DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 04 June 2026 pertaining to the prior art rejections are addressed below:
-“Hirth confirms the understanding in the art that flow blocking bodies must be robust and thick to survive the harsh environment of a turbocharger” (page 8) - This is irrelevant to the proposed modification over Hirth.
-“However, Hirth does not show blocking bodies between VTG pivoting blades.” (page 8) - The absence of “VTG pivoting blades” is unrelated to the proposed modification over Hirth. There is no requirement to rely on all aspects of a disclosure of a prior art reference.
-“It is clearly not possible to incorporate the massive blocking bodies of Hirth into the VTG of Sauerstein, since such thick bodies in place of knife-thin blades would substantially impede the range of pivoting of the pivoting blades” (page 8); “If the thick blocking bodies of Hirth were incorporated into the VTG of Sauerstein, the blades would not be able to rotate between a full open and a restricted position” (page 13), “If elements 16 and 17 were extended, and made thick enough to survive as taught by Hirth, they would prevent pivoting of the vanes” (page 13) - The proposed modification does not involve “incorporate the massive blocking bodies of Hirth into the VTG of Sauerstein”, nor does the proposed modification does involve applying the entirety of the shape of the bodies of Hirth - rather, the proposed modification was/is stated as “to make the separating blades extend to the inner radius of the nozzle ring”. There is no requirement to rely on the entirety of the shape of Hirth. Accordingly, there is no “imped[ing] of range of pivoting of the pivoting blades” necessarily arising from the proposed modification. Furthermore, MPEP 2141.03 subsection.I states “’A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’ KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). ‘[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’ Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account ‘the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’ Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” - accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art could size and/or arrange the relevant structures in the proposed combination so as to preserve and/or achieve the desired pivoting of the guide vanes of APA.
-“Hirth is thus technologically not related to Sauerstein and would not be consulted by a person of ordinary skill in the art for how to solve the problem of combining VTG and pulse separation in a cartridge” (page 8) - Sauerstein discloses (see Figure 3 and col.3:ll.57-60) that the guide apparatus channel separation 16,17 provide flow separation among divided volutes in a turbine assembly of a turbocharger, and Hirth discloses (see Figure 2) that elements 68 provide flow separation among divided volutes in a turbine assembly of a turbocharger - accordingly, Hirth is technologically related to Sauerstein. Furthermore, there is no requirement for a prior art reference that is used in an obviousness combination to be directed towards solving the same problem as Applicant (see MPEP 2144 subsection.IV stating “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem.”).
-“Nevertheless Sauerstein supports Applicants' technical position that knife-blade thin dividers would self-destruct in a turbocharger” (page 9); “And the person of ordinary skill would know that the knife-blade thin dividers would vibrate and self-destruct extremely quickly, thus this is not a real-world turbocharger” (page 11) - These are mere assertions that are unsupportable from the patent document that is Sauerstein. Every patented invention is presumed to be operable (see MPEP 716.07). There is no evidence to suggest that the Sauerstein elements 16,17 would self-destruct or that the Sauerstein elements 16,17 could not be implemented in a real-world turbocharger in a manner such that they would not self-destruct.
-“Further, Sauerstein in fact evidences that it is conventional wisdom that all pivot [guide] vanes are equal length and arranged evenly spaced around the nozzle ring.” (page 9); “All prior art teaches VTG guide vanes in the direct flow and having leading and trailing edges, and of substantially equal length to balance forces for pivoting.” (page 23) - The applied reference Tries discloses a plurality of vanes in the direct flow path having unequal lengths.
-“Critically, the divider walls do not extend to the inner radius of the annular nozzle ring (guide apparatus 14), thus do not maintain pulse separation as required for pulse driven turbocharging.”(page 11) - This deficiency is resolved by the proposed modification over Hirth.
-“The Examiner's position is that turbochargers are known and that any modification or combination of components would be obvious. But the Examiner has not provided any technical reason for combinability” (page 12) - The Office’s position is that the specific modifications and combination of components described in the prior art rejections are obvious. The Office has provided motivations to combine that are supported by the references themselves.
-“It is conventional wisdom that you cannot have, in the same space, continuous divider walls maintaining pulse separation from turbine housing inlet to turbine wheel AND pivoting vanes able to pivot fully from open to restricted flow positions. Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time” (pages 12 and 15).- There is nothing in the prior art rejections that necessarily results in any components occupying the same space. Sauerstein Figure 3 shows the divider walls 16,17 as extending between pivotable blades 15 - accordingly, Sauerstein establishes that it is possible to incorporate such divider walls in a manner such that they do not occupy the same space as pivotable vanes. Furthermore, MPEP 2141.03 subsection.I states “’A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’ KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). ‘[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’ Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account ‘the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’ Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” - accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art could size and/or arrange the relevant structures in the proposed combination so as to preserve and/or achieve the desired pivoting of the guide vanes of APA.
-“However, there has never been a cartridge with both continuous divider walls for pulse separation and pivoting vanes for VTG.” (page 12) - It is noted that Sauerstein discloses both pivoting vanes 15 and divider walls 16,17, wherein the divider walls 16,17 extend from upstream of the pivoting vanes 15 to downstream of the pivoting vanes 15, the only difference being that the divider walls 16,17 do not extend all the way to the claimed inner radius location. Accordingly, Sauerstein provides clear motivation for the combined use of pivoting vanes and divider walls in a turbine assembly of a turbocharger.
-“One cannot ignore what a structure is and what it does. You cannot combine a submarine and an airplane and say this would function as a great pizza delivery vehicle” (page 14) - All of the elements of the relied upon references in the proposed modifications are in a turbine inlet of a turbocharger.
-“Applicants submit that the half-vane of Fukaya referred to by the Examiner has a pivot pin, a trailing edge downstream of the pivot pin, and no leading edge upstream of the pivot pin… The "bills" of Fukaya do not have a leading edge having a length, even in the embodiments shown in Figs. 12 or 13.” (page 16) - Fukaya Figure 2 is clear as to the structural relationship between a vane 2 and the corresponding rotational pin 7 indicating that rotational pin 7 does not axially obstruct the leading portion of a vane 2. Also, Fukaya Figures 13A-C show the outline of vane 12 as surrounding pin 7.
-“While there may be some component structural similarities to the present invention, there is no teaching of how providing a bill to reduce turbulence downstream of a spacer can be used to solve the problem of how to incorporate flow dividers into a VTG cartridge” (page 16); “The Examiner seems to suggest that it is beside the point that Fukaya has no technical relevance to the present invention; simply disclosing a pivotable vane in a non-flow-separated flow path would provide a ‘eureka moment’ to the person of ordinary skill resulting in a flow separated VTG cartridge.” (page 17); “Thus there is no transference of motivation of Fukaya to the present invention.” (page 18); “Again, Fukaya has no divider walls which would hinder guide vane pivoting, thus has no relation to solving the problem of combining pivoting guide vanes of a VTG with a divided volute turbine housing, particularly in a cartridge. Flow separation has no relevancy to the technical problem solved by the present invention. Turbulence downstream of spacers has no relevancy to the technical problem solved by the present invention. The Examiner is selecting bits and pieces from the prior art, used for an entirely different purposes…” (page 19) - There is no requirement for a prior art reference that is used in an obviousness combination to be directed towards solving the same problem as Applicant, nor is there any requirement for an obviousness combination to address and/or solve the same problem as Applicant (see MPEP 2144 subsection.IV stating “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem.”).
-“Accordingly, the bill-spacer of Fukaya provides no suggestion that in a divided volute turbine housing the divider walls can be continuous from housing volutes, through the cartridge, to the turbine wheel, by tailoring the length of leading or trailing edges of pivotable guide vanes” (page 16); “Fukaya in no suggests that the bill-shaped projection in the flow shadow of a spacer could in any way relates to maintaining pulse separation in the main flow path of a VTG turbocharger.” (page 16) - The proposed modification(s) over Fukaya does not purport to pertain to divider walls - rather, it pertains to “at least one second vane having a second vane length… different form said first vane length”. Furthermore, there is nothing in the claims that would imply or require that “plurality of guide vanes” contributes to forming “walls [that are] continuous from housing volutes, through the cartridge, to the turbine wheel” and/or “maintaining pulse separation” - i.e., there is no claimed positional and/or structural relationship between “first and second fixed separating blade” and “plurality of guide vanes”.
-“Accordingly, since the Examiner has not found prior art teaching guide vanes with shorter leading or trailing blades, alone or in combination with continuous dividers structures, the Examiner has not found all the individual parts needed to make the present invention.” (page 16) - There is no requirement in claim 1 for “shorter leading or trailing blades” (note: this is considered to mean shorter leading edge or trailing edge vanes--), only “at least one first vane having a first length” and “at least one second vane having a second length… different from the first length” - i.e., a difference in vane length can be realized by a region(s) of the vane apart from “leading edge” and/or “trailing edge”. All of the individual parts of the claimed inventions are found in the references.
-“The Examiner takes the position that the leading edge is unnecessary, that a VTG could operate with vanes having only tails” (page 17) -The Office has not taken such positions. As stated above, Fukaya vanes 12 have a leading edge.
-“All prior art teaches VTG guide vanes in the direct flow and having leading and trailing edges, and of substantially equal length to balance forces for pivoting.” (page 17); “The partial guide vanes 14a, 14b of the present invention as illustrated in Fig. 5 are not in the flow shadow of a spacer element as shown in Fukaya. They are in the main flow path of the exhaust gas.” (page 18) - There is no claim limitation that distinguishes over “guide vanes in the direct flow… of substantially equal length” (emphasis added). Regardless, Tries discloses vanes in the direct flow that are of unequal length.
-“The spacer element turbulence reducing elements of Fukaya are not in the direct flow stream, they are tucked behind a spacer element and merely reduce turbulence. The person of ordinary skill in the turbocharger art would not transfer a bill-like projection from a spacer element of Fukaya to a position of a flow guide vane in a VTG.” (pages 17-18); “Even if one could find some motivation to move the bill-like projection of Fukaya from the spacer-blocked downstream turbulence area, where it serves to reduce turbulence, into the main flow area of the flow space…” (page 18) - The proposed modification does not involve “transfer a bill-like projection from a spacer element… to a position of a flow guide vane” or “move the bill-like projection… into the main flow area” - rather, the proposed modification over Fukaya was/is stated as “to include at least one second guide vane, sized to be shorter than the at least one first guide vane, that are immediately downstream of the spacer elements (APA - 31)”.
-“It is not sufficient that the prior art ‘addresses a claimed limitation’. An element may be known but that does not mean that there is reason or motivation to make that modification or combination. Secondly, there is certainly no suggestion which would lead one to believe that the modification or combination would produce a viable turbocharger.” (page 19); “The fact that divider walls are known and pivoting vanes are known does NOT make it obvious to combine the two.” (page 21) - The proposed modifications were/are presented with clear motivations to combine, found explicitly in or easily deduced from the references themselves, and the relied upon elements are used in the same manner in the proposed combination as in the modifying references. There is no evidence to suggest that the turbocharger of APA could not operate with vanes behind the spacer elements 31, as in Fukaya, and separating blades that extend across the entirety of the inlet passage, as suggested by the combination of Sauerstein and Hirth.
-“If combination were obvious, then it would have been done.” (page 21) - An obviousness rejection addresses claimed inventions that have not been done.
-“The Examiner has cited no prior art teaching leading to such a combination, much less in a cartridge.” (page 21) - The prior art elements are combinable, the modifications are presented with motivations to combine, and all limitations of the claimed inventions are addressed. The elements relied upon in the modifying references are present in the inlet section of a turbine assembly, which is relevant to the inlet cartridge of APA, and there is no evidence to suggest that the elements of the modifying references could not be incorporated into the cartridge of APA.
-“There [in Tries] are no flow dividing walls to maintain pulse separation from nozzle ring outer radius to nozzle ring inner radius. If one were to incorporate such flow dividers into the variable vane arrangement disclosed in Tries, the result would be vanes having almost no freedom of movement since the vanes and the flow separating walls could not occupy the same space. The divider walls would block movement of either the leading edge or the trailing edge of at least one pivoting vane…; Dividing walls for maintaining pulse separation are essential to the present invention and essential limitations of the claims. To say dividing walls have not influence on pivoting vanes is to ignore mechanical structural limitations.” (page 27) - The inclusion of dividing walls and the inclusion of different length pivotal vanes can be considered separately - i.e., the inclusion of one can be considered independently of the other, and the prior art provides separate motivations for each. Furthermore, MPEP 2141.03 subsection.I states “’A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’ KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). ‘[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’ Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account ‘the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’ Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” - accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art could size and/or arrange the relevant structures in the proposed combination so as to preserve and/or achieve the desired pivoting of the guide vanes of APA.
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 04 June 2026 pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are addressed below:
-“Applicants respectfully submit that the figures are part of the application as filed. The figures clearly show vanes of different lengths. The text associated with the figures clearly teaches that the invention involves reducing the length of either the leading edge or trailing edge of some of the vanes, but not all the vanes, sufficient so that the vanes can pivot without being blocked by the divider wall. See paragraph [0032] "[0032] As a countermeasure, "stump vanes" 14 with either a vane leading stump edge 14a or a vane trailing stump edge 14b can be installed adjacent the full separating blades 12 (see Fig. 5)…” (page 29) - The disclosure at par. [0035] indicates that the term “length” corresponds with the longitudinal / chordal dimension of the vane, and so the terms “leading edge length” and “trailing edge length” are considered in this manner and, thus, considered to specify a corresponding region of length - i.e., a leading edge region and a trailing edge region. Looking to the specification, there is no description of the limits and/or boundaries of such regions - the only description is the term “stump”, which is not a term of art and/or is a broad/vague/relative term provided without any geometrical/dimensional parameters for defining its nature. Looking to the drawings, there is no detailed view of the vanes and/or depiction of the boundaries of a leading edge region and/or a trailing edge region of any of the vanes. Accordingly, the claim limitations “leading edge length” and “trailing edge length” are not sufficiently defined by the disclosure such that one having ordinary skill in the art would be apprised of their meaning and/or their implications for structure. These claim limitations do not distinguish over an arbitrarily specified length of the corresponding region of any vane.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 2, “are” should be deleted (for grammatical purposes).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement.
In claim 6, the limitation recited as “said second vane leading edge length being different from said first vane leading edge length” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure: (1) is silent as to such a limitation, and/or (2), does not describe or depict the dimension (e.g., in the chordwise direction, or in the thickness direction) considered to correspond with “length”, and/or (3) does not describe or depict the intended “length” of a “leading edge” of “first guide vane” and/or “second guide vane”, thereby failing to establish a basis for comparison between “second vane leading edge length” and “first vane leading edge length”. Due to an identical instance, this rejection also applies to claim 8.
In claim 7, the limitation recited as “said second vane trailing edge length being different from said first vane trailing edge length” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure: (1) is silent as to such a limitation, and/or (2), does not describe or depict the dimension (e.g., in the chordwise direction, or in the thickness direction) considered to correspond with “length”, and/or (3) does not describe or depict the intended “length” of a “trailing edge” of “first guide vane” and/or “second guide vane”, thereby failing to establish a basis for comparison between “second vane trailing edge length” and “first vane trailing edge length”. Due to an identical instance, this rejection also applies to claim 9.
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.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 6, the limitation recited as “said second vane leading edge length being different from said first vane leading edge length” renders the claim indefinite. The originally filed disclosure: (1) is silent as to such a limitation, and/or (2), does not describe or depict the dimension (e.g., in the chordwise direction, or in the thickness direction) considered to correspond with “length”, and/or (3) does not describe or depict the intended “length” of a “leading edge” of “first guide vane” and/or “second guide vane”, thereby failing to establish a basis for comparison between “second vane leading edge length” and “first vane leading edge length”. Accordingly, the meaning and/or implications for structure of this limitation are unclear. Due to an identical instance, this rejection also applies to claim 8.
In claim 7, the limitation recited as “said second vane trailing edge length being different from said first vane trailing edge length” renders the claim indefinite. The originally filed disclosure: (1) is silent as to such a limitation, and/or (2), does not describe or depict the dimension (e.g., in the chordwise direction, or in the thickness direction) considered to correspond with “length”, and/or (3) does not describe or depict the intended “length” of a “trailing edge” of “first guide vane” and/or “second guide vane”, thereby failing to establish a basis for comparison between “second vane trailing edge length” and “first vane trailing edge length”. Accordingly, the meaning and/or implications for structure of this limitation are unclear. Due to an identical instance, this rejection also applies to claim 9.
In claim 8, the limitation recited as “said at least one first guide vane” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). Alternatively/relatedly, it is unclear if this is specifying a grouping of the antecedent limitation “a plurality of guide vanes” or introducing a new limitation. Due to an identical instance, this rejection also applies to claim 9.
In claim 8, the limitation recited as “said… at least one second guide vane” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). Alternatively/relatedly, it is unclear if this is specifying a grouping of the antecedent limitation “a plurality of guide vanes” or introducing a new limitation. Due to an identical instance, this rejection also applies to claim 9.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (i.e., portions of Applicant’s disclosure - hereafter referred to as APA) in view of Sauerstein (US 2012/0159946; previously cited), Hirth et al. (US 9,121,345 - hereafter referred to as Hirth; previously cited), and Fukaya et al. (US 6,558,117 - hereafter referred to as Fukaya; previously cited).
In reference to claims 1, 4, 6 (as far as it is clear and definite), and 7 (as far as it is clear and definite)
These claims are rejected identically as described in the Office action mailed 04 December 2025 (not reproduced herein for brevity purposes).
In reference to claim 8 (as far as it is clear and definite)
APA in view of Sauerstein, Hirth, and Fukaya, as combined in the rejection of claim 1 in the Office action mailed 04 December 2025, addresses:
A turbocharger turbine (see APA Figures 1 and 2) comprising:
a turbine housing (APA - 2) that houses a turbine wheel (see APA par. [0011]), said turbine wheel rotatable about an axis of rotation (APA - R), said turbine housing including a divided volute (APA - 9, as modified by Sauerstein) adapted for receiving divided exhaust gas flows from an engine and maintaining separation of exhaust gas flow from different cylinders or cylinder groups of the engine (note: the recitation maintaining separation of exhaust gas flows from different cylinders or cylinder groups of the engine (emphasis added) is regarded as a statement of intended use; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; the instant recitation specifies aspects of the engine in which the invention characterized as A turbocharger turbine is used, which merely places the invention in an environment of use); and
a variable turbine geometry cartridge (see APA par. [0008]) mounted in said turbine housing and comprising:
- a plurality of guide vanes (APA - 7) arranged in said housing downstream of said divided volute, in angular separation around said axis of rotation in an axially extending vane space (i.e., the space occupied by vanes 7 - see APA Figure 1), each guide vane (APA - 7) having a leading edge (i.e., an upstream/leading end) having a length (notes: (1) the leading edge extends along a span and, thus, has a length aligned therewith; (2) any leading edge is a three-dimensional surface and, thus, has a length in the thickness direction and/or the chordal direction) and a trailing edge (i.e., a downstream/trailing end) having a length (notes: (1) the trailing edge extends along a span and, thus, has a length aligned therewith; (2) any trailing edge is a three-dimensional surface and, thus, has a length in the thickness direction and/or the chordal direction) and being pivotal about an associated pivot axis (i.e., the rotational axis of a respective shaft 8 - see APA par. [0012]), said guide vanes controlled in unison (i.e., via unison ring 5 - see APA par. [0012]) to pivot between a fully open position (i.e., the maximum achievable open position permitted by the pivoting of the APA vanes 7) and a fully closed position (i.e., the maximum achievable closed position permitted by the pivoting of the APA vanes 7) thereby forming nozzles of variable cross-section between adjacent vanes of the plurality of guide vanes;
- an annular nozzle ring (APA - 6) for supporting said guide vanes for pivoting about their respective said pivot axis, said nozzle ring having an outer radius (i.e., an outermost radius) and an inner radius (i.e., an innermost radius) and forming a first axial limitation (i.e., a right-side axial limitation as viewed in APA Figure 1) of said vane space;
- a disk (APA - 29) with a central opening (APA - 53), said disk connected to (via APA bolts 30) and spaced from (see APA Figure 1) said nozzle ring at a predetermined axial distance to form a second axial limitation (i.e., a left-side axial limitation as viewed in APA Figure 1) of said vane space;
- at least a first and a second fixed separating blade (Sauerstein - 16,17) provided between said nozzle ring (APA - 6) and said disk (APA - 29) for continuing separation of exhaust gas flows from said divided volute to said turbine wheel (APA), the first and the second fixed separating blade each extending from the outer radius (see Sauerstein Figure 3 and Hirth Figure 2) of the annular nozzle ring to the inner radius (see Hirth Figure 2) of the annular nozzle ring;
wherein said at least one first guide vane (i.e., the long vanes or short vanes, as resulting from the modification over Fukaya, of the plurality of guide vanes) has a first vane leading edge length and at least one second guide vane (i.e., the other of long vanes or short vanes, apart from the at least one first guide vane) has a second vane leading edge length, said second vane leading edge length being different from said first vane leading edge length (note: the proposed modification over Fukaya results in different lengths of vanes - accordingly, limits/boundaries, in at least one of a vane chordwise dimension and a vane thickness dimension, for the leading edge of second guide vane and the leading edge of first guide vane can be drawn such that the instant inequality is met).
In reference to claim 9 (as far as it is clear and definite)
APA in view of Sauerstein, Hirth, and Fukaya, as combined in the rejection of claim 1 in the Office action mailed 04 December 2025, addresses:
A turbocharger turbine (see APA Figures 1 and 2) comprising:
a turbine housing (APA - 2) that houses a turbine wheel (see APA par. [0011]), said turbine wheel rotatable about an axis of rotation (APA - R), said turbine housing including a divided volute (APA - 9, as modified by Sauerstein) adapted for receiving divided exhaust gas flows from an engine and maintaining separation of exhaust gas flow from different cylinders or cylinder groups of the engine (note: the recitation maintaining separation of exhaust gas flows from different cylinders or cylinder groups of the engine (emphasis added) is regarded as a statement of intended use; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; the instant recitation specifies aspects of the engine in which the invention characterized as A turbocharger turbine is used, which merely places the invention in an environment of use); and
a variable turbine geometry cartridge (see APA par. [0008]) mounted in said turbine housing and comprising:
- a plurality of guide vanes (APA - 7) arranged in said housing downstream of said divided volute, in angular separation around said axis of rotation in an axially extending vane space (i.e., the space occupied by vanes 7 - see APA Figure 1), each guide vane (APA - 7) having a leading edge (i.e., an upstream/leading end) having a length (notes: (1) the leading edge extends along a span and, thus, has a length aligned therewith; (2) any leading edge is a three-dimensional surface and, thus, has a length in the thickness direction and/or the chordal direction) and a trailing edge (i.e., a downstream/trailing end) having a length (notes: (1) the trailing edge extends along a span and, thus, has a length aligned therewith; (2) any trailing edge is a three-dimensional surface and, thus, has a length in the thickness direction and/or the chordal direction) and being pivotal about an associated pivot axis (i.e., the rotational axis of a respective shaft 8 - see APA par. [0012]), said guide vanes controlled in unison (i.e., via unison ring 5 - see APA par. [0012]) to pivot between a fully open position (i.e., the maximum achievable open position permitted by the pivoting of the APA vanes 7) and a fully closed position (i.e., the maximum achievable closed position permitted by the pivoting of the APA vanes 7) thereby forming nozzles of variable cross-section between adjacent vanes of the plurality of guide vanes;
- an annular nozzle ring (APA - 6) for supporting said guide vanes for pivoting about their respective said pivot axis, said nozzle ring having an outer radius (i.e., an outermost radius) and an inner radius (i.e., an innermost radius) and forming a first axial limitation (i.e., a right-side axial limitation as viewed in APA Figure 1) of said vane space;
- a disk (APA - 29) with a central opening (APA - 53), said disk connected to (via APA bolts 30) and spaced from (see APA Figure 1) said nozzle ring at a predetermined axial distance to form a second axial limitation (i.e., a left-side axial limitation as viewed in APA Figure 1) of said vane space;
- at least a first and a second fixed separating blade (Sauerstein - 16,17) provided between said nozzle ring (APA - 6) and said disk (APA - 29) for continuing separation of exhaust gas flows from said divided volute to said turbine wheel (APA), the first and the second fixed separating blade each extending from the outer radius (see Sauerstein Figure 3 and Hirth Figure 2) of the annular nozzle ring to the inner radius (see Hirth Figure 2) of the annular nozzle ring;
wherein said at least one first guide vane (i.e., the long vanes or short vanes, as resulting from the modification over Fukaya, of the plurality of guide vanes) has a first vane trailing edge length and at least one second guide vane (i.e., the other of long vanes or short vanes, apart from the at least one first guide vane) has a second vane trailing edge length, said second vane trailing edge length being different from said first vane trailing edge length (note: the proposed modification over Fukaya results in different lengths of vanes - accordingly, limits/boundaries, in at least one of a vane chordwise dimension and a vane thickness dimension, for the trailing edge of second guide vane and the leading edge of first guide vane can be drawn such that the instant inequality is met).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Sauerstein, Hirth, Fukaya, and Meacher et al. (US 4,362,020 - hereafter referred to as Meacher; previously cited).
In reference to claim 2
This claim is rejected identically as described in the Office action mailed 04 December 2025 (not reproduced herein for brevity purposes).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Sauerstein, Hirth, Fukaya, and Roberts et al. (US 2008/0038110 - hereafter referred to as Roberts; previously cited).
In reference to claim 3
This claim is rejected identically as described in the Office action mailed 04 December 2025 (not reproduced herein for brevity purposes).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Sauerstein, Hirth, Fukaya, and Kindl et al. (US 2015/0013330 - hereafter referred to as Kindl; previously cited).
In reference to claim 5
This claim is rejected identically as described in the Office action mailed 04 December 2025 (not reproduced herein for brevity purposes).
Claims 1, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Sauerstein, Hirth, and Tries et al. (US 8,328,503 - hereafter referred to as Tries; previously cited).
In reference to claims 1, 4, 6 (as far as it is clear and definite), and 7 (as far as it is clear and definite)
These claims are rejected identically as described in the Office action mailed 04 December 2025 (not reproduced herein for brevity purposes).
In reference to claim 8 (as far as it is clear and definite)
APA in view of Sauerstein, Hirth, and Tries, as combined in the rejection of claim 1 in the Office action mailed 04 December 2025, addresses:
A turbocharger turbine (see APA Figures 1 and 2) comprising:
a turbine housing (APA - 2) that houses a turbine wheel (see APA par. [0011]), said turbine wheel rotatable about an axis of rotation (APA - R), said turbine housing including a divided volute (APA - 9, as modified by Sauerstein) adapted for receiving divided exhaust gas flows from an engine and maintaining separation of exhaust gas flow from different cylinders or cylinder groups of the engine (note: the recitation maintaining separation of exhaust gas flows from different cylinders or cylinder groups of the engine (emphasis added) is regarded as a statement of intended use; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; the instant recitation specifies aspects of the engine in which the invention characterized as A turbocharger turbine is used, which merely places the invention in an environment of use); and
a variable turbine geometry cartridge (see APA par. [0008]) mounted in said turbine housing and comprising:
- a plurality of guide vanes (APA - 7) arranged in said housing downstream of said divided volute, in angular separation around said axis of rotation in an axially extending vane space (i.e., the space occupied by vanes 7 - see APA Figure 1), each guide vane (APA - 7) having a leading edge (i.e., an upstream/leading end) having a length (notes: (1) the leading edge extends along a span and, thus, has a length aligned therewith; (2) any leading edge is a three-dimensional surface and, thus, has a length in the thickness direction and/or the chordal direction) and a trailing edge (i.e., a downstream/trailing end) having a length (notes: (1) the trailing edge extends along a span and, thus, has a length aligned therewith; (2) any trailing edge is a three-dimensional surface and, thus, has a length in the thickness direction and/or the chordal direction) and being pivotal about an associated pivot axis (i.e., the rotational axis of a respective shaft 8 - see APA par. [0012]), said guide vanes controlled in unison (i.e., via unison ring 5 - see APA par. [0012]) to pivot between a fully open position (i.e., the maximum achievable open position permitted by the pivoting of the APA vanes 7) and a fully closed position (i.e., the maximum achievable closed position permitted by the pivoting of the APA vanes 7) thereby forming nozzles of variable cross-section between adjacent vanes of the plurality of guide vanes;
- an annular nozzle ring (APA - 6) for supporting said guide vanes for pivoting about their respective said pivot axis, said nozzle ring having an outer radius (i.e., an outermost radius) and an inner radius (i.e., an innermost radius) and forming a first axial limitation (i.e., a right-side axial limitation as viewed in APA Figure 1) of said vane space;
- a disk (APA - 29) with a central opening (APA - 53), said disk connected to (via APA bolts 30) and spaced from (see APA Figure 1) said nozzle ring at a predetermined axial distance to form a second axial limitation (i.e., a left-side axial limitation as viewed in APA Figure 1) of said vane space;
- at least a first and a second fixed separating blade (Sauerstein - 16,17) provided between said nozzle ring (APA - 6) and said disk (APA - 29) for continuing separation of exhaust gas flows from said divided volute to said turbine wheel (APA), the first and the second fixed separating blade each extending from the outer radius (see Sauerstein Figure 3 and Hirth Figure 2) of the annular nozzle ring to the inner radius (see Hirth Figure 2) of the annular nozzle ring;
wherein said at least one first guide vane (i.e., the long vanes or short vanes, as resulting from the modification over Tries, of the plurality of guide vanes) has a first vane leading edge length and at least one second guide vane (i.e., the other of the long vanes or short vanes, apart from the at least one first guide vane) has a second vane leading edge length, said second vane leading edge length being different from said first vane leading edge length (note: the proposed modification over Tries results in different lengths of vanes - accordingly, limits/boundaries, in at least one of a vane chordwise dimension and a vane thickness dimension, for the leading edge of second guide vane and the leading edge of first guide vane can be drawn such that the instant inequality is met).
In reference to claim 9 (as far as it is clear and definite)
APA in view of Sauerstein, Hirth, and Tries, as combined in the rejection of claim 1 in the Office action mailed 04 December 2025, addresses:
A turbocharger turbine (see APA Figures 1 and 2) comprising:
a turbine housing (APA - 2) that houses a turbine wheel (see APA par. [0011]), said turbine wheel rotatable about an axis of rotation (APA - R), said turbine housing including a divided volute (APA - 9, as modified by Sauerstein) adapted for receiving divided exhaust gas flows from an engine and maintaining separation of exhaust gas flow from different cylinders or cylinder groups of the engine (note: the recitation maintaining separation of exhaust gas flows from different cylinders or cylinder groups of the engine (emphasis added) is regarded as a statement of intended use; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; the instant recitation specifies aspects of the engine in which the invention characterized as A turbocharger turbine is used, which merely places the invention in an environment of use); and
a variable turbine geometry cartridge (see APA par. [0008]) mounted in said turbine housing and comprising:
- a plurality of guide vanes (APA - 7) arranged in said housing downstream of said divided volute, in angular separation around said axis of rotation in an axially extending vane space (i.e., the space occupied by vanes 7 - see APA Figure 1), each guide vane (APA - 7) having a leading edge (i.e., an upstream/leading end) having a length (notes: (1) the leading edge extends along a span and, thus, has a length aligned therewith; (2) any leading edge is a three-dimensional surface and, thus, has a length in the thickness direction and/or the chordal direction) and a trailing edge (i.e., a downstream/trailing end) having a length (notes: (1) the trailing edge extends along a span and, thus, has a length aligned therewith; (2) any trailing edge is a three-dimensional surface and, thus, has a length in the thickness direction and/or the chordal direction) and being pivotal about an associated pivot axis (i.e., the rotational axis of a respective shaft 8 - see APA par. [0012]), said guide vanes controlled in unison (i.e., via unison ring 5 - see APA par. [0012]) to pivot between a fully open position (i.e., the maximum achievable open position permitted by the pivoting of the APA vanes 7) and a fully closed position (i.e., the maximum achievable closed position permitted by the pivoting of the APA vanes 7) thereby forming nozzles of variable cross-section between adjacent vanes of the plurality of guide vanes;
- an annular nozzle ring (APA - 6) for supporting said guide vanes for pivoting about their respective said pivot axis, said nozzle ring having an outer radius (i.e., an outermost radius) and an inner radius (i.e., an innermost radius) and forming a first axial limitation (i.e., a right-side axial limitation as viewed in APA Figure 1) of said vane space;
- a disk (APA - 29) with a central opening (APA - 53), said disk connected to (via APA bolts 30) and spaced from (see APA Figure 1) said nozzle ring at a predetermined axial distance to form a second axial limitation (i.e., a left-side axial limitation as viewed in APA Figure 1) of said vane space;
- at least a first and a second fixed separating blade (Sauerstein - 16,17) provided between said nozzle ring (APA - 6) and said disk (APA - 29) for continuing separation of exhaust gas flows from said divided volute to said turbine wheel (APA), the first and the second fixed separating blade each extending from the outer radius (see Sauerstein Figure 3 and Hirth Figure 2) of the annular nozzle ring to the inner radius (see Hirth Figure 2) of the annular nozzle ring;
wherein said at least one first guide vane (i.e., the long vanes or short vanes, as resulting from the modification over Tries, of the plurality of guide vanes) has a first vane trailing edge length and at least one second guide vane (i.e., the other of long vanes or short vanes, apart from the at least one first guide vane) has a second vane trailing edge length, said second vane trailing edge length being different from said first vane trailing edge length (note: the proposed modification over Tries results in at least one second guide vane being smaller than at least one first guide vane - accordingly, limits/boundaries, in at least one of a vane chordwise dimension and a vane thickness dimension, for the trailing edge of second guide vane and the trailing edge of first guide vane can be drawn such that the instant inequality is met).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Sauerstein, Hirth, Tries, and Meacher.
In reference to claim 2
This claim is rejected identically as described in the Office action mailed 04 December 2025 (not reproduced herein for brevity purposes).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Sauerstein, Hirth, Tries, and Roberts.
In reference to claim 3
This claim is rejected identically as described in the Office action mailed 04 December 2025 (not reproduced herein for brevity purposes).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Sauerstein, Hirth, Tries, and Kindl.
In reference to claim 5
This claim is rejected identically as described in the Office action mailed 04 December 2025 (not reproduced herein for brevity purposes).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone is (571)270-3364 and email is christopher.legendre@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights