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 .
Status
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment/request for reconsideration dated 17 November 2025 (hereinafter “Reply”).
Claim(s) 11-13 are canceled.
Claim(s) 1-10, 14 is/are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection(s) to claim(s) 1 is/are withdrawn after consideration of the submitted amendment(s).
The rejection of claim(s) 1 and claim(s) dependent thereon under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is/are withdrawn after consideration of the submitted amendment(s).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1-10, 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kegg in view of Hunziker, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At page 6 of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to teach or suggest the following features of claim 1: the first passage is formed along an upper side of a center line of the plurality of diffuser vanes. Specifically, as noted by annotated Fig. 6 of the previous office action, Hunziker teaches the center line extending from the leading edge to the trailing edge of a single vane body. However, the claim recites a center line of the plurality of diffuser vanes.
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) is/are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1-5, 10, 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kegg in view of Pagnier, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At page 7 of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to teach or suggest the following feature(s) of claim 1: the first passage is formed along an upper side of a center line of the plurality of diffuser vanes. Specifically, as noted by annotated Fig. 6 of the previous office action, Pagnier teaches the center line extending from the leading edge to the trailing edge of a single vane body. However, the claim recites a center line of the plurality of diffuser vanes.
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument partly persuasive. Specifically, the Fig. 6 embodiment of Pagnier fails to teach the claim limitations; however, the Fig. 8 embodiment of Pagnier teaches a plurality of passages along the radial length, i.e. the hub-to-tip direction, of the vane. Therefore, the rejection(s) is/are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “the first passage and the second passage are spaced part from each other” is suggested to be --- the first passage and the second passage are spaced apart from each other ---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: “the second passage is formed a lower side” is suggested to be --- the second passage is formed along a lower side ---. 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/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.
(A) Regarding Claim(s) 10:
Claim(s) 10 recite(s): the second passage is formed along the center line of the plurality of diffuser vanes. Thus, claim(s) 10 contain(s) new subject matter that is not sufficiently supported by the originally filed specification. The most relevant portion of the specification, found by the Office, at Fig. 14 and paragraphs 143-145 discloses first and second passages are spaced apart, wherein the second passage is spaced downwardly from a center C of the diffuser vane. Furthermore, Figs. 7-12 and paragraph 125 disclose, in embodiments with a single passage, the passage is positioned at the center, above the center, or below the center. Therefore, when a second passage is present, the originally filed specification does not sufficiently disclose the location as being at the center. Therefore, the specification does not convey with reasonable clarity to one of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing the application.
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.
Claim 2-9 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.
(A) Regarding Claim(s) 2:
Claim(s) 2 recite(s): the passage. The most relevant portion(s) of the specification and/or drawings, found by the Office, at Fig. 10 discloses a passage while Fig. 14 discloses first and second passages. Thus, claim(s) 2 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if claim 2 refers to the first or second or both passages of claim 1. As a result, it is unclear if both the first and second passage penetrate from the first surface to the second surface. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting at least one passage penetrating from the first surface to the second surface to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(B) Claim(s) 3-9 is/are rejected due to inheriting the deficiency(ies) raised with regard to claim 2.
(C) Regarding Claim(s) 3:
Claim(s) 3 recite(s): the passage. The most relevant portion(s) of the specification and/or drawings, found by the Office, at Fig. 10 discloses a passage while Fig. 14 discloses first and second passages. Thus, claim(s) 3 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if claim 3 refers to the first or second or both passages of claim 1. As a result, it is unclear if both the first and second passage include respective entry and exit portions as claimed. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting at least one passage with entry and exit portions as claimed to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(D) Claim(s) 4-9 is/are rejected due to inheriting the deficiency(ies) raised with regard to claim 3.
(E) Regarding Claim(s) 4:
Claim(s) 4 recite(s): the passage. The most relevant portion(s) of the specification and/or drawings, found by the Office, at Fig. 10 discloses a passage while Fig. 14 discloses first and second passages. Thus, claim(s) 4 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if claim 4 refers to the first or second or both passages of claim 1. As a result, it is unclear if both the first and second passage is configured to be inclined. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting at least one passage is configured to be inclined to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(F) Regarding Claim(s) 9:
Claim(s) 9 recite(s): the passage. The most relevant portion(s) of the specification and/or drawings, found by the Office, at Fig. 10 discloses a passage while Fig. 14 discloses first and second passages. Thus, claim(s) 9 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if claim 9 refers to the first or second or both passages of claim 1. As a result, it is unclear if both the first and second passages include respective curved portions as claimed. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting at least one passage include a curved portion to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
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.
This application currently called 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) 1-5, 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230011063 to Kegg (hereinafter “KEGG”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180106270 to Pagnier (hereinafter “PAGNIER”).
KEGG discloses a vacuum cleaner 14 substantially as claimed, comprising; a main body 10; and an portion (the interior of the main body), the intake portion comprising: a motor 18; a shaft connected to the motor; an impeller 38 configured to draw in air while rotating with the shaft; and a diffuser including: a first casing 90 having cylindrical shape and a hole through which the shaft passes to connect to the impeller; a second casing 86 formed outside of the first casing so that an inner surface of the second casing is spaced apart from an outer surface of the first casing along the outer surface the first casing; a diffuser flow path A formed between the first casing and the second casing; and a plurality of diffuser vanes 106 disposed between the outer surface of the first casing and the inner surface of the second casing thereby connecting the first casing and the second casing and positioning in the diffuser flow path, and configured to guide the air discharged from the impeller, wherein each of the plurality of diffuser vanes includes: a vane body (the airfoil shape of 106) and wherein each of the plurality of diffuser vanes is formed integrally with the first casing and the second casing (para. 0038) (claim 1).
However, KEGG does not disclose the vane body having a passage configured to cross through a portion of the vane body (claim 1), does not disclose that the vane body comprises: a first surface arranged on one side of the vane body to form an airfoil shape in cross-section; a second surface forming an other side of the first surface and connected to the first surface, and wherein the passage is formed by penetrating from the first surface to the second surface (claim 2), does not disclose that the passage includes: an entry portion formed on the second surface; and an exit portion connected to the entry portion and formed on the first surface (claim 3), does not disclose that the passage is configured to be inclined with respect to an axial direction of the impeller (claim 4), does not disclose that the entry portion and the exit portion have different positions in a thickness direction of the diffuser vane (claim 5), does not disclose that the passage is formed along a center line of the vane body (claim 10), does not disclose that the passage is formed along an upper side of a center line of the diffuser vanes (claim 11), and does not disclose that the first passage is formed an upper side of the center line and the second passage is formed a lower side of the center line (claim 14).
PAGNIER shows an impeller 1 and a diffuser with vane bodies 4 each having a plurality of passages 8, see Fig. 8, including a first passage and a second passage, configured to cross through a portion of the vane body, the vane body comprises: a first surface arranged on one side of the vane body to form an airfoil shape in cross-section, a second surface forming an other side of the first surface and connected to the first surface, and wherein the passages are formed by penetrating from the first surface to the second surface, the passages include: an entry portion formed on the second surface; and, an exit portion connected to the entry portion and formed on the first surface; the passages are configured to be inclined with respect to an axial direction of the impeller (see Fig. 8, wherein the passages extend at an incline perpendicular to the axial direction, i.e. the uppermost passage is further to the left than the lowermost passage, also, see Fig. 11 and note the airfoil shape of the diffuser vanes and passages, such that the entry and exit openings are offset), the entry portion and the exit portion have different positions in a thickness direction of the diffuser vane (see Fig. 11), the first passages are uppermost passages and are formed along an upper side of a center line of the diffuser vanes (see annotated Fig. 8 below, and note the first passage is radially above the center line), the second passages are either the central passage extending through the center line of the diffuser vanes or are the lowermost passages and formed along a lower side of a center line of the diffuser vanes (see annotated Fig. 8 below, and note the second passage is radially below the center line).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
NOTE ON PRIOR ART AND CLAIM INTERPRETATIONS:
The center line of PAGNIER is considered to be a line through the center of the diffuser vanes extending along the circumferential direction, wherein the upper side or lower side of the center line is considered to be on either side of the center line in the radial direction. In contrast, it appears the instant application considers the upper side and lower side to be on either side of the center line in the axial direction; however, the claims only recite “a center line of the plurality of diffuser vanes” without any reference to the axial direction. Thus, the embodiment of PAGNIER Fig. 8 is relied upon to teach the claimed limitations of: the first passage is formed along an upper side of a center line of the plurality of diffuser vanes (claim 1) and the second passage is formed along a lower side of the center line of the plurality of diffuser vanes (claim 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the device of KEGG such that the vane bodies have a first and second passages configured to cross through a portion of the vane body, such that the vane body comprises: a first surface arranged on one side of the vane body to form an airfoil shape in cross- section; a second surface forming an other side of the first surface and connected to the first surface, and wherein the passages are formed by penetrating from the first surface to the second surface, such that the passages include: an entry portion formed on the second surface; and an exit portion connected to the entry portion and formed on the first surface, such that the passage is configured to be inclined with respect to an axial direction of the impeller, such that the entry portion and the exit portion have different positions in a thickness direction of the diffuser vane, such that the first passage is formed along an upper side of a center line of the diffuser vanes, such that the second passage is either formed along the center line of the diffuser vanes or along a lower side of the center line of the diffuser vanes, as taught by PAGNIER, for the purpose of reducing hydraulic instabilities such as rotating stalls (PAGNIER para. 0014).
Although PAGNIER is directed towards a diffuser of an axial flow pumping device, KEGG and PAGNIER are both directed towards turbomachines which both experience axial flow through the diffuser, and both would be subject to the same problem of hydraulic instabilities such as rotating stalls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably looked to the art of axial flow pumping devices with an axial flow diffuser in order to solve the problem of reducing hydraulic instabilities such as rotating stalls.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) is/are 6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are objected to due to dependence from claim 6.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
(A) Regarding Claim(s) 6:
Claim(s) 6 is/are deemed novel and nonobvious over the cited art due to the inclusion of the limitation “the entry portion and the exit portion have different positions in a width direction of the diffuser vane” which, in combination with the other requirements of the claim(s), is neither taught nor suggested by the cited prior art as a whole, either alone or in combination. Specifically, the cited art teaches the claimed limitation for a single passage (e.g. see Fig. 7 of PAGNIER); however, when the cited art teaches an embodiment with multiple passages (e.g. see Fig. 8 of PAGNIER), the passages extend through the vane circumferentially with unvaried height between the entry and exit portions, wherein to achieve the same effect as the single passage, the multiple passages are offset in the width direction such that the passages are arranged at an incline in the radial direction to provide entry and exit flow at the same locations along the width. Thus, the cited art fails to disclose a first and second passage having entry and exit portions different in a width direction of the vane, and it would not have been obvious to modify the multiple passages to have the claimed limitation because the cited art teaches arranging the passages in the radial direction at an incline to provide the desired entry and exit flow pattern of a single passage.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL EDWARD WIEHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8648. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 7-4:30 EST.
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at (571) 272-4037. 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.
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights