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, see Remarks, filed 9 July 2025, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in Kim, there is no suggestion as to how tilting moments acting on a bearing arrangement and how the relative axial spacings lead to partial or complete elimination of resulting tilting moments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Note that in the rejection of original claim 9, Kim was cited as disclosing the compressor arrangement keeps a rotation balance of the arrangement in ¶20. Additionally, the rejection established that based on said disclosure of Kim, that it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skills in the art to design compressor arrangements to operate on a balanced manner. A person of ordinary skills in the art during the design process of a compressor arrangement, takes tilting moments into account, as part of operating loads acting on the compressor arrangement, to achieve said balanced operation of the compressor arrangement. Tilting moments transfer loads to the bearings of the compressor arrangement depending on the specific structural configuration and operational conditions, and as part of the design process, the bearings must and are dimensioned to partially or completely eliminate one another, otherwise the compressor arrangement would not efficiently operate and/or would experience excessive wear and tear of the compressor arrangement components.
For the reasons above, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20140050575 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a compressor (Fig.3) for a fuel cell system (Note that if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction, see MPEP 2111.02 II), the compressor comprising:
a compressor housing (30/40);
a compressor wheel (20);
a rotationally driven compressor shaft (11) operatively connected to said compressor wheel;
a bearing arrangement (13/50/60) which supports said compressor shaft in said compressor housing so as to be rotatable about an axis of rotation (unlabeled);
said bearing arrangement including an axial air bearing (13/50 left side) for absorbing axial forces between said compressor housing and said compressor shaft (¶15);
said axial air bearing being a first axial air bearing (¶16, note “air gap”); and,
said bearing arrangement further including a second axial air bearing (13/50 right side) arranged at an axial spacing (Fig.3) from said first axial air bearing and configured to absorb the axial forces between said compressor housing and said compressor shaft (¶15);
said bearing arrangement includes a radial bearing arrangement (60 left or right side);
said first axial air bearing includes a first bearing washer (50 left side) configured to revolve in a first air gap (¶16, note “air gap” when referring to left side 50);
said second axial air bearing includes a second bearing washer (50 right side) configured to revolve in a second air gap (¶16, note “air gap” when referring to right side 50);
said radial bearing arrangement includes a first radial bearing (60 on left side) arranged at a first axial spacing from said first axial air bearing (Fig.3) and a second radial bearing (60 on right side) arranged at a spacing from said first radial bearing (Fig.3) and at a second axial spacing from said second axial air bearing (Fig.3);
from said first bearing washer, a first radial force acts on said radial bearing arrangement (inherent effect of compressor axial air bearing arrangements);
from said second bearing washer, a second radial force acts on said radial bearing arrangement (inherent effect of compressor axial air bearing arrangements);
from said compressor wheel arranged at a third axial spacing from said first radial bearing or said second radial bearing (Fig.3), a third radial force acts on said bearing arrangement (inherent effect of compressor/bearing arrangements);
said first radial force, said second radial force, and said third radial force and said first axial spacing, said second axial spacing, and said third axial spacing each result in tilting moments which act on said bearing arrangement via said compressor shaft (inherent effect of compressor/bearing arrangements); and, said first axial spacing, said second axial spacing and said third spacing are dimensioned such that the resulting tilting moments partially or completely eliminate one another (¶20, note “keep a rotation balance”). Furthermore, an unbalanced compressor has detrimental effects on operation efficiency and wear and tear of the compressor arrangement components, therefore, it is obvious for persons of ordinary skills in the art to design compressor arrangements to operate on a balanced manner.
Kim does not explicitly teach said second axial spacing and said first axial spacing differ.
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In the current instance the only difference between claim 1 and the disclosed compressor assembly of Kim is the relative dimensions of said second axial spacing and said first axial spacing differ. Since Kim has disclosed a compressor assembly with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between said second axial spacing and said first axial spacing differ would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claims are not patentably distinct and said relative dimensions modification would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Kim further teaches the compressor is a single-stage compressor (note ¶11, disclosed compressor is a double suction compressor which indicates that the compressed gas is compressed by a single stage, therefore, the claim limitation is disclosed); said compressor wheel is arranged on a first end portion of said compressor shaft (see 20 on left side); and, said second axial air bearing is arranged on a second end portion, on an opposite side from said first end portion, of said compressor shaft (see 13/50 on right side).
Regarding claim 4, Kim further teaches said radial bearing arrangement is arranged between said first axial air bearing and said second axial air bearing (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach said first bearing washer is of larger dimensions in a radial direction than said second bearing washer.
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In the current instance the only difference between claim 6 and the disclosed compressor assembly of Kim is the relative dimensions of the first bearing washer and the second bearing washer. Since Kim has disclosed a compressor assembly with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between the first bearing washer and the second bearing washer would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claims are not patentably distinct and said relative dimensions modification would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach said first axial spacing, said second axial spacing and said third axial spacing are dimensioned such that in each case radial forces of a same magnitude or of at least substantially the same magnitude act on said first radial bearing and said second radial bearing of said bearing arrangement.
However, an unbalanced compressor has detrimental effects on operation efficiency and wear and tear of the compressor arrangement components, therefore, it is obvious for persons of ordinary skills in the art to design compressor arrangements to operate on a balanced manner. Based on the desire and incentives to design a balanced compressor arrangement, It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the compressor of Kim by having said first axial spacing, said second axial spacing and said third axial spacing being dimensioned such that in each case radial forces of a same magnitude or of at least substantially the same magnitude act on said first radial bearing and said second radial bearing of said bearing arrangement.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach said first air gap and said second air gap are of different dimensions in a direction of the axis of rotation.
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In the current instance the only difference between claim 11 and the disclosed compressor assembly of Kim is the relative dimensions of said first air gap and said second air gap are of different dimensions in a direction of the axis of rotation. Since Kim has disclosed a compressor assembly with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between said first air gap and said second air gap are of different dimensions in a direction of the axis of rotation would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claims are not patentably distinct and said relative dimensions modification would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Kim further teaches at least one of said first axial air bearing and said second axial air bearing are foil bearings (3/5).
Regarding claim 15, Kim further teaches the fuel cell system is of a utility vehicle (Note that if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction, see MPEP 2111.02 II).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20140050575 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stotz et al – hereafter Stotz – (WO 2021164932 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, and further teaches an other of said first axial bearing and said second axial air bearing is a foil bearing (¶12, note “a foil-type gas bearing”), however, does not explicitly teach one of said first axial air bearing and said second axial bearing is a spiral groove bearing.
Stotz teaches a gas supply apparatus (Fig.1) having a driven shaft (2), which is rotatably mounted in a housing (5) using a bearing arrangement which comprises at least two bearings (6-11) (abstract). Stotz further teaches the bearings could be designed as foil bearings and spiral groove bearings among other bearing designs (machine translation page 2, “Disclosure of the invention”, ¶2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the compressor of Kim by having one of said first axial air bearing and said second axial bearing is a spiral groove bearing based on the teachings of Stotz because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (bearing of Kim) for another (spiral groove bearing of Stotz) to obtain predictable results (provide the rotating shaft with an efficient support bearing arrangement).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, and further teaches said second axial air bearing is a foil bearing (¶12, note “a foil-type gas bearing”), however, does not explicitly teach said first axial air bearing is a spiral groove bearing.
Stotz teaches a gas supply apparatus (Fig.1) having a driven shaft (2), which is rotatably mounted in a housing (5) using a bearing arrangement which comprises at least two bearings (6-11) (abstract). Stotz further teaches the bearings could be designed as foil bearings and spiral groove bearings among other bearing designs (machine translation page 2, “Disclosure of the invention”, ¶2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the compressor of Kim by having said first axial air bearing is a spiral groove bearing based on the teachings of Stotz because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (bearing of Kim) for another (spiral groove bearing of Stotz) to obtain predictable results (provide the rotating shaft with an efficient support bearing arrangement).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20140050575 A1) in view of Wessner et al – hereafter Wessner – (US 20230113619 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches a compressor (Fig.3) for a fuel cell system (Note that if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction, see MPEP 2111.02 II), the compressor comprising:
a compressor housing (30/40);
a compressor wheel (20);
a rotationally driven compressor shaft (11) operatively connected to said compressor wheel;
a bearing arrangement (13/50/60) which supports said compressor shaft in said compressor housing so as to be rotatable about an axis of rotation (unlabeled);
said bearing arrangement including an axial air bearing (13/50 left side) for absorbing axial forces between said compressor housing and said compressor shaft (¶15);
said axial air bearing being a first axial air bearing (¶16, note “air gap”); and,
said bearing arrangement further including a second axial air bearing (13/50 right side) arranged at an axial spacing (Fig.3) from said first axial air bearing and configured to absorb the axial forces between said compressor housing and said compressor shaft (¶15);
said bearing arrangement includes a radial bearing arrangement (60 left or right side);
said first axial air bearing includes a first bearing washer (50 left side) configured to revolve in a first air gap (¶16, note “air gap” when referring to left side 50);
said second axial air bearing includes a second bearing washer (50 right side) configured to revolve in a second air gap (¶16, note “air gap” when referring to right side 50);
said radial bearing arrangement includes a first radial bearing (60 on left side) arranged at a first axial spacing from said first axial air bearing (Fig.3) and a second radial bearing (60 on right side) arranged at a spacing from said first radial bearing (Fig.3) and at a second axial spacing from said second axial air bearing (Fig.3);
from said first bearing washer, a first radial force acts on said radial bearing arrangement (inherent effect of compressor axial air bearing arrangements);
from said second bearing washer, a second radial force acts on said radial bearing arrangement (inherent effect of compressor axial air bearing arrangements);
from said compressor wheel arranged at a third axial spacing from said first radial bearing or said second radial bearing (Fig.3), a third radial force acts on said bearing arrangement (inherent effect of compressor/bearing arrangements);
said first radial force, said second radial force, and said third radial force and said first axial spacing, said second axial spacing, and said third axial spacing each result in tilting moments which act on said bearing arrangement via said compressor shaft (inherent effect of compressor/bearing arrangements); and, said first axial spacing, said second axial spacing and said third spacing are dimensioned such that the resulting tilting moments partially or completely eliminate one another (¶20, note “keep a rotation balance”). Furthermore, an unbalanced compressor has detrimental effects on operation efficiency and wear and tear of the compressor arrangement components, therefore, it is obvious for persons of ordinary skills in the art to design compressor arrangements to operate on a balanced manner.
Kim does not explicitly teach said second axial spacing and said first axial spacing differ; a fuel cell system for driving a vehicle and the compressor supplying air to a cathode side of a fuel cell.
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In the current instance the only difference between claim 1 and the disclosed compressor assembly of Kim is the relative dimensions of said second axial spacing and said first axial spacing differ. Since Kim has disclosed a compressor assembly with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between said second axial spacing and said first axial spacing differ would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claims are not patentably distinct and said relative dimensions modification would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Wessner teaches a bearing arrangement for a shaft in a turbocompressor, which can be a component of a cathode circuit of a fuel cell stack (¶1); air fed to the cathode of the fuel cell stack is compressed by means of a turbocompressor (¶3); the fuel cell is for driving vehicles (¶39).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compressor of Kim by having the compressor being part of a fuel cell system for driving a vehicle and the compressor supplying air to a cathode side of a fuel cell based on the teachings of Wessner because this would be a practical use and application for the generated power of the fuel cell.
Regarding claim 17, Kim and Wessner further teach the vehicle is a utility vehicle (Wessner ¶39).
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 JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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 E 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745