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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/6/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the passage” in line 11. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a passage” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claims 2-15 reach recite “Turbomachine” in line 1. For clarity of the claim, it should be “The turbomachine” since it is previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “each series” in line 112. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “each series of the inlet series” so that each series is tied back to the “inlet series”.
Claim 10 recites “the series” in line 4. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “the inlet series” since it is preciously recited as such.
Claim 10 recites “the load” in line 6. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a load” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the term “gradually” in line 14 and it is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” 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.
Claim 7 recites “ wherein the at least one helical conduit is a bladeless expander or wherein the at least one helical conduit is a bladeless compressor or a pump.” It is unclear how the conduit is in a bladeless expander, compressor or pump when claim 1 requires blades. While there is support for this within the specification, there is not a drawing to depict a bladeless embodiment.
Claim 16 depends off of claim 15. It is unclear how the turbomachine of claim 16 can be a turbocharger and should depend off of claim 1. A turbo charger by definition implies a blower that forces airflow into an engine being driven by exhaust gasses.
Claims 2-6 and 8-15 depend off of an indefinite claim, therefore rendering these claims indefinite.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 recites “optionally wherein the distributor comprises a plurality of orientable directional blades” and this is being interpreted as not required by the claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Binek et al. US 20230265761
Regarding claim 1, Binek discloses: Turbomachine (Fig 1: 20), comprising:
a case (Casing around the turbine 20);
a rotor (Fig 2: 40) positioned in the case so that it can rotate with respect to the case around its own longitudinal axis (22); wherein the rotor comprises:
- at least one blading (82) mounted on the rotor and arranged in a respective transit volume bounded between the rotor and the case for the passage of a first working fluid (82 is mounted on 40);
- at least one helical conduit (60) developing in loops around the longitudinal axis and extending between at least one inlet and at least one outlet for the passage of a second working fluid (Inlet 102 to outlet 104);
wherein the at least one helical conduit is radially internal with respect to the at least one blading and has loops with gradually increasing or decreasing radial dimensions from the inlet towards the outlet (Par 59).
Regarding claim 2, Binek discloses:
wherein the at least one blading is disposed on a radially outer surface of the rotor and the at least one helical conduit is radially inner relative to the radially outer surface (Fig 2: 82 on the outer surface of 40 and 60 is radially inner to the outer surface).
Regarding claim 3, Binek discloses:
wherein the rotor is a solid body and the at least one helical conduit is fashioned in the solid body (Fig 2: 40 is a solid body and 60 is within the body).
Regarding claim 4, Binek discloses:
wherein the at least one inlet is located on the radially outer surface of the rotor (Fig 2: 102 is on a radially outer surface of 40) and the at least one outlet is located on a head surface of the rotor (104 is located on the head of 40).
Regarding claim 5, Binek discloses:
wherein the at least one inlet is located near a first end of the rotor (Fig 2: Inlet 102 is at a first end of 40) and the at least one outlet is located near a second end of the rotor opposite the first end (104 is at a second end opposite to the first end).
Regarding claim 6, Binek discloses:
wherein the at least one blading comprises a plurality of vanes or defines at least one profile of a screw (Par 47: Plurality of 82).
Regarding claim 7, Binek discloses:
wherein the at least one blading located in the transit volume defines a or is part of a compressor or of a pump or wherein the blading in the transit volume defines a or is part of an expander (Fig 2: Blades 82 are apart of a compressor/ turbine combo);
wherein the at least one helical conduit is a bladeless expander or wherein the at least one helical conduit is a bladeless compressor or a pump (60 does not have blades within).
Regarding claim 8, Binek discloses:
wherein the at least one blading located in the transit volume (Fig 1: 86 is in a transit volume) and the at least one helical conduit are part of a same circuit (60 is apart of the same fluid circuit) and the first working fluid and the second working fluid are the same working fluid (Both fluids will be the same through the flow path).
Regarding claim 9, Binek discloses:
wherein the case has a distributor placed around the rotor and in fluid communication with the inlet of the at least one helical conduit (Fig 1: Under BRI, 46 acts as a distributor for the rotor and the blades 86. It is in fluid communication with 24 and 60).
Regarding claim 11, Binek discloses:
wherein the rotor comprises a first part (Fig 2: 90) carrying the blading (90 carries 82) and a second part (80) defined by a shaft or comprising a shaft (80 is a shaft);
wherein the first part and the second part are separated elements and connected to each other (80 and 90 are connected to each other);
wherein the at least one helical conduit is fashioned in the first part or in the second part or both in the first part and in the second part (60 is within the second part).
Regarding claim 12, Binek discloses:
wherein the rotor has at least an empty portion to lighten the rotor (Fig 2: 40 has a hollow middle portion).
Regarding claim 13, Binek discloses:
wherein the at least one inlet and/or the at least one outlet is/are disposed/the between vanes of the blading so as to modify a boundary layer of the first working fluid (Fig 2: 102 is in between the blading).
Regarding claim 14, Binek discloses:
wherein the turbomachine is a turbopump (Fig 1: 20 is essentially a turbo pump that pumps fluid though the system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. US 20210123381 in view of Binek et al. US 20230265761
Regarding claim 1, Fujita discloses: Turbomachine (Fig 1: 300), comprising:
a case (22 and 52);
a rotor (100) positioned in the case so that it can rotate with respect to the case around its own longitudinal axis (axis of 200); wherein the rotor comprises:
- at least one blading (56) mounted on the rotor and arranged in a respective transit volume bounded between the rotor and the case for the passage of a first working fluid (56 is mounted on 100).
However, Fujita is silent as to:
- at least one helical conduit developing in loops around the longitudinal axis and extending between at least one inlet and at least one outlet for the passage of a second working fluid;
wherein the at least one helical conduit is radially internal with respect to the at least one blading and has loops with gradually increasing or decreasing radial dimensions from the inlet towards the outlet.
From the same field of endeavor, Binek teaches: Turbomachine (Fig 1: 20), comprising:
a case (Casing around the turbine 20);
a rotor (Fig 2: 40) positioned in the case so that it can rotate with respect to the case around its own longitudinal axis (22); wherein the rotor comprises:
- at least one blading (82) mounted on the rotor and arranged in a respective transit volume bounded between the rotor and the case for the passage of a first working fluid (82 is mounted on 40);
- at least one helical conduit (60) developing in loops around the longitudinal axis and extending between at least one inlet and at least one outlet for the passage of a second working fluid (Inlet 102 to outlet 104);
wherein the at least one helical conduit is radially internal with respect to the at least one blading and has loops with gradually increasing or decreasing radial dimensions from the inlet towards the outlet (Par 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujita with the compressor and turbine rotor with cooling passages of Binek to cool the turbine rotor section (Par 57).
Regarding claim 15, Fujita as modified by Binek in the rejection of claim 1 above, where Fujita teaches: wherein the turbomachine is a turbocharger (Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 16 are 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.
Regarding claim 10, Binek discloses:
wherein the rotor comprises inlet series of the helical conduits (Fig 2: multiple 102),
wherein each series comprises a plurality of inlets disposed circumferentially around the rotor (102 are around circumferentially the rotor),
wherein the series are positioned in different axial positions (102 are a different axial positions).
However, the closest prior art of Binek is silent as to “wherein the distributor placed around the rotor is configured for inserting the second working fluid through one or more of the inlet series depending on the load.” This is considered allowable subject matter. This limitation further defines the distributor and the location. Thes essentially defines the reason for applicants distributor and helical conduits being to allow for the pump to work with variable loads.
Regarding claim 16, Prior art such as Tsuji US 20010027642 discloses the limitations of: Refrigeration apparatus comprising:
- at least one condenser;
- at least one evaporator;
- at least one turbomachine;
- an electric motor connected to the rotor of the turbomachine;
- ducts connecting the at least one condenser, the at least one evaporator and the at least one turbomachine to form a refrigeration circuit;
wherein the ducts connect the at least one condenser and the at least one evaporator to the at least one turbomachine so as to compress a working fluid circulating in the refrigeration circuit before it enters the at least one condenser and to expand the working fluid before it enters the at least one evaporator.
However, the structure of “- at least one helical conduit developing in loops around the longitudinal axis and extending between at least one inlet and at least one outlet for the passage of a second working fluid; wherein the at least one helical conduit is radially internal with respect to the at least one blading and has loops with gradually increasing or decreasing radial dimensions from the inlet towards the outlet.” of claim 1 is not taught. The closest prior art of Binek et al. US 20230265761 teaches this structure, however, would not be reasonable to modify into only a compressor of the refrigeration circuit because Binek teaches a compressor and turbine to teach the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, this is considered allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Radzikh US 12129856 discloses a helical passage within a rotor similar to applicants. Girard US 2457221 discloses a helical passage on a shaft that reads onto the applicants claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J Marien whose telephone number is (469)295-9159. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am- 6:00 pm CST, Monday through Friday.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/Andrew J Marien/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights