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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (Claims 22-32 and 37-41) in the reply filed on 1/16/2026 is acknowledged. The restriction requirement is now made FINAL with Claims 33-36 now withdrawn from further examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 27-30 and 37-39 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.
Regarding Claim 27, the recitation of, “the plurality of outlet openings” in Line 3 lacks antecedent basis. Applicant is suggested to change the dependency of the claim to Claim 25 to overcome the rejection.
Regarding Claim 28, the claim depends from itself rendering the scope of the claim unclear and indefinite. Applicant is suggested to change the dependency of the claim to Claim 27 to overcome the rejection.
Regarding Claim 37, the recitation of, “the fluid outlet” in Line 4 lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 38, the recitation of, “the fluid outlet” in Line 4 lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 29-30 and 38-39 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency.
**Any and all claims rejected above under 112(b), if rejected with art below under sections 102 and/or 103, is/are rejected as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kastenmaier et al. (DE 102010038909 A1) hereinafter referred to as Kastenmaier.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Kastenmaier discloses a turbocharger housing (figures 1-2, also reproduced/annotated above) comprising:
a first fluid passage (see annotated figure 2) having an exhaust gas inlet (11, figure 2), a volute (structure forming 2, figure 2), and an exhaust gas outlet (inherent outlet in axial direction, see figure 2), the volute extending from the exhaust gas inlet in a circumferential direction relative to a central axis of the exhaust gas outlet (see figure 2); and
a second fluid passage (3, figure 2) extending parallel to the first fluid passage (see annotated figure 2) between the exhaust gas inlet and the exhaust gas outlet (see annotated figure 2), the second fluid passage having an outlet opening (8, figure 2) that is offset from the exhaust gas outlet (best seen from figure 2).
Regarding Claim 23, Kastenmaier discloses that the second fluid passage further comprises a fluid inlet (7, figure 2) that is arranged coaxially with the exhaust gas inlet (see figure 2).
Regarding Claim 24, Kastenmaier discloses that the second fluid passage is structured to direct a flow of fluid parallel to a flow of an exhaust gas discharged from the first fluid passage through a single gasketed interface that is shared between the first fluid passage and the second fluid passage (intended use recitation, see figure 1-2 for capability where flow through first and second fluid passage is at least partially parallel and 7 and 11 sharing a common interface).
PNG
media_image2.png
475
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 25, Kastenmaier discloses that the outlet opening is one of a plurality of outlet openings (see 8, figure 3 also reproduced below) that are arranged coaxially with or at least partially surround the exhaust gas outlet (see 8 at least partially surrounding exhaust gas outlet, best seen from figure 2 and 3).
Regarding Claim 26, Kastenmaier discloses that each one of the plurality of outlet openings is reniform (see shape of 8, figure 3).
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.
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.
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 40-41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kastenmaier.
Regarding Claim 40, Kastenmaier discloses all of the limitations of Claim 22 as discussed above but is silent on an exhaust manifold that is fluidly coupled to the exhaust gas inlet, wherein the exhaust manifold is structured to direct a flow of fluid through therethrough parallel to a flow of exhaust gas along an entire length of the exhaust manifold.
It is well known and conventional in the art to have an exhaust manifold that is fluidly coupled to an exhaust gas inlet, wherein the exhaust manifold is structured to direct a flow of fluid through therethrough parallel to a flow of exhaust gas along an entire length of the exhaust manifold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turbocharger housing of Kastenmaier and include an exhaust manifold that is fluidly coupled to the exhaust gas inlet, wherein the exhaust manifold is structured to direct a flow of fluid through therethrough parallel to a flow of exhaust gas along an entire length of the exhaust manifold for the purposes of collecting exhaust gases from the engine's cylinders and channeling them into the turbocharger's turbine.
Regarding Claim 41, Kastenmaier discloses all of the limitations of Claim 22 as discussed above but is silent on an exhaust system comprising a plurality of turbocharger housings, wherein the turbocharger housing is a first turbocharger housing of the plurality of turbocharger housings, further comprising a second turbocharger housing that is fluidly coupled to the first turbocharger housing and has the same gas and fluid flow path therethrough as the first turbocharger housing.
It is well known and conventional in the art to have a series configuration of turbochargers that includes an exhaust system comprising a plurality of turbocharger housings, wherein the turbocharger housing is a first turbocharger housing of a plurality of turbocharger housings, further comprising a second turbocharger housing that is fluidly coupled to the first turbocharger housing and has the same gas and fluid flow path therethrough as the first turbocharger housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kastenmaier and include an exhaust system comprising a plurality of turbocharger housings, wherein the turbocharger housing is a first turbocharger housing of a plurality of turbocharger housings, further comprising a second turbocharger housing that is fluidly coupled to the first turbocharger housing and has the same gas and fluid flow path therethrough as the first turbocharger housing for the purposes of increasing power output.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27, and 37-39 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 27 and 37, the claims further distinguish over the closest prior art i.e. Kastenmaier. Therefore, it is not known in, nor obvious from the prior art to construct a turbocharger housing as claimed.
Claims 38-39 also contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency.
Claims 31-32 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 31, the claim further distinguish over the closest prior art i.e. Kastenmaier. Therefore, it is not known in, nor obvious from the prior art to construct a turbocharger housing as claimed.
Claim 32 also contain allowable subject matter by virtue of its dependency.
*Examiner’s Note: Regarding Claims 28-30, an indication of allowability or prior art rejections is/are reserved until the pending 112(b) rejections have been addressed.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a filed document or remarks of a filed response (see MPEP 502.03 Il): Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file. If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is sabbir.hasan@uspto.gov.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0266273 A1 discloses a turbine housing of a turbocharger (see 3, figure 1A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sabbir Hasan whose telephone number is (571)270-7651. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:30 am-6:30pm.
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, Nathaniel 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sabbir Hasan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights