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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 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 § 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thoss et al. (US 2014/0245736), referred to hereafter as Thoss.
With regard to claim 1, Thoss discloses a turbine comprising: an impeller (3); and a housing (2) that accommodates the impeller (Fig. 1), the housing including: an inlet that receives exhaust gas (Fig. 1); a first space that accommodates the impeller (Fig. 1); a second space that is located downstream of the first space in a flow of the exhaust gas (Fig. 1); a first flow path that connects the inlet to the first space (Fig. 1); and a second flow path (18 and 19) that directly connects the inlet to the second space without connecting the inlet to the first space (Fig. 1, 2), wherein an outlet passage of the second flow path is defined in part by an inner circumferential surface that extends parallel to an axial direction of the impeller and that is continuous in a circumferential direction of the impeller (Fig. 1, 2, [0035]), and an outer circumferential surface that extends parallel to the axial direction and that is continuous in the circumferential direction (Fig. 1, [0035]), the outlet passage of the second flow path is fixed to the housing (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 2, Thoss further discloses a valve (22, 23) that opens and closes the second flow path at a position upstream of the first space (Fig. 1-3).
With regard to claim 3, Thoss further discloses that a volume of the second flow path is smaller than a volume of the first flow path (Fig. 1-3).
With regard to claim 4, Thoss further discloses that the second flow path has a spiral shape (Fig. 1-3, [0032]).
With regard to claim 5, Thoss further discloses an exhaust opening (20) located downstream of the second space in the flow of the exhaust gas (Fig. 1), wherein the second flow path is configured to face the exhaust opening in the axial direction (Fig. 1, [0035]).
With regard to claim 6, Thoss further discloses that the outlet passage includes an entry that is radially outside the first space and an exit that exits into the second space (Fig. 1-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinnouchi (US 5,584,181).
With regard to claim 1:
Jinnouchi discloses a turbine comprising: an impeller (101); and a housing (102) that accommodates the impeller (Fig. 4), the housing including: an inlet that receives exhaust gas (Fig. 4); a first space that accommodates the impeller (Fig. 4); a second space that is located downstream of the first space in a flow of the exhaust gas (Fig. 4); a first flow path that connects the inlet to the first space (Fig. 4); and a second flow path (108) that directly connects the inlet to the second space without connecting the inlet to the first space (Fig. 4), wherein an outlet passage of the second flow path is defined in part by an inner circumferential surface that extends parallel to an axial direction of the impeller and that is at least partially continuous in a circumferential direction of the impeller (Fig. 4), and an outer circumferential surface that extends parallel to the axial direction and that is continuous in the circumferential direction (Fig. 4), the outlet passage of the second flow path is fixed to the housing (Fig. 4).
Jinnouchi does not appear to explicitly disclose that the inner circumferential surface is completely continuous in a circumferential direction of the impeller.
However, a careful examination of the specification reveals no criticality for the continuity of the inner circumferential surface, nor any reason as to why the turbine of applicant with the continuous inner circumferential surface would operate any different than the turbine of Jinnouchi, and Applicant has not disclosed that the continuity of the inner circumferential surface provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. On the contrary, the specification discloses that the continuity of the inner circumferential surface is a mere example and that “In another embodiment, the outlet 52 c may not be continuous in the circumferential direction, and may be partly provided in the circumferential direction” ([0035]). Hence the continuity feature is considered to be a design choice by the applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Jinnouchi and Applicant’s invention to perform equally well, because both would perform the same function of bypassing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the continuity feature for the inner circumferential surface as claimed with turbine of Jinnouchi in order to achieve a desired dimension, flow rate, or configuration, as they are a matter of design choice. Such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
With regard to claim 2, Jinnouchi further discloses a valve (107) that opens and closes the second flow path at a position upstream of the first space (Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 3, Jinnouchi further discloses that a volume of the second flow path is smaller than a volume of the first flow path (Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 4, Jinnouchi further discloses that the second flow path has a spiral shape (Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 5, Jinnouchi further discloses an exhaust opening (104) located downstream of the second space in the flow of the exhaust gas (Fig. 4), wherein the second flow path is configured to face the exhaust opening in the axial direction (Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 6, Jinnouchi further discloses that the outlet passage includes an entry that is radially outside the first space and an exit that exits into the second space (Fig. 4).
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 bypasses such as US 8047772.
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