwardly extending blades (112, 122); a shaft (30) connecting the first and second rotors but fails to explicitly teach one or more first bearings disposed on the shaft to support shaft rotation; a second bearing disposed on the rear face of the first rotor; and a third bearing disposed on the forward face of the first rotor.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Bastani teaches one or more first bearings (604) disposed on the shaft (912) to support shaft rotation; a second bearing (602) disposed on the rear face (928) of the first rotor to provide support to axial and/or radial loads.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ACM of Chan to include one or more first bearings disposed on the shaft to support shaft rotation; a second bearing disposed on the rear face of the first rotor in view of the teachings of Bastini to provide support to axial and/or radial loads.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach a third bearing disposed on the forward face of the first rotor.
However, Philippe teaches a third bearing (15) disposed on the forward face of the first rotor (15 is forward of 21) to provide axial support.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ACM of the combined teachings to include a third bearing disposed on the forward face of the first rotor in view of the teachings of Philippe to provide axial support.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach the central portion of each of the first and second rotors has an exterior surface (fig. 5 of Chan) with a non-linear profile (fig. 5 of Chan) from which the corresponding blades extend radially outwardly (fig. 5 of Chan).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the first and second rotors define central bores (annotated fig. below of Chan) and the shaft comprises: a first end (annotated fig. below of Chan) receivable in the central bore of the first rotor (fig. 5 of Chan); a second end (annotated fig. below of Chan) receivable in the central bore of the second rotor (fig. 5 of Chan); and a central section (30 between annotated fig. of Chan below) interposed between the first and second ends, the central section comprising a first shoulder (906 of Bastini) that impinges against the rear face of the first rotor (fig. 9 of Bastini) and a second shoulder (906 of Bastini) that impinges against the forward face of the second rotor (906 of Bastini, 20 of Chan).
PNG
media_image2.png
524
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach wherein the one or more first bearings are journal bearings (journal bearing, paragraph 0026 of Bastini).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach the second bearing is a thrust bearing (thrust bearing, paragraph 0026 of Bastini) configured for primary axial load support (axial load, paragraph 0026 of Bastini).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach the third bearing is an axisymmetric thrust bearing (thrust bearing, paragraph 0037) for secondary axial load support (understood the bearing would provide support to the rotor in an axial direction, paragraph 0037).
Regarding claims 16, 18-20, it is noted that although the preamble of the claims is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings disclose all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also anticipated by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al (US 20100142697) in view of Bastani et al (US 20180003078) and Philippe (US 20060123783) as applied to claim 1 and 16 and in further view of Army et al (US 20180010981).
Regarding claims 12 and 17, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the one or more first bearings comprise: a forward first bearing disposed about the central section and proximate to the first end; and a rear first bearing disposed about the central section and proximate to the second end.
However, Army teaches the one or more first bearings comprise: a forward first bearing (20 closer to compressor) disposed about the central section and proximate to the first end (fig. 1); and a rear first bearing (20 closer to turbine) disposed about the central section and proximate to the second end (fig. 1) to support the shaft.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ACM of the combined teachings to include the one or more first bearings comprise: a forward first bearing disposed about the central section and proximate to the first end; and a rear first bearing disposed about the central section and proximate to the second end in view of the teachings of Army to provide axial support.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm M-F.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights