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 filed on 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art rejection, applicant argues that “Gashi does not disclose that a clamping section (formed by the diffuser and the clamping ring) is provided which protrudes in the axial direction from the diffuser. Instead, it is clear from Figure 6 that the clamping section provided by the "bearing bracket" 30 for abutment against the thrust bearing washer protrudes in the radial direction.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, a three-dimensional element extends or protrudes in all three dimensions. Secondly, applicant has identified the wrong section in their annotated figure of Gashi. The clamping section is the section between the bearing washer and the diffuser. Note that the clamping section and the diffuser can be an integral one-piece element. In other words, they can be different sections of an element. Note that the claim recites “clamping section.” Also note that a part of an element can be interpreted to protrude from another part of that element.
Claim interpretation
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: “fastening element” in claim 2, “cooling element” in claim 1, “guide element” in claim 5, “aligning element” in claim 6.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: change “a clamping ring for fixing a thrust bearing to axially mount the impeller in a bearing receptacle, and an inner housing defining a bearing receptacle for receiving a mount” to “a clamping ring for fixing a thrust bearing to axially mount the impeller in a bearing receptacle, and an inner housing defining [[a]] the bearing receptacle for receiving a mount” to fix the antecedent basis issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: change “one of the at least one thrust bearing washer” to “. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 lack a proper ending punctuation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gashi et al. (US 20190323511), referred to hereafter as Gashi.
With regard to claim 1, Gashi discloses a turbocompressor comprising: an impeller (8) rotatable about an axis of rotation for conveying a fluid (Fig. 4, 6), a diffuser (30) downstream of the impeller relative to a flow of the fluid, a clamping ring (30) for fixing a thrust bearing (24) to axially mount the impeller in a bearing receptacle (the receptacle in which the bearings are accommodated in Fig. 4), and an inner housing (26) defining a bearing receptacle for receiving a mount formed by the thrust bearing and/or a radial bearing (Fig. 4), wherein the diffuser and the clamping ring are formed integrally and in a single piece with each other as a unit (see 30 in Fig. 4), wherein the unit consisting of the diffuser and the clamping ring forms an end-face housing cover of the inner housing (Fig. 4), wherein the inner housing is also formed to receive an electric motor (12) driving the impeller and forms cooling elements (54) for cooling the electric motor (Fig. 4, [0036]), and wherein the unit consisting of the diffuser and the clamping ring is formed to direct the fluid conveyed by the impeller into and/or onto the cooling elements of the inner housing (Fig. 4), wherein the thrust bearing is an aerodynamic thrust bearing ([0031]) with at least one thrust bearing washer (Fig. 4), and wherein the unit consisting of the diffuser and the clamping ring forms a clamping section (the lower section of the diffuser) protruding in the axial direction from the diffuser for axially abutting one of the at least one thrust bearing washer (Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 2, Gashi further discloses that the bearing receptacle includes a pot receiving the mount (Fig. 4), and wherein the housing cover formed by the unit consisting of the diffuser and the clamping ring is connectable to the pot by at least one fastening element (Fig. 4), and the mount is fixable in the pot by an axial clamping force generatable across the housing cover (Fig. 4. Note that based of the current claim language, such as fixable and generatable, the claim only requires the capability of such functions).
With regard to claim 3, Gashi further discloses that the clamping section has an annular projection extending peripherally in the circumferential direction (Fig. 4. Note that without reciting a plane of refence for “projection”, the projection can be any part of a three-dimensional element by virtue of projecting in the X, Y, and Z direction. In other words, claim 1 doesn’t recite what element exactly projects from what element or surface, which makes it broad).
With regard to claim 6, Gashi further discloses that the unit consisting of the diffuser and the clamping ring has at least one aligning element for concentric alignment with respect to the axis of rotation and/or for concentric alignment of the thrust bearing with respect to the axis of rotation and/or for concentric alignment of an inflow nozzle arranged on an inflow side of the impeller with respect to the axis of rotation (Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 7, Gashi further discloses that the turbocompressor is a radial compressor or an axial compressor or a diagonal compressor (Fig. 4).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gashi et al. (US 2019/0323511), referred to hereafter as Gashi in view of Meier et al. (US 2018/0245598), referred to hereafter as Meier.
With regard to claim 5:
Gashi discloses the turbocompressor of claim 1, as set forth above.
Gashi does not appear to explicitly disclose that the unit consisting of the diffuser and the clamping ring has a plurality of guide elements and/or cooling elements for cooling and pressure conversion of the fluid conveyed by the impeller.
However, Meier teaches a turbocompressor comprising a diffuser having a plurality of guide elements (161) and/or cooling elements for cooling and pressure conversion of the fluid conveyed by the impeller. Meier teaches that the guide elements help in preventing air turbulence ([0091]).
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 according to known methods, and add guide elements to the diffuser of Gashi, to yield predictable results of preventing air turbulence.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with regard to claim 4, the prior art doesn’t discloses that the annular projection is perforated by channels running in the radial direction for decoupling the flow, and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, nor any motivation, to modify the prior arts for these deficiencies, because it would require improper hindsight reconstruction.
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 turbocompressors such as US 2023/0204037.
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