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 with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding prior art rejections, applicant argues that “As evident from the figures, Bozek lacks a configuration in which the flange 13 and the elastic spring element 16 "are held in abutment against each other over an entire periphery in a circumferential direction of the turbine impeller" as recited in amended Claim 1.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not provided a reason for this allegation. Applicant has admitted that Bozek discloses that “an elastic spring element 16 is received which presses the flange 13 of the nozzle ring 3 in the axial direction.” It is not clear why in view of this disclosure, applicant still alleges that the flange 13 and the elastic spring element 16 are not held in abutment against each other over an entire periphery in a circumferential direction of the turbine impeller. Bozek further discloses that “In the recess 15 of the section 14 of the turbine inflow housing 1, on which the flange 13 of the nozzle ring 3 is supported, an elastic spring element 16 is received which presses the flange 13 of the nozzle ring 3 in the axial direction. Here, this elastic spring element 16 presses against the flange 13 of the nozzle ring 3 in such a manner that the nozzle ring 3 is pressed from the spring element 16 in the direction of the connecting region of the flanges 6, 10 of turbine inflow housing 1 and bearing housing 2.” (see [0024]). Hence, by disclosing that the “elastic spring element 16 presses against the flange 13,” Bozek discloses that “the flange 13 and the elastic spring element 16 "are held in abutment against each other over an entire periphery in a circumferential direction of the turbine impeller" as recited in amended Claim 1.” Bozek also discloses that “According to one aspect of the invention a spring element is positioned between the flange of the bearing housing and the flange of the turbine housing, which axially presses the flange of the nozzle ring against the flange of the turbine housing. By way of this, a particularly advantageous sealing of the connection of turbine housing or turbine inflow housing and bearing housing is also possible.” (see [0009]) If the flange 13 and the elastic spring element 16 are not held in abutment against each other over an entire periphery in a circumferential direction of the turbine impeller, as alleged by the applicant, then there would be no sealing provided by the elastic spring.
Applicant further argues that “Yonezawa like Bozek above lacks "the elastic member and the base portion are held in abutment against each other over an entire periphery in a circumferential direction of the turbine impeller; and "an outer peripheral portion of the base portion is not fitted to the housing.”” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not provided any reason for their allegation and there are no arguments to respond to. Yonezawa discloses “Further, a disc spring-like elastic member 62 is interposed between the shroud plate 61 and the turbine housing 16, and the plurality of movable nozzle vanes 21 are connected to the nozzle back plate 24 via the shroud plate 61 by the elastic member 62. While being urged to the side, it is held between the shroud plate 61 and the nozzle back plate 24 so as to be rotatable and without rattling.”
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites that “the base portion is held in abutment against the elastic member”. Claim 1 also recites that “the elastic member and the base portion are held in abutment against each other over an entire periphery in a circumferential direction of the turbine impeller”. Hence, claim 1 repeats the limitation that the elastic member and the base portion are held in abutment against each other. The repeated parts should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: change “based portion” to “base portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “elastic member” in claim 1. Based on the specification (see [0054]), “In the above, the example in which the elastic member 39 is a disc spring has been described. However, the elastic member 39 is not limited to the disc spring. For example, the elastic member 39 may be a coil spring. For example, the elastic member 39 may be a metal gasket formed of a metal thin film.”
Note that in the instant case of the “elastic member”, “elastic” could reasonably be viewed as the function of the “member”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozek et al. (US 2019/0301358), referred to hereafter as Bozek in view of Matsuyama (US 2011/0182722).
With regard to claim 1:
Bozek discloses a turbine (Fig. 1-3), comprising: a housing (1, or the combination of 14 and 11) including: an accommodating space (Fig. 1) that accommodates a turbine impeller (inherent in a turbine); a turbine scroll flow passage (Fig. 1) arranged on a radially outer side with respect to the turbine impeller (Fig. 1); a communicating flow passage that allows communication between the turbine scroll flow passage and the accommodating space (Fig. 1); and a discharge flow passage continuous with the accommodating space in a rotation axis direction of the turbine impeller (Fig. 1); a vane member (3+13) that includes a plurality of vane portions (3) opposed to a first inner wall portion (12) facing the communicating flow passage from a side opposite to the discharge flow passage (Fig. 1), and a base portion (13) to which the vane portions are fixed (Fig. 1), and is provided in the communicating flow passage (Fig. 1); and an elastic member (16, Fig. 1, [0024]) sandwiched by a second inner wall portion facing the communicating flow passage from a discharge flow passage side, and the vane member (Fig. 1), wherein the base portion is held in abutment against the elastic member (Fig. 1, [0024]), the vane portions are not movable relative to the based portion (Fig. 1, see the vane portions 3 being integral and one-piece with base portion 13), and wherein the vane member is biased by the elastic member (Fig. 1, [0024]) and the vane portions are pressed against the first inner wall portion (Fig. 1, [0024]), a cylindrical wall portion having a cylindrical shape and extending in the rotation axis direction is formed at a portion of the housing opposed to the first inner wall portion (Fig. 1), wherein the base portion has an annular shape (by virtue of being a ring), wherein an inner peripheral portion of the base portion is fitted to the cylindrical wall portion (Fig. 1), wherein the elastic member is a disc spring (Fig. 1, [0024]), and wherein the elastic member and the base portion are held in abutment against each other over an entire periphery in a circumferential direction of the turbine impeller (Fig. 1, [0024]).
Bozek does not appear to explicitly disclose that an outer peripheral portion of the base portion is not fitted to the housing.
However, Matsuyama teaches a turbine, comprising: a housing (1) including: an accommodating space that accommodates a turbine impeller (Fig. 1); a turbine scroll flow passage (8) arranged on a radially outer side with respect to the turbine impeller (Fig. 1); a communicating flow passage that allows communication between the turbine scroll flow passage and the accommodating space (Fig. 1); and a discharge flow passage continuous with the accommodating space in a rotation axis direction of the turbine impeller (Fig. 1); a vane member (9) that includes a plurality of vane portions opposed to a first inner wall portion facing the communicating flow passage from a side opposite to the discharge flow passage and a base portion to which the vane portions are fixed, and is provided in the communicating flow passage (Fig. 1); and an elastic member (24) sandwiched by a second inner wall portion facing the communicating flow passage from a discharge flow passage side, and the vane member (Fig. 4), wherein the base portion is held in abutment against the elastic member (Fig. 4), and wherein the vane member is biased by the elastic member and the vane portions are pressed against the first inner wall portion (Fig. 4), wherein a cylindrical wall portion having a cylindrical shape and extending in the rotation axis direction is formed at a portion of the housing opposed to the first inner wall portion (Fig. 4), wherein the base portion has an annular shape (Fig. 4), wherein an inner peripheral portion of the base portion is fitted to the cylindrical wall portion (Fig. 4), wherein an outer peripheral portion of the base portion is not fitted to the housing (Fig. 4), wherein the elastic member is a disc spring (Fig. 4, [0052]), and wherein the elastic member and the base portion are held in abutment against each other over an entire periphery in a circumferential direction of the turbine impeller (Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely making an outer peripheral portion of the base portion not fitted to the housing, to improve similar devices in the same way.
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Bozek and Matsuyama further discloses a heat-shielding plate (12) including the first inner wall portion (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Bozek and Matsuyama discloses a turbocharger ([0017], [0018]), comprising the turbine of claim 1.
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Bozek and Matsuyama discloses a turbocharger ([0017], [0018]), comprising the turbine of claim 3.
With regard to claim 10, the combination of Bozek and Matsuyama further discloses that a groove portion (Fig. 1, see the groove where the base portion is located) having a circular annular shape, being continuous with the turbine scroll flow passage and arranged coaxially with the turbine impeller is formed at a portion of the housing opposed to the first inner wall portion (Fig. 1), wherein a bottom surface portion of the groove portion facing a first inner wall side corresponds to the second inner wall portion (Fig. 1), wherein the groove portion has the cylindrical wall portion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozek et al. (US 2019/0301358), referred to hereafter as Bozek in view of Matsuyama (US 2011/0182722), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meier et al. (US 5,964,574), referred to hereafter as Meier.
With regard to claim 2:
The combination of Bozek and Matsuyama discloses the turbine of claim 1, as set forth above.
The combination of Bozek and Matsuyama does not appear to explicitly disclose that a seal member is provided between the base portion and the housing.
However, Meier, which is in the same field of endeavor of turbochargers, teaches a turbocharger with a housing including an accommodating space, a turbine scroll flow passage, a communicating flow passage, and a discharge flow passage (Fig. 1), a vane member (11) that includes a plurality of vane portions (18) provided in the communicating flow passage (Fig. 1, 4). Meier further discloses that the vane member includes a base portion (17) and wherein a seal member (22) is provided between the base portion and the housing (Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements, namely the seal member of Meier with the turbine of the combination of Bozek and Matsuyama, according to known methods to yield predictable results of sealing between the vane member and the housing and preventing leakage occurring between them.
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Bozek, Matsuyama, and Meier further discloses a turbocharger (Bozek, [0018]), comprising the turbine of claim 2.
****************************************************************************************************
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama (US 2011/0182722) in view of Annati et al. (US 2016/0265484), referred to hereafter as Annati.
With regard to claim 1:
Matsuyama discloses a turbine, comprising: a housing (1) including: an accommodating space that accommodates a turbine impeller (Fig. 1); a turbine scroll flow passage (8) arranged on a radially outer side with respect to the turbine impeller (Fig. 1); a communicating flow passage that allows communication between the turbine scroll flow passage and the accommodating space (Fig. 1); and a discharge flow passage continuous with the accommodating space in a rotation axis direction of the turbine impeller (Fig. 1); a vane member (9) that includes a plurality of vane portions opposed to a first inner wall portion facing the communicating flow passage from a side opposite to the discharge flow passage and a base portion to which the vane portions are fixed, and is provided in the communicating flow passage (Fig. 1); and an elastic member (24) sandwiched by a second inner wall portion facing the communicating flow passage from a discharge flow passage side, and the vane member (Fig. 4), wherein the base portion is held in abutment against the elastic member (Fig. 4), and wherein the vane member is biased by the elastic member and the vane portions are pressed against the first inner wall portion (Fig. 4), wherein a cylindrical wall portion having a cylindrical shape and extending in the rotation axis direction is formed at a portion of the housing opposed to the first inner wall portion (Fig. 4), wherein the base portion has an annular shape (Fig. 4), wherein an inner peripheral portion of the base portion is fitted to the cylindrical wall portion (Fig. 4), wherein an outer peripheral portion of the base portion is not fitted to the housing (Fig. 4), wherein the elastic member is a disc spring (Fig. 4, [0052]), and wherein the elastic member and the base portion are held in abutment against each other over an entire periphery in a circumferential direction of the turbine impeller (Fig. 4).
Matsuyama does not appear to explicitly disclose that the vane portions are not movable relative to the based portion.
However, Annati, which is in the same field of endeavor of turbines, teaches a turbine (120) comprising a housing (122), an impeller (212), a scroll flow passage (236), a vane member that includes a plurality of vane portions (246) and a base portion (290 or 292) to which the vane portions are fixed (Fig. 4), wherein the vane portions are not movable relative to the based portion (see “fixed vanes 246” in [0026] and Fig. 4. Also see [0028] disclosing that the vanes 246 are integrally connected with the base portion 292/290). Annati further teaches that with this arrangement, the vanes provide structural support, and the vane member and the base portion can be cast as a single component, which will allow both to be constructed of a single material, which can minimize thermal mismatches and thereby reduce thermal stresses in the turbine. Additionally, integrating the vanes and the base portion can allow for the use of relatively lower cost cast iron material. Moreover, this integration of the vanes and the base portion will also provide a lower part count, which can reduce assembly complexity and cost as well as reduce the time required to service or remanufacture the turbine ([0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely making the vane portions to be fixed and not movable relative to the based portion, to improve similar devices in the same way. Moreover, this combination would realize the many benefits listed above, as taught by Annati.
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Matsuyama and Annati further discloses a heat-shielding plate (Matsuyama, 9b) including the first inner wall portion (Matsuyama, Fig. 1, 4).
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Matsuyama and Annati discloses a turbocharger (Matsuyama, Fig. 1, 4), comprising the turbine of claim 1.
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Matsuyama and Annati discloses a turbocharger (Matsuyama, Fig. 1, 4), comprising the turbine of claim 3.
With regard to claim 10, the combination of Matsuyama and Annati further discloses that a groove portion (Fig. 1, see the groove where the base portion is located) having a circular annular shape, being continuous with the turbine scroll flow passage and arranged coaxially with the turbine impeller is formed at a portion of the housing opposed to the first inner wall portion (Fig. 1), wherein a bottom surface portion of the groove portion facing a first inner wall side corresponds to the second inner wall portion (Fig. 1), wherein the groove portion has the cylindrical wall portion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama (US 2011/0182722) in view of Annati et al. (US 2016/0265484), referred to hereafter as Annati, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meier et al. (US 5,964,574), referred to hereafter as Meier.
With regard to claim 2:
the combination of Matsuyama and Annati discloses the turbine of claim 1, as set forth above.
the combination of Matsuyama and Annati does not appear to explicitly disclose that a seal member is provided between the base portion and the housing.
However, Meier, which is in the same field of endeavor of turbochargers, teaches a turbocharger with a housing including an accommodating space, a turbine scroll flow passage, a communicating flow passage, and a discharge flow passage (Fig. 1), a vane member (11) that includes a plurality of vane portions (18) provided in the communicating flow passage (Fig. 1, 4). Meier further discloses that the vane member includes a base portion (17) and wherein a seal member (22) is provided between the base portion and the housing (Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements, namely the seal member of Meier with the turbine of the combination of Matsuyama and Annati, according to known methods to yield predictable results of sealing between the vane member and the housing and preventing leakage occurring between them.
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Matsuyama and Annati and Meier further discloses a turbocharger (Matsuyama, Fig. 1, 4), comprising the turbine of claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar turbines such as US 20100310365.
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 BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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 D 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights