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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim 1 under 103 rejection as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US 20200378389, hereinafter: “Shibata”) in view of Chiba et al. (JP H0914187, hereinafter: “Chiba”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of JP S5954816 as modified by Shibata et al. (US 20200378389, hereinafter: “Shibata”) in view of Chiba et al. (JP H0914187, hereinafter: “Chiba”).
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 24 is 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.
Regarding Claim 24, the Original Specification and Disclosure of the Applicant does not provide support for the claim verbiage “maximum number of rotations of the shaft is 30000 rpm or more and less than 100000 rpm”. The Original Specification of the Applicant discloses “In the compressor (10), the maximum number of rotations of the shaft (62) is 30000 rpm or more” [0014]; and “Further, the number of free-run rotations of the circular disk was set to be 55000 rpm and 75000 rpm,” [0061]. However, the Original Specification of the Applicant does not disclose the rotations of the shaft is less than 100000 rpm.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S5954816 (hereinafter: “ JP ‘816 “ ) as modified by Shibata et al. (US 20200378389, hereinafter: “Shibata”) in view of Chiba et al. (JP H0914187, hereinafter: “Chiba”).
In reference to Claim 1
JP ‘816 discloses:
A centrifugal compressor comprising:
a casing (1 housing);
an impeller (8) housed in the casing; and
a shaft (shaft shown as 4 within the impeller 8; Fig. 1-3) coupled to the impeller,
the casing having a wall (wall 11) facing a back surface of the impeller,
the shaft being inserted into an insertion hole formed in the wall (Fig. 1 and 3),
a back gap (as shown in the annotated Figure 3 of JP ‘816) being formed between the back surface of the impeller and the wall, the back gap includes a first gap (as shown in the annotated Figure 3 of JP ‘816) corresponding to an inner peripheral side of the back surface of the impeller, the first gap extending in a radial direction perpendicular to an axis of the shaft so as to be parallel to the back surface of the impeller, the first gap forming a seal that seals between the back surface of the impeller and the wall --11 being a sealing member--,
the back gap includes a second gap (as shown in the annotated Figure 3 of JP ‘816) corresponding to an outer peripheral side of the back surface of the impeller, and an axial width s (width of the second gap in the axial direction) of the second gap is greater than an axial width s (width of the first gap in the axial direction) of the first gap, and
a ratio of the axial width s of the second gap to an impeller radius r, where the axial width s is a width of the second gap in an axial direction of the shaft, and the impeller radius r is a radius of the impeller.
JP ‘816 discloses the axial width s (a width of the second gap in an axial direction of the shaft) being less than the impeller radius r (a radius of the impeller).
JP ’816 is silent on the claimed relationship of 0.02 s/r < 0.5.
Shibata teaches a centrifugal compressor (1) comprising:
a casing (8, 14):
an impeller (4) housed in the casing; and
a shaft (6) coupled to the impeller,
a back gap (“g”) being formed between the back surface of the impeller and the wall,
the back gap includes a first gap (gap between 16 and surface of 14 at the lower notch of surface 14; Fig. 17) corresponding to an inner peripheral side of the back surface of the impeller,
the back gap includes a second gap (gap “g” at the outer radial end of the impeller; Fig. 17) corresponding to an outer peripheral side of the back surface of the impeller, and an axial width s (axial width of gap) of the second gap is greater than the axial width s of the first gap (as seen in both Fig. 17-18). and a ratio of the axial width s of the back gap to an impeller radius r satisfies a relationship of 0.008 s/r< 0.5, where the axial width s is a width of the back gap in an axial direction of the shaft, and the impeller radius r is a radius of the impeller [0031].
[0031, Shibata] In some embodiments, in the electric supercharger (8), a ratio G/R of a size G of a gap between the back surface of the compressor impeller and the back-surface side casing to an outer diameter R of the compressor impeller is less than 0.5%.
Therefore, 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 ratio of the axial width s of the back gap to an impeller radius r of JP ‘816 to satisfy the claimed relationship of s and r as taught by Shibata, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Although JP ‘816 does not explicitly disclose the specific speed of the impeller is set to be less than 0.1, JP ‘816discloses the centrifugal impeller (8).
Chiba et al. (JP H0914187, hereinafter: “Chiba”), centrifugal impellers (centrifugal compressor “C”) have high efficiency (ƞ) at the low specific speed (ƞs) as shown in Figure 2 of Chiba. (“FIG. 2 shows the relationship between the specific speed n s of the compressor and the efficiency η. A is an axial flow compressor, B is a mixed flow compressor, and C is a centrifugal compressor. As shown in this figure, the axial compressor A has high efficiency in a region where the specific speed ns is relatively high (large flow rate, low pressure ratio), and the centrifugal compressor C has a specific speed ns”).
Therefore, 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 impeller of JP ‘816 by setting the impeller at low specific speed of less than 0.1 since centrifugal impellers are known in the art to be able to perform well at low specific speed as taught by Chiba, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
885
1028
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Figure 3 of JP '816.
In reference to Claim 21
JP ‘816 in view of Shibata and Chiba discloses:
The centrifugal compressor of claim 1. JP ‘816 discloses a recess (recess in wall 11) is formed on a surface of the wall facing the impeller and is recessed into the wall away from the impeller (8), and the back surface of the impeller is located outside of the recess.(Fig. 3 of JP ‘816).
In reference to Claim 22
JP ‘816 in view of Shibata and Chiba discloses:
The centrifugal compressor of claim 1. JP ‘816 discloses the back surface of the impeller (8) is flat. (Fig. 3 of JP ‘816).
In reference to Claim 23
JP ‘816 in view of Shibata and Chiba discloses:
The centrifugal compressor of claim 1. JP ‘816 discloses a recess (recess in wall 11 facing the impeller 8, Fig. 3) is formed on a surface of the wall facing the impeller and is recessed into the wall away from the impeller in the axial direction, the first gap (as shown in the annotated Figure 3 of JP ‘816) is formed between a portion of the wall located on a radially inner peripheral side of the recess and the back surface of the impeller, the second gap (as shown in the annotated Figure 3 of JP ‘816) is formed between the back surface of the impeller and a bottom of the recess, and the back surface of the impeller (8) is planar such that the back surface extends radially along a same axial plane. (Fig. 3 of JP ‘816).
Claims 4, 6, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S5954816 (hereinafter: “ JP ‘816 “ ) in view of Shibata et al. (US 20200378389, hereinafter: “Shibata”) and Chiba et al. (JP H0914187, hereinafter: “Chiba”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 20160061210, hereinafter: “Hasegawa”).
In reference to Claim 4
JP ‘816 in view of Shibata and Chiba discloses:
The centrifugal compressor of claim 1. JP ‘816 discloses a thrust bearing (10) supporting the shaft at an outer periphery of the shaft (Fig. 1-3; Page 1-3 of English Translation of JP ‘816).
JP ‘816 is silent on the radial bearing is a foil bearing or a magnetic bearing.
Hasegawa teaches a centrifugal compressor comprising: a casing (6); an impeller (3, 4) housed in the casing; and a shaft (5) coupled to the impeller, the casing having a wall (16) facing a back surface (surface of impeller 3 and 4 facing wall 16 and 17 respectively in Fig. 2) of the impeller, the shaft being inserted into an insertion hole (inner bore of the casing 6 which includes wall 16) formed in the wall (“[0036] In addition, the first-stage impeller 3 and the second-stage impeller 4 are so-called open impellers such that shrouds 16 and 17 are separated from the impellers 3 and 4 and are provided on the casing 6 side.”), a back gap (“S” gap) being formed between the back surface of the impeller and the wall.
Hasegawa teaches a foil bearing or a magnetic bearing (7, 8) supporting the shaft at an outer periphery of the shaft (5) [0033].
Thus, based on the teaching of Hasegawa and JP ‘816, 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 bearing of JP ‘816 by utilizing a magnetic bearing as taught by Hasegawa for the purpose of utilizing a well-known bearing in a compressor.
In reference to Claims 6, and 17
JP ‘816 in view of Shibata and Chiba discloses:
The centrifugal compressor of claims 1, and 4. JP ‘816 discloses a compressor impeller (Page 1-3 of English Translation of JP ‘816); however, JP ‘816 is silent on the impeller pumping a refrigerant.
However, Hasegawa teaches the impeller pumps a refrigerant, and the refrigerant is an HFC refrigerant, an HFO refrigerant, a natural refrigerant, or a refrigerant mixture thereof [0032, Hasegawa].
Thus, 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 compressor impeller of JP ‘816 by utilizing it to pump a refrigerant as claimed as taught by Hasegawa for the purpose of utilizing a well-known usage of a compressor impeller.
In reference to Claim 7
JP ‘816 in view of Shibata and Chiba discloses:
The centrifugal compressor of claim 1. JP ‘816 discloses a compressor impeller (Page 1-3 of English Translation of JP ‘816); however, JP ‘816 is silent on the impeller pumping a refrigerant and used in a refrigeration apparatus.
Hasegawa teaches a refrigeration apparatus comprising: a refrigerant circuit configured to perform a refrigeration cycle, the refrigerant circuit including the centrifugal compressor of claim 1 [0032].
Thus, 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 compressor impeller of JP ‘816 by utilizing it to pump a refrigerant as claimed as taught by Hasegawa for the purpose of utilizing a well-known usage of a compressor impeller.
Claims 5 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S5954816 (hereinafter: “ JP ‘816 “ ) in view of Shibata et al. (US 20200378389, hereinafter: “Shibata”) and Chiba et al. (JP H0914187, hereinafter: “Chiba”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ozasa (US 20190207448).
Examiner’s Note: Claim 24 has been rejected as including new matter under 112(a) rejection. The claim is being examined as best understood.
In reference to Claims 5 and 24
JP ‘816 in view of Shibata and Chiba discloses:
The centrifugal compressor of claim 1. Although JP ‘816 discloses the rotor shaft (shaft shown as 4 within the impeller 8; Fig. 1-3) having a rotation, JP ‘816 in view of Shibata and Chiba is silent on a maximum number of rotations of the shaft is 30000 rpm or more.
Ozasa teaches a compressor (3) having rotor shaft speed a high-speed rotation of 100000-200000 rpm [0037].
Thus, based on the teaching of Ozasa and JP ‘816, 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 rotor shaft speed JP ‘816 by constructing it to reach high speeds over 30000 rpm as claimed as taught by Ozasa for the purpose of utilizing a well-known speed limit of a compressor.
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S5954816 (hereinafter: “ JP ‘816 “ ) in view of Shibata et al. (US 20200378389, hereinafter: “Shibata”) and Chiba et al. (JP H0914187, hereinafter: “Chiba”) and Hasegawa et al. (US 20160061210, hereinafter: “Hasegawa”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ozasa (US 20190207448).
In reference to Claims 12
JP ‘816 in view of Shibata and Chiba and Hasegawa discloses:
The centrifugal compressor of claim 4. Although JP ‘816 discloses the rotor shaft (shaft shown as 4 within the impeller 8; Fig. 1-3) having a rotation speed, JP ‘816 is silent on a maximum number of rotations of the shaft is 30000 rpm or more.
Ozasa teaches a compressor (3) having rotor shaft speed a high-speed rotation of 100000-200000 rpm [0037].
Thus, based on the teaching of Ozasa and JP ‘816, 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 rotor shaft speed JP ‘816 by constructing it to reach high speeds over 30000 rpm as claimed as taught by Ozasa for the purpose of utilizing a well-known speed limit of a compressor.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S5954816 (hereinafter: “ JP ‘816 “ ) in view of Shibata et al. (US 20200378389, hereinafter: “Shibata”) and Chiba et al. (JP H0914187, hereinafter: “Chiba”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Hasegawa et al. (US 20160061210, hereinafter: “Hasegawa”).
In reference to Claim 18
JP ‘816 in view of Shibata and Chiba and Ozasa discloses:
The centrifugal compressor of claim 5. JP ‘816 discloses a compressor impeller (Page 1-3 of English Translation of JP ‘816); however, JP ‘816 is silent on the impeller pumping a refrigerant.
However, Hasegawa teaches the impeller pumps a refrigerant, and the refrigerant is an HFC refrigerant, an HFO refrigerant, a natural refrigerant, or a refrigerant mixture thereof [0032, Hasegawa].
Thus, 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 compressor impeller of JP ‘816 by utilizing it to pump a refrigerant as claimed as taught by Hasegawa for the purpose of utilizing a well-known usage of a compressor impeller.
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 AYE SU MON HTAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-3:00pm PST.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/AYE S HTAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights