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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 11 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-3, 5-7, and 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a second inner wall portion that extends from a first end to a second end in a direction orthogonal to the rotation axis direction. In defining the first and second ends, claim 1 recites that the first end is continuous with the turbine scroll flow passage, and a cylindrical wall portion extending from the second end in the rotation axis direction. However, claim 1 further recites that the second end extends beyond the elastic member in the direction orthogonal to the rotation axis direction. There is a conflict in claim 1 regarding the first and second ends because the second end is supposed to be the end from which a cylindrical wall portion extends in the rotation axis direction, and also the second end is the end that extends beyond the elastic member in the direction orthogonal to the rotation axis direction. Hence, it is not clear which end is the first end and which one is the second end. Because of this indefiniteness, the metes and bounds of claim 11 are also unclear.
Claim 11 recites that the first end of the second inner wall portion opens to the turbine scroll flow passage in the rotation axis direction. It is not clear what it means for an end to open to a passage in the rotation axis direction. This limitation is further confusing because claim 1 already recites that the first end of the second inner wall portion being continuous with the turbine scroll flow passage. Hence, if an end is a continuation of a passage, it is not clear how to interpret that end opening to that passage, or even more confusing, that end opening to that passage in the rotation axis direction.
Any and all claims rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, if rejected with art below under sections 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, are rejected as best understood.
Claims 2-3 and 5-7 are rejected due to their dependency from a previously rejected claim.
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 11 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 Kobayashi et al. (US 2018/0030848), referred to hereinafter as Kobayashi.
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); a groove portion (Fig. 1, see the groove where the base portion is located) having a circular annular shape arranged coaxially with the turbine impeller is formed at a portion of the housing opposed to the first inner wall portion (Fig. 1), the groove portion includes: a second inner wall portion that extends from a first end to a second end in a direction somewhat orthogonal to the rotation axis direction (in Fig. 1, the extension from the first end to the second end is in a direction somewhat orthogonal to the rotation axis direction with a slight curvature), the first end of the second inner wall portion being continuous with the turbine scroll flow passage (Fig. 1), and a cylindrical wall portion extending from the second end of the second inner wall portion in the rotation axis direction (Fig. 1); and an elastic member (16, Fig. 1, [0024]) sandwiched by the second inner wall portion facing the communicating flow passage from a discharge flow passage side, and the vane member (Fig. 1) , the vane portions are not movable relative to the base 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]), 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 the extension from the first end to the second end is in a direction orthogonal to the rotation axis direction and the second end of the second inner wall portion extends beyond the elastic member in the direction orthogonal to the rotation axis direction, and an outer peripheral portion of the base portion is not fitted to the housing.
However, Kobayashi teaches a turbine, comprising: a housing (4) including: an accommodating space that accommodates a turbine impeller (Fig. 1, 2); a turbine scroll flow passage arranged on a radially outer side with respect to the turbine impeller (Fig. 1, 2); a communicating flow passage that allows communication between the turbine scroll flow passage and the accommodating space (Fig. 1, 2); and a discharge flow passage continuous with the accommodating space in a rotation axis direction of the turbine impeller (Fig. 1, 2); a vane member (25) 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 (Fig. 1, 2), and is provided in the communicating flow passage (Fig. 1, 2); and an elastic member (45) sandwiched by a second inner wall portion facing the communicating flow passage from a discharge flow passage side, and the vane member (Fig. 2), wherein the base portion is held in abutment against the elastic member (Fig. 2). Kobayashi further teaches that the extension from the first end to the second end is in a direction orthogonal to the rotation axis direction and the second end of the second inner wall portion extends beyond the elastic member in the direction orthogonal to the rotation axis direction, and an outer peripheral portion of the base portion is not fitted to the housing.
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 having the extension from the first end to the second end in a direction orthogonal to the rotation axis direction and the second end of the second inner wall portion extending beyond the elastic member in the direction orthogonal to the rotation axis direction, and 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 Kobayashi further discloses a heat-shielding plate (Bozek, 12) including the first inner wall portion (Bozek, Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Bozek and Kobayashi discloses a turbocharger (Bozek, [0017], [0018]), comprising the turbine of claim 1.
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Bozek and Kobayashi discloses a turbocharger (Bozek, [0017], [0018]), comprising the turbine of claim 3.
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Bozek and Kobayashi further discloses that the first end of the second inner wall portion opens to the turbine scroll flow passage in the rotation axis direction (see Fig. 1 of Bozek, and Fig. 2 of Kobayashi, and note the modifications made in the rejection of claim 1 above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Kobayashi et al. (US 2018/0030848), referred to hereinafter as Kobayashi, 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 Kobayashi discloses the turbine of claim 1, as set forth above.
The combination of Bozek and Kobayashi 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 Kobayashi, 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, Kobayashi, and Meier further discloses a turbocharger (Bozek, [0018]), comprising the turbine of claim 2.
****************************************************************************************************
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2018/0030848), referred to hereinafter as Kobayashi in view of Annati et al. (US 2016/0265484), referred to hereafter as Annati.
With regard to claim 1:
Kobayashi discloses a turbine, comprising: a housing (4) including: an accommodating space that accommodates a turbine impeller (6); a turbine scroll flow passage arranged on a radially outer side with respect to the turbine impeller (Fig. 1, 2); a communicating flow passage that allows communication between the turbine scroll flow passage and the accommodating space (Fig. 1, 2); and a discharge flow passage continuous with the accommodating space in a rotation axis direction of the turbine impeller (Fig. 1, 2); a vane member (25+61) that includes a plurality of vane portions (23) 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 (32) to which the vane portions are fixed (Fig. 1, 2), and is provided in the communicating flow passage (Fig. 2); a groove portion having a circular annular shape arranged coaxially with the turbine impeller is formed at a portion of the housing opposed to the first inner wall portion (Fig. 1, 2), the groove portion includes: a second inner wall portion that extends from a first end to a second end in a direction orthogonal to the rotation axis direction (Fig. 1, 2. Also see [0030] disclosing “a flat surface 44 perpendicular to the rotational axis”), the first end of the second inner wall portion being continuous with the turbine scroll flow passage (Fig. 1, 2, [0030]), and a cylindrical wall portion extending from the second end of the second inner wall portion in the rotation axis direction (Fig. 1, 2); and an elastic member (45) sandwiched by the second inner wall portion facing the communicating flow passage from a discharge flow passage side, and the vane member (Fig. 1, 2, [0031]), wherein the second end of the second inner wall portion extends beyond the elastic member in the direction orthogonal to the rotation axis direction (Fig. 1, 2), wherein the vane member is biased by the elastic member and the vane portions are pressed against the first inner wall portion (Fig. 1, 2, [0031]), wherein the base portion has an annular shape (Fig. 1, 2. Also see [0026] disclosing that it has a ring shape), wherein an inner peripheral portion of the base portion is fitted to the cylindrical wall portion (Fig. 2. The inner peripheral portion of the base portion is fitted to the cylindrical wall portion by virtue of the base portion being inside the cylindrical wall portion and furthermore by virtue of them having parallel surfaces. Furthermore, see “fitted” in [0029]), wherein an outer peripheral portion of the base portion is not fitted to the housing (Fig. 1, 2), wherein the elastic member is a disc spring ([0031]), 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. 2, 3, [0031]).
Kobayashi 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 Kobayashi and Annati further discloses a heat-shielding plate (Kobayashi, 31+61) including the first inner wall portion (Kobayashi, Fig. 1, 2).
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Kobayashi and Annati discloses a turbocharger (Kobayashi, Fig. 1), comprising the turbine of claim 1.
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Kobayashi and Annati discloses a turbocharger (Kobayashi, Fig. 1), comprising the turbine of claim 3.
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Kobayashi and Annati further discloses that the first end of the second inner wall portion opens to the turbine scroll flow passage in the rotation axis direction (Kobayashi, Fig. 1, 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2018/0030848), referred to hereinafter as Kobayashi 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 Kobayashi and Annati discloses the turbine of claim 1, as set forth above.
the combination of Kobayashi 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 Kobayashi 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 Kobayashi and Annati and Meier further discloses a turbocharger (Kobayashi, Fig. 1), 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.
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