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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is CHRISTOPHER.LEGENDRE@USPTO.GOV.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered. The arguments/remarks are addressed below:
-“The Examiner's position appears to require the originally filed specification to expressly support every numerical location within the "50% or less" boundary. That is not the written description standard.” - To clarify/reiterate, the Office’s position is that the “length” range of values and/or the envelope of values resulting from the combination of ranges (i.e., the combination of “the angular distribution reaches the maximum range of values within 50% or less” and “the maximum range [of the angular distribution] of values varies by less than 0.5 degrees”) as produced by an amendment to the claims amounts to a recitation of values that are not supported by the originally filed disclosure. Reference is made to the following MPEP sections pertaining to the written description standard:
- MPEP 2163 I B: “newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure”;
- MPEP 2163.05 states “The failure to meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, commonly arises when the claims are changed after filing… to alter a numerical range limitation” (emphasis added)”
- MPEP 2163.05 III states “A corresponding new claim limitation to "at least 35%" did not meet the description requirement because the phrase "at least" had no upper limit and caused the claim to read literally on embodiments outside the "25% to 60%" range, however a limitation to "between 35% and 60%" did meet the description requirement” (emphasis added).
-“The question is whether the disclosure reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the claimed vane-profile class-i.e., a profile in which the maximum occurs within the forward half of the vane length followed by a downstream plateau behavior.” - As established by the above MPEP sections, the question in regards to evaluating written description support for a claimed range of values is whether the originally filed disclosure includes the claimed range of values. A narrower range of values does not imply and, thus, cannot provide support for, a broader range of values.
-“The Examiner's rejection applies an unduly stringent and legally incorrect standard by requiring exhaustive numerical disclosure within a bounded range and by treating the claim as a demand for support of every intermediate value” - There is no requirement for “an exhaustive numerical disclosure within a bounded range” in the Office’s position - rather, the written description rejection(s) is/are made on the basis that the claimed “length” range of values and/or the envelope of values resulting from the combination of ranges as produced by an amendment to the claims extends beyond that which is supported by the originally filed disclosure. The above mentioned MPEP sections establish that a claimed value(s) that is/are outside an originally disclosed range(s) fail(s) the written description requirement. The increase of the claimed “35%” to “50%” amounts to an extension of this claimed range and/or an extension of the envelope of values resulting from the combination of claimed ranges.
Applicant’s arguments filed 20 January 2026 stating “With respect to claims 12-14, Applicant respectfully traverses the assertion of statutory double patenting, as those claims do not claim the same invention as Hughes but instead recite vane geometries defined by normalized distributions, tabulated shape data, and scalable curve definitions not claimed in Hughes” have been fully considered. The Office notes that claim 13 has been amended, and so the basis for the double patenting rejection is now deemed to be non-statutory. In regards to claims 12 and 14, it is unclear what distinction exists between the present claims and the corresponding Hughes claims.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
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: addition of the limitations of claim 28 to the specification.
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 1-6, 12-15, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “the angular distribution reaches the maximum range of values within 50% or less along the length of the vane from the leading edge” in combination with the antecedent limitation “an angular distribution of the vanes increases along the length of the vane from a first value at the leading edge to a maximum range of values and thereafter remains within the maximum range of values, wherein the maximum range of values varies by less than 0.5 degrees” 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 does not provide implicit or explicit support for the combination of the claimed parameters having these values. The only possible support in the disclosure for these limitations is Table 2 and/or Table 8 - however, the instant limitations establish an envelope of values that extends beyond those disclosed in Table 2 and/or Table 8. For example, it can be shown:
- from analysis of Table 2, the maximum range of values corresponding with 0.5 degrees that would satisfy within 50% or less along the length spans the length from 41.666666666% (i.e., the location of the maximum value of angle) to approximately 32% (i.e., determined by interpolating between the points that bound the value resulting from the mathematical operation 1.20642288 - 0.5*pi/180) - accordingly, the range “50% or less along the length”, considered in the context of a “maximum range of values” of 0.5 degrees, includes values that are not in the range of 41.66666666% to approximately 32%;
- from analysis of Table 8, the angle values aft of the maximum value of 1.2418039 radians define a range that is greater than 0.5 degrees.
The above examples are not an exhaustive list of the incongruity - the originally filed disclosure does not support the envelope of values established by the claimed combination of ranges in various aspects and/or for other values of the claimed ranges.
Due to similar instances, this rejection also applies to claims 15 and 26, 27, 29, and 30. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 2-6, 12-14, and 28 (note: the limitations of claim 28 are supported by the originally filed disclosure - see original claim 1 filed 17 July 2024).
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “an angular distribution remains within a defined range of the maximum value from the location of the maximum to the trailing edge” 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 recitation “a defined range” is unbounded in both directions, and the originally filed disclosure does not provide support for the instant limitation being present with any value of “a defined range”. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-6, 12-14, and 26-30.
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 1-6, 12-14, and 26-30 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 1, the limitation recited as “a defined range of the maximum value from the location of the maximum to the trailing edge” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to the antecedent limitation “a maximum range of values” (note: the recitation stating “an angular distribution of the vanes increases along the length of the vane from a first value at the leading edge to a maximum range of values and thereafter remains within the maximum range of values” indicates that “maximum range of values” extends from “first value” across the remaining length) or introducing a new limitation. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-6, 12-14, and 26-30.
In claim 1, the term “a defined range” is a relative term (since it can be any value) which renders the claim indefinite since it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-6, 12-14, and 26-30.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 2, 13, 15, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 2, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, and 1, respectively, of Hughes (US 12,065,938; cited in an IDS).
In reference to claim 1 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Although claim 1 of the instant application is not identical to Hughes claim 1, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The application claim 1 is broader in at least one aspect.
Application claim 1
Hughes claim 1
A variable geometry turbine comprising:
a turbine housing defining an inlet and an outlet;
a turbine wheel rotatably mounted in the turbine housing between the inlet and the outlet such that the turbine wheel can rotate about an axis;
a movable wall member mounted in the housing so as to be movable relative to the housing between at least a first position and a second position, the movable wall member partially defining an inlet passageway between the inlet and the turbine wheel, the inlet passageway being radially outboard of the turbine wheel, a dimension of the inlet passageway being dependent on the position of the movable wall member relative to the housing; and
a plurality of vanes extending across the inlet passageway, the vanes being circumferentially spaced;
wherein in cross section each of the vanes has an elongate shape extending from a leading edge which is closer to the inlet to a trailing edge which is closer to the turbine wheel and wherein a perpendicular thickness of the vane 5% along the length of the vane from the leading edge is at least 50% of the maximum perpendicular thickness of the vane; and wherein an angular distribution of the vanes increases along the length of the vane from a first value at the leading edge to a maximum range of values and thereafter remains within the maximum range of values, wherein the maximum range of values varies by less than 0.5 degrees and wherein the angular distribution reaches the maximum range of values within 50% or less along the length of the vane from the leading edge such that an angular distribution remains within a defined range of the maximum value from the location of the maximum to the trailing edge (note: the clause within a defined range of the maximum is not structurally limiting since defined range can be chosen as any range that includes the relevant values)
A variable geometry turbine comprising:
a turbine housing defining an inlet and an outlet;
a turbine wheel rotatably mounted in the turbine housing between the inlet and the outlet such that the turbine wheel can rotate about an axis;
a movable wall member mounted in the housing so as to be movable relative to the housing between at least a first position and a second position, the movable wall member partially defining an inlet passageway between the inlet and the turbine wheel, the inlet passageway being radially outboard of the turbine wheel, a dimension of the inlet passageway being dependent on a position of the movable wall member relative to the housing; and
a plurality of vanes extending across the inlet passageway, the vanes being circumferentially spaced;
wherein in cross section each of the vanes has an elongate shape extending from a leading edge which is closer to the inlet to a trailing edge which is closer to the turbine wheel and wherein the vanes have a shape defined by the thickness distribution in Table 1 and the angular distribution in Table 2.
(notes: Table 1 includes values that address a perpendicular thickness of the vane 5% along the length of the vane from the leading edge is at least 50% of the maximum perpendicular thickness of the vane and values that are broader in at least one aspect; Table 2 includes values that address an angular distribution of the vanes increases along the length of the vane from a first value at the leading edge to a maximum range of values and thereafter remains within the maximum range of values, wherein the maximum range of values varies by less than 0.5 degrees and wherein the angular distribution reaches the maximum range of values within 50% or less along the length of the vane from the leading edge and values that are broader in at least one aspect)
Thus, it is apparent, for the broadening aspect, that Hughes claim 1 includes features that are not in application claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has a patent containing a claim for a specific or narrow invention, applicant may not then obtain a patent for a second invention with a claim for a generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since application claim 1 is anticipated by Hughes claim 1, with respect to the broadening aspect, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 1 is obvious over Hughes claim 1 with respect to the broadening aspect.
In reference to claim 2
Hughes claim 1 addresses:
The variable geometry turbine of claim 1 wherein a perpendicular thickness of the vane 95% along the length of the vane from the leading edge is at least 40% of the maximum perpendicular thickness of the vane (note: Table 1 of Hughes claim 1 includes values that address a perpendicular thickness of the vane 95% along the length of the vane from the leading edge is at least 40% of the maximum perpendicular thickness of the vane and values that are broader in at least one aspect).
In reference to claim 13
Although claim 13 of the instant application is not identical to Hughes claim 2, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The application claim 13 is broader in at least one aspect.
Application claim 13 (via claim 1)
Hughes claim 2
1. A variable geometry turbine comprising:
a turbine housing defining an inlet and an outlet;
a turbine wheel rotatably mounted in the turbine housing between the inlet and the outlet such that the turbine wheel can rotate about an axis;
a movable wall member mounted in the housing so as to be movable relative to the housing between at least a first position and a second position, the movable wall member partially defining an inlet passageway between the inlet and the turbine wheel, the inlet passageway being radially outboard of the turbine wheel, a dimension of the inlet passageway being dependent on the position of the movable wall member relative to the housing; and
a plurality of vanes extending across the inlet passageway, the vanes being circumferentially spaced;
wherein in cross section each of the vanes has an elongate shape extending from a leading edge which is closer to the inlet to a trailing edge which is closer to the turbine wheel and wherein a perpendicular thickness of the vane 5% along the length of the vane from the leading edge is at least 50% of the maximum perpendicular thickness of the vane; and wherein an angular distribution of the vanes increases along the length of the vane from a first value at the leading edge to a maximum range of values and thereafter remains within the maximum range of values, wherein the maximum range of values varies by less than 0.5 degrees and wherein the angular distribution reaches the maximum range of values within 50% or less along the length of the vane from the leading edge such that an angular distribution remains within a defined range of the maximum value from the location of the maximum to the trailing edge.
13. The variable geometry turbine of claim 1 wherein the actual thickness of the
vanes, with an end treatment at each of the leading and trailing edges, is the thickness
distribution in Table 13.
A variable geometry turbine comprising:
a turbine housing defining an inlet and an outlet;
a turbine wheel rotatably mounted in the turbine housing between the inlet and the outlet such that the turbine wheel can rotate about an axis;
a movable wall member mounted in the housing so as to be movable relative to the housing between at least a first position and a second position, the movable wall member partially defining an inlet passageway between the inlet and the turbine wheel, the inlet passageway being radially outboard of the turbine wheel, a dimension of the inlet passageway being dependent on a position of the movable wall member relative to the housing; and
a plurality of vanes extending across the inlet passageway, the vanes being circumferentially spaced;
wherein in cross section each of the vanes has an elongate shape extending from a leading edge which is closer to the inlet to a trailing edge which is closer to the turbine wheel and wherein the vanes have a shape defined by the thickness distribution in Table 13 and the angular distribution in Table 2.
(notes: Table 13 includes values that address a perpendicular thickness of the vane 5% along the length of the vane from the leading edge is at least 50% of the maximum perpendicular thickness of the vane and values that are broader in at least one aspect; Table 2 includes values that address an angular distribution of the vanes increases along the length of the vane from a first value at the leading edge to a maximum range of values and thereafter remains within the maximum range of values, wherein the maximum range of values varies by less than 0.5 degrees and wherein the angular distribution reaches the maximum range of values within 50% or less along the length of the vane from the leading edge and values that are broader in at least one aspect)
In reference to claim 15
Although claim 15 of the instant application is not identical to Hughes claim 4, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The application claim 15 is broader in at least one aspect.
Application claim 15
Hughes claim 4
A movable wall member for use in a variable geometry turbine; wherein the movable wall member is suitable for being movably mounted in a housing of the variable geometry turbine so as to partially define an inlet passageway of the turbine; and wherein the movable wall member comprises a generally annular wall which supports a plurality of circumferentially spaced vanes, the cross section of each of the vanes having an elongate shape extending from a radially outer leading edge to a radially inner trailing edge and wherein a perpendicular thickness of the vane 5% along the length of the vane from the leading edge is at least 50% of the maximum perpendicular thickness of the vane; and wherein an angular distribution of the vanes increases along the length of the vane from a first value at the leading edge to a maximum range of values and thereafter remains within the maximum range of values, wherein the maximum range of values varies by less than 0.5 degrees and wherein the angular distribution of the vane increases along the length of the vane from the leading edge to a maximum angular value, and the angular distribution of the vane deviates from the maximum angular value by no more than 0.5 degrees between the location of the maximum angular value and the trailing edge of the vane.
A movable wall member for use in a variable geometry turbine; wherein the movable wall member is suitable for being movably mounted in a housing of the variable geometry turbine so as to partially define an inlet passageway of the turbine; and wherein the movable wall member comprises a generally annular wall which supports a plurality of circumferentially spaced vanes, the cross section of each of the vanes having an elongate shape extending from a radially outer leading edge to a radially inner trailing edge and wherein the vanes have a shape defined by the thickness distribution in Table 1 and the angular distribution in Table 2.
(notes: Table 1 includes values that address a perpendicular thickness of the vane 5% along the length of the vane from the leading edge is at least 50% of the maximum perpendicular thickness of the vane and values that are broader in at least one aspect; Table 2 includes values that address an angular distribution of the vanes increases along the length of the vane from a first value at the leading edge to a maximum range of values and thereafter remains within the maximum range of values, wherein the maximum range of values varies by less than 0.5 degrees and wherein the angular distribution of the vane increases along the length of the vane from the leading edge to a maximum angular value, and the angular distribution of the vane deviates from the maximum angular value by no more than 0.5 degrees between the location of the maximum angular value and the trailing edge of the vane)
In reference to claim 26
Hughes claim 1 addresses:
The variable geometry turbine of claim 1, wherein the angular distribution reaches the maximum range of values within 45% or less along the length of the vane from the leading edge (note: Hughes Table 2 includes values that addresses the instant limitations).
In reference to claim 27
Hughes claim 1 addresses:
The variable geometry turbine of claim 1, wherein the angular distribution reaches the maximum range of values within 40% or less along the length of the vane from the leading edge (note: Hughes Table 2 includes values that addresses the instant limitations).
In reference to claim 28
Hughes claim 1 addresses:
The variable geometry turbine of claim 27, wherein the angular distribution reaches the maximum range of values within 35% or less along the length of the vane from the leading edge (note: Hughes Table 2 includes values that addresses the instant limitations).
In reference to claim 29
Hughes claim 1 addresses:
The variable geometry turbine of claim 1, wherein the angular distribution reaches the maximum range of values within a range of 35% to 45% along the length of the vane from the leading edge (note: Hughes Table 2 includes values that addresses the instant limitations).
In reference to claim 30
Hughes claim 1 addresses:
The variable geometry turbine of claim 1, wherein the angular distribution reaches the maximum range of values within a range of 40% to 50% along the length of the vane from the leading edge (note: Hughes Table 2 includes values that addresses the instant limitations).
Claims 3-5 and 7-10 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Hughes claim 1 in view of Nasir (US 2015/0086396; cited in an IDS).
In reference to claim 3
Hughes claim 1 addresses:
The variable geometry turbine of claim 1.
Hughes claim 1 does not address:
the vanes and the turbine wheel are arranged such that a ratio of a radius of the trailing edge of each of the vanes to a radius of a leading edge of the turbine wheel is 1.2 or greater.
Nasir discloses:
a nozzle assembly for a radial turbine assembly comprising a plurality of vanes (76), wherein the configuration/geometry of the radial turbine assembly is defined by (see pars. [0047] and [0048]):
(1) a vane inlet radius ratio, which is the ratio of the radius (r2) of the nozzle vane leading edge to a radius (r1) of the leading edge of the turbine wheel vanes (78);
(2) a vane exit radius ratio, which is the ratio of the radius (r3) of the nozzle vane trailing edge to a radius (r1) of the leading edge of the turbine wheel vanes (78);
(3) a stagger angle (φV) of the nozzle vanes;
(4) solidity ratio (SRV) of the vanes;
which are indicated as effecting (see pars. [0048] and [0053]) vane aerodynamics, vane torque loading, vane structural integrity, performance/efficiency of the turbine wheel, loading/life of the turbine wheel, etc.
Furthermore, it is apparent that a combination of above parameters (1) through (4), primarily parameter (2), dictates “a ratio of a radius of the trailing edge of each of the vanes to a radius of the leading edge of the turbine wheel is 1.2 or greater”, and, thus, such ratio is recognized by Nasir as a result-effective variable, and it is noted that Applicant has not disclosed any criticality to the claimed “variable geometry turbine” having a geometry/configuration that is defined by “a ratio of a radius of the trailing edge of each of the vanes to a radius of a leading edge of the turbine wheel is 1.2 or greater” alone or in combination with the antecedent limitations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turbine assembly of Hughes claim 1 to include the specified radius ratio for the purpose of configuring the turbine assembly to achieve desired performance characteristics (see Nasir pars. [0048] and [0053]) based on the expected operating conditions.
In reference to claim 4
Hughes claim 1 addresses:
The variable geometry turbine of claim 1.
Hughes claim 1 does not address:
the vanes and the turbine wheel are arranged such that a ratio of a radius of the leading edge of each of the vanes to a radius of the trailing edge of each of the vanes is 1.2 or greater.
Nasir discloses:
a nozzle assembly for a radial turbine assembly comprising a plurality of vanes (76), wherein the configuration/geometry of the radial turbine assembly is defined by (see pars. [0047] and [0048]):
(1) a vane inlet radius ratio, which is the ratio of the radius (r2) of the nozzle vane leading edge to a radius (r1) of the leading edge of the turbine wheel vanes (78);
(2) a vane exit radius ratio, which is the ratio of the radius (r3) of the nozzle vane trailing edge to a radius (r1) of the leading edge of the turbine wheel vanes (78);
(3) a stagger angle (φV) of the nozzle vanes;
(4) solidity ratio (SRV) of the vanes;
which are indicated as affecting (see pars. [0048] and [0053]) vane aerodynamics, vane torque loading, vane structural integrity, performance/efficiency of the turbine wheel, loading/life of the turbine wheel, etc.
Furthermore, it is apparent that a combination of above parameters (1) through (4), primarily parameters (1) and (2), dictates “a ratio of a radius of the leading edge of each of the vanes to a radius of the trailing edge of each of the vanes”, and, thus, such ratio is recognized by Nasir as a result-effective variable, and it is noted that Applicant has not disclosed any criticality to the claimed “variable geometry turbine” having a geometry/configuration that is defined by “the vanes and the turbine wheel are arranged such that a ratio of a radius of the leading edge of each of the vanes to a radius of the trailing edge of each of the vanes is 1.2 or greater” alone or in combination with the antecedent limitations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turbine assembly of Hughes claim 1 to include the specified radius ratio for the purpose of configuring the turbine assembly to achieve desired performance characteristics (see Nasir pars. [0048] and [0053]) based on the expected operating conditions.
In reference to claim 5
Hughes claim 1 addresses:
The variable geometry turbine of claim 1.
Hughes claim 1 does not address:
the vanes and the turbine wheel are arranged such that a solidity ratio of the vanes is in a range of from 1.1 to 1.3.
Nasir discloses:
a nozzle assembly for a radial turbine assembly comprising a plurality of vanes (76), wherein the configuration/geometry of the radial turbine assembly is defined by (see pars. [0047] and [0048]):
(1) a vane inlet radius ratio, which is the ratio of the radius (r2) of the nozzle vane leading edge to a radius (r1) of the leading edge of the turbine wheel vanes (78);
(2) a vane exit radius ratio, which is the ratio of the radius (r3) of the nozzle vane trailing edge to a radius (r1) of the leading edge of the turbine wheel vanes (78);
(3) a stagger angle (φV) of the nozzle vanes;
(4) solidity ratio (SRV) of the vanes;
which are indicated as affecting (see pars. [0048] and [0053]) vane aerodynamics, vane torque loading, vane structural integrity, performance/efficiency of the turbine wheel, loading/life of the turbine wheel, etc.
Furthermore, it is apparent that above parameter (4) equates to “a solidity ratio of the vanes”, and, thus, such ratio is recognized by Nasir as a result-effective variable, and it is noted that Applicant has not disclosed any criticality to the claimed “variable geometry turbine” having a geometry/configuration that is defined by “the vanes and the turbine wheel are arranged such that a solidity ratio of the vanes is in a range of from 1.1 to 1.3” alone or in combination with antecedent limitations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turbine assembly of Hughes claim 1 to include the specified solidity ratio for the purpose of configuring the turbine assembly to achieve desired performance characteristics (see Nasir pars. [0048] and [0053]) based on the expected operating conditions.
In reference to claim 7
Although claim 7 of the instant application is not identical to Hughes claim 1, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The application claim 7 is broader in at least one aspect and includes additional features not recited in Hughes claim 1.
Application claim 7
Hughes claim 1
A variable geometry turbine comprising:
a turbine housing defining an inlet and an outlet;
a turbine wheel rotatably mounted in the turbine housing between the inlet and the outlet such that the turbine wheel can rotate about an axis;
a movable wall member mounted in the housing so as to be movable relative to the housing between at least a first position and a second position, the movable wall member partially defining an inlet passageway between the inlet and the turbine wheel, the inlet passageway being radially outboard of the turbine wheel, a dimension of the inlet passageway being dependent on the position of the movable wall member relative to the housing; and
a plurality of vanes extending across the inlet passageway, the vanes being circumferentially spaced;
wherein in cross section each of the vanes has an elongate shape extending from a leading edge which is closer to the inlet to a trailing edge which is closer to the turbine wheel and wherein a perpendicular thickness of the vane 95% along the length of the vane from the leading edge is at least 50% of the maximum perpendicular thickness of the vane; and
wherein the vanes and the turbine wheel are arranged such that a ratio of a radius of the trailing edge of each of the vanes to a radius of a leading edge of the turbine wheel is 1.2 or greater.
A variable geometry turbine comprising:
a turbine housing defining an inlet and an outlet;
a turbine wheel rotatably mounted in the turbine housing between the inlet and the outlet such that the turbine wheel can rotate about an axis;
a movable wall member mounted in the housing so as to be movable relative to the housing between at least a first position and a second position, the movable wall member partially defining an inlet passageway between the inlet and the turbine wheel, the inlet passageway being radially outboard of the turbine wheel, a dimension of the inlet passageway being dependent on a position of the movable wall member relative to the housing; and
a plurality of vanes extending across the inlet passageway, the vanes being circumferentially spaced;
wherein in cross section each of the vanes has an elongate shape extending from a leading edge which is closer to the inlet to a trailing edge which is closer to the turbine wheel and wherein the vanes have a shape defined by the thickness distribution in Table 1 and the angular distribution in Table 2.
(note: Table 1 includes values that address a perpendicular thickness of the vane 95% along the length of the vane from the leading edge is at least 40% of the maximum perpendicular thickness of the vane and values that are broader in at least one aspect)
Thus, it is apparent, for the broadening aspect, that Hughes claim 1 includes features that are not in application claim 7. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has a patent containing a claim for a specific or narrow invention, applicant may not then obtain a patent for a second invention with a claim for a generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since application claim 7 is anticipated by Hughes claim 1, with respect to the broadening aspect, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 7 is obvious over Hughes claim 1 with respect to the broadening aspect.
With respect to the additional features recited (see the underlined features above) in application claim 7, Hughes claim 1 does not address:
wherein the vanes and the turbine wheel are arranged such that a ratio of a radius of the trailing edge of each of the vanes to a radius of a leading edge of the turbine wheel is 1.2 or greater.
Nasir discloses:
a nozzle assembly for a radial turbine assembly comprising a plurality of vanes (76), wherein the configuration/geometry of the radial turbine assembly is defined by (see pars. [0047] and [0048]):
(1) a vane inlet radius ratio, which is the ratio of the radius (r2) of the nozzle vane leading edge to a radius (r1) of the leading edge of the turbine wheel vanes (78);
(2) a vane exit radius ratio, which is the ratio of the radius (r3) of the nozzle vane trailing edge to a radius (r1) of the leading edge of the turbine wheel vanes (78);
(3) a stagger angle (φV) of the nozzle vanes;
(4) solidity ratio (SRV) of the vanes;
which are indicated as effecting (see pars. [0048] and [0053]) vane aerodynamics, vane torque loading, vane structural integrity, performance/efficiency of the turbine wheel, loading/life of the turbine wheel, etc;
the vanes maintain a consistent redirection of flow toward the turbine wheel (see Figure 3).
Furthermore, it is apparent that a combination of above parameters (1) through (4), primarily parameter (2), dictates “a ratio of a radius of the trailing edge of each of the vanes to a radius of the leading edge of the turbine wheel is 1.2 or greater”, and, thus, such ratio is recognized by Nasir as a result-effective variable, and it is noted that Applicant has not disclosed any criticality to the claimed “variable geometry turbine” having a geometry/configuration that is defined by “a ratio of a radius of the trailing edge of each of the vanes to a radius of a leading edge of the turbine wheel is 1.2 or greater” alone or in combination with the antecedent limitations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turbine assembly of Hughes claim 1 to include the specified radius ratio for the purpose of configuring the turbine assembly to achieve desired performance characteristics (see Nasir pars. [0048] and [0053]) based on the expected operating conditions, and to orient the vanes to maintain a consistent redirection of flow towards the turbine wheel, as disclosed by Nasir, for the purpose of limiting flow interference.
In reference to claim 8
Hughes claim 1 in view of Nasir addresses:
The variable geometry turbine of claim 7 wherein a perpendicular thickness of the vane 5% along the length of the vane from the leading edge is at least 50% of the maximum perpendicular thickness of the vane (note: Table 1 of Hughes includes values that address a perpendicular thickness of the vane 5% along the length of the vane from the leading edge is at least 50% of the maximum perpendicular thickness of the vane and values that are broader in at least one aspect)
In reference to claim 9
Hughes claim 1 in view of Nasir addresses:
The variable geometry turbine of claim 7.
Hughes claim 1 in view of Nasir, as previously presented, does not address:
the vanes and the turbine wheel are arranged such that a ratio of a radial distance from the axis of rotation to the leading edge of each of the vanes to a radial distance from the axis of rotation to the trailing edge of each of the vanes is 1.2 or greater.
Nasir discloses:
a nozzle assembly for a radial turbine assembly comprising a plurality of vanes (76), wherein the configuration/geometry of the radial turbine assembly is defined by (see pars. [0047] and [0048]):
(1) a vane inlet radius ratio, which is the ratio of the radius (r2) of the nozzle vane leading edge to a radius (r1) of the leading edge of the turbine wheel vanes (78);
(2) a vane exit radius ratio, which is the ratio of the radius (r3) of the nozzle vane trailing edge to a radius (r1) of the leading edge of the turbine wheel vanes (78);
(3) a stagger angle (φV) of the nozzle vanes;
(4) solidity ratio (SRV) of the vanes;
which are indicated as effecting (see pars. [0048] and [0053]) vane aerodynamics, vane torque loading, vane structural integrity, performance/efficiency of the turbine wheel, loading/life of the turbine wheel, etc.
Furthermore, it is apparent that a combination of above parameters (1) through (4), primarily parameters (1) and (2), dictates “a ratio of a radius of the leading edge of each of the vanes to a radius of the trailing edge of each of the vanes”, and, thus, such ratio is recognized by Nasir as a result-effective variable, and it is noted that Applicant has not disclosed any criticality to the claimed “variable geometry turbine” having a geometry/configuration that is defined by “the vanes and the turbine wheel are arranged such that a ratio of a radius of the leading edge of each of the vanes to a radius of the trailing edge of each of the vanes is 1.2 or greater” alone or in combination with the antecedent limitations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turbine assembly of Hughes claim 1 in view of Nasir to include the specified radius ratio for the purpose of configuring the turbine assembly to achieve desired performance characteristics (see Nasir pars. [0048] and [0053]) based on the expected operating conditions.
In reference to claim 10
Hughes claim 1 in view of Nasir addresses:
The variable geometry turbine of claim 7.
Hughes claim 1 in view of Nasir, as previously presented, does not address:
the vanes and the turbine wheel are arranged such that solidity ratio of the vanes is in a range of from 1.1 to 1.3.
Nasir further discloses:
a nozzle assembly for a radial turbine assembly comprising a plurality of vanes (76), wherein the configuration/geometry of the radial turbine assembly is defined by (see pars. [0047] and [0048]):
(1) a vane inlet radius ratio, which is the ratio of the radius (r2) of the nozzle vane leading edge to a radius (r1) of the leading edge of the turbine wheel vanes (78);
(2) a vane exit radius ratio, which is the ratio of the radius (r3) of the nozzle vane trailing edge to a radius (r1) of the leading edge of the turbine wheel vanes (78);
(3) a stagger angle (φV) of the nozzle vanes;
(4) solidity ratio (SRV) of the vanes;
which are indicated as effecting (see pars. [0048] and [0053]) vane aerodynamics, vane torque loading, vane structural integrity, performance/efficiency of the turbine wheel, loading/life of the turbine wheel, etc.
Furthermore, it is apparent that the above parameter (4) equates to “a solidity ratio of the vanes”, and, thus, such ratio is recognized by Nasir as a result-effective variable, and it is noted that Applicant has not disclosed any criticality to the claimed “variable geometry turbine” having a geometry/configuration that is defined by “the vanes and the turbine wheel are arranged such that
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turbine assembly of Hughes claim 1 in view of Nasir to include the specified radius ratio for the purpose of configuring the turbine assembly to achieve desired performance characteristics (see Nasir pars. [0048] and [0053]) based on the expected operating conditions.
Claim 6 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Hughes claim 1 in view of Vogiatzis et al. (US 7,255,530 - hereafter referred to as Vogiatzis; cited in an IDS), and wherein Narehood et al. (US 9,932,843 - hereafter referred to as Narehood; cited in an IDS) is cited on an evidentiary basis.
In reference to claim 6
Hughes claim 1 addresses:
The variable geometry turbine of claim 1.
Hughes claim 1 does not address:
the leading edge of the vanes is provided with an elliptical end treatment having a ratio of a major axis to a minor axis of at least 1.5.
Vogiatzis discloses:
a vane for a radial turbine assembly comprising a leading edge having an elliptical end treatment with a ratio of a major axis to a minor axis of 2 to 4 (see col.5:ll.38-42).
Narehood teaches that the geometry of a vane of a radial turbine nozzle assembly is selected to achieve particular fluid flow characteristics during use (see col.8:ll.29-45).
Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality to the claimed “variable geometry turbine” having a geometry/configuration that is defined by “an elliptical end treatment having a ratio of a major axis to a minor axis of at least 1.5” alone or in combination with antecedent limitations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turbine assembly of Hughes claim 1 to include the claimed leading edge treatment for the purpose of configuring the turbine assembly to achieve desired performance characteristics based on the expected operating conditions.
Claim 11 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Hughes claim 1 in view of Nasir and Vogiatzis, and wherein Narehood is cited on an evidentiary basis.
In reference to claim 11
Hughes claim 1 in view of Nasir addresses:
The variable geometry turbine of claim 7.
Hughes claim 1 in view of Nasir does not address:
the leading edge of the vanes is provided with an elliptical end treatment having a ratio of a major axis to a minor axis of at least 1.5.
Vogiatzis discloses:
a vane for a radial turbine assembly comprising a leading edge having an elliptical end treatment with a ratio of a major axis to a minor axis of 2 to 4 (see col.5:ll.38-42).
Narehood teaches that the geometry of a vane of a radial turbine nozzle assembly is selected to achieve particular fluid flow characteristics during use (see col.8:ll.29-45).
Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality to the claimed “variable geometry turbine” having a geometry/configuration that is defined by “an elliptical end treatment having a ratio of a major axis to a minor axis of at least 1.5” alone or in combination with antecedent limitations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turbine assembly of Hughes claim 1 in view of Nasir to include the claimed leading edge treatment for the purpose of configuring the turbine assembly to achieve desired performance characteristics based on the expected operating conditions.
Statutory Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as Hughes claim 1. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
In reference to claim 12
The following comparison shows how application claim 12 corresponds with Hughes claim 1.
Application claim 12 (via claim 1)
Hughes claim 1
1. A variable geometry turbine comprising:
a turbine housing defining an inlet and an outlet;
a turbine wheel rotatably mounted in the turbine housing between the inlet and the outlet such that the turbine wheel can rotate about an axis;
a movable wall member mounted in the housing so as to be movable relative to the housing between at least a first position and a second position, the movable wall member partially defining an inlet passageway between the inlet and the turbine wheel, the inlet passageway being radially outboard of the turbine wheel, a dimension of the inlet passageway being dependent on the position of the movable wall member relative to the housing; and
a plurality of vanes extending across the inlet passageway, the vanes being circumferentially spaced;
wherein in cross section each of the vanes has an elongate shape extending from a leading edge which is closer to the inlet to a trailing edge which is closer to the turbine wheel and
12. The variable geometry turbine of claim 1
wherein the vanes have a shape at least partially defined by the thickness distribution in Table 1 and the angular distribution in Table 2.
(note: the limitations of claim 12 define the entire thickness distribution and angular distribution and, thus, replace the strike-through text of claim 1)
A variable geometry turbine comprising:
a turbine housing defining an inlet and an outlet;
a turbine wheel rotatably mounted in the turbine housing between the inlet and the outlet such that the turbine wheel can rotate about an axis;
a movable wall member mounted in the housing so as to be movable relative to the housing between at least a first position and a second position, the movable wall member partially defining an inlet passageway between the inlet and the turbine wheel, the inlet passageway being radially outboard of the turbine wheel, a dimension of the inlet passageway being dependent on a position of the movable wall member relative to the housing; and
a plurality of vanes extending across the inlet passageway, the vanes being circumferentially spaced;
wherein in cross section each of the vanes has an elongate shape extending from a leading edge which is closer to the inlet to a trailing edge which is closer to the turbine wheel and wherein the vanes have a shape defined by the thickness distribution in Table 1 and the angular distribution in Table 2.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as Hughes claim 3. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
In reference to claim 14
The following comparison shows how application claim 14 corresponds with Hughes claim 3.
Application claim 14 (via claim 1)
Hughes claim 3
1. A variable geometry turbine comprising:
a turbine housing defining an inlet and an outlet;
a turbine wheel rotatably mounted in the turbine housing between the inlet and the outlet such that the turbine wheel can rotate about an axis;
a movable wall member mounted in the housing so as to be movable relative to the housing between at least a first position and a second position, the movable wall member partially defining an inlet passageway between the inlet and the turbine wheel, the inlet passageway being radially outboard of the turbine wheel, a dimension of the inlet passageway being dependent on the position of the movable wall member relative to the housing; and
a plurality of vanes extending across the inlet passageway, the vanes being circumferentially spaced;
wherein in cross section each of the vanes has an elongate shape extending from a leading edge which is closer to the inlet to a trailing edge which is closer to the turbine wheel and
14. The variable geometry turbine of claim 1
wherein the vanes have a shape defined by the curves in Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 multiplied by a scale factor.
(note: the limitations of claim 14 define the entire thickness distribution and angular distribution and, thus, replace the strike-through text of claim 1)
A variable geometry turbine comprising:
a turbine housing defining an inlet and an outlet;
a turbine wheel rotatably mounted in the turbine housing between the inlet and the outlet such that the turbine wheel can rotate about an axis;
a movable wall member mounted in the housing so as to be movable relative to the housing between at least a first position and a second position, the movable wall member partially defining an inlet passageway between the inlet and the turbine wheel, the inlet passageway being radially outboard of the turbine wheel, a dimension of the inlet passageway being dependent on a position of the movable wall member relative to the housing; and
a plurality of vanes extending across the inlet passageway, the vanes being circumferentially spaced;
wherein in cross section each of the vanes has an elongate shape extending from a leading edge which is closer to the inlet to a trailing edge which is closer to the turbine wheel and wherein the vanes have a shape defined by the curves in Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 multiplied by a scale factor.
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