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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 04 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 12, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gessler (US 4915589) in view of Barthes (US 20180062467).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gessler (US 4915589) in view of Barthes (US 20180062467).
Regarding claim 1, Gessler discloses A connection adapter (Figure 2, item 5) for the detachable connection of an impeller (3) with a shaft (2) to a rotor assembly for a turbo compressor that can rotate about a rotation axis (abstract), the connection adapter comprising:
an impeller section for fixing the impeller to the connection adapter (Figure 2, items 10 and the interface at 7 show the impeller section of the adapter along with any structures that serve to fix the adapter to the impeller), and
a shaft section for fixing the connection adapter to the shaft (figure 2, the area around the interface between 2 and 5 at item 6 serves at the shaft section along with any structures that serve to fix the adapter to the shaft),
wherein the impeller section has a first axial alignment means for axial alignment (No structure was imparted on the alignment means other than them being capable of axial alignment so these limitations are being interpreted broadly as any structure that is capable of limiting axial movement in a final position. Such an interpretation applies to the second axial alignment means below and with regards to radial movement with the first and second radial alignment means provided below. Annotated Figure 2 shows multiple structures of the impeller section that serve to abut the impeller axially against the adapter to position the adapter and impeller axially relative to each other. Each of these can each meet the limitations of the first axial alignment means individually or in combination) and a first radial alignment means for radial alignment of the impeller on the connection adapter (Annotated Figure 2 shows first radial alignment means that radially abut the impeller such that the adapter and impeller cannot shift radially relative to each other. Each of these can meet the limitations of the first radial alignment means individually or in combination) and the shaft section has a second axial alignment means for axial alignment (Annotated Figure 2 shows multiple axial abutments where the shaft and adapter can abut so that the axial movement is restricted. Further, the blocks 15 and 16 serve to radially compress the adapter against the shaft when the system is tightened such that the axial location of the shaft is locked in the adapter and axial movement is restricted. Each of these can each meet the limitations of the second axial alignment means individually or in combination) and a second radial alignment means for radial alignment of the shaft on the connection adapter (Annotated Figure 2 shows second radial alignment means that radially abut the shaft such that the adapter and shaft cannot shift radially relative to each other that can each meet the limitations of the second radial alignment means individually or in combination), by means of which the impeller and the shaft can be fixed to the connection adapter in a predetermined axial and radial alignment with respect to one another (Column 2, lines 55-68 and column 3, lines 1-21).
However, Gessler does not explicitly disclose that the shaft section forms or has a joining portion configured as a joining partner of a fit, wherein the joining portion is configured as a pin with its longitudinal axis extending in the axial direction and configured for joining with a receptacle provided on the shaft and corresponding thereto, so that the connection adapter can be connected to the shaft via the fit formed by the pin and the receptacle, and wherein the fit is a transition fit or an interference fit.
Gessler and Barthes are analogous prior art because both describe wheel fits between a shaft and impeller. Barthes teaches a shaft section forms or has a joining portion configured as a joining partner of a fit (Figure 2, item 34), wherein the joining portion is configured as a pin with its longitudinal axis extending in the axial direction and configured for joining with a receptacle provided on the shaft and corresponding thereto, so that the connection adapter can be connected to the shaft via the fit formed by the pin and the receptacle (Figure 2 item 34 shows pins that project from the wheel portion and fit with the shaft portion, further described in paragraph 0051), and wherein the fit is a transition fit or an interference fit (Paragraph 0051 describes the keying system that fits into the matching recesses. As the keying system would have friction and interference between the pins and the receptacles during operation of the system, an interference or transition fit exists between the structures).
Barthes describes that the keying system always guarantees the exact positioning of the two components relative to each other (Par. 0051) along with providing circumferential stability between the items during operation. Gessler already describes that preventing misalignment of the various components (Col. 2, lines 55-68) and Figures 2-4 show an interface between the adapter (5) and the shaft (2) at the left end of the shaft where it would be possible to provide protruding keys from the adapter into the end of the shaft so the keying system of Barthes would provide predictable results in the adapter of Gessler in addition to the clamping structure. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the joining portion and pin and receptacle structure of Barthes in the adapter of Gessler because the keying system always guarantees the exact positioning of the two components relative to each other (Par. 0051) along with providing circumferential stability between the items during operation and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
PNG
media_image1.png
758
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 2, Gessler in view of Barthes teaches that the impeller portion has a thread for establishing a screw connection with the impeller (Gessler Figure 2, item 11 shows a screw connection between the impeller and the nut 14 that establishes a screw connection with the impeller).
Regarding claim 4, Gessler in view of Barthes teaches a first circumferential alignment means for aligning the impeller on the connection adapter in a predetermined position is provided on the impeller section and/or
wherein a second circumferential alignment means is provided on the shaft portion for aligning the connection adapter on the shaft in a predetermined position, by way of which the impeller and the shaft can be fixed to the connection adapter in a predetermined orientation in the circumferential direction relative to one another.
Similarly to as it is described above, no structure was imparted on the circumferential alignment means other than them being capable of circumferential alignment so these limitations are being interpreted broadly as any structure that is capable of limiting circumferential movement in a final position. Gessler Column 2, lines 55-68 and Column 3, lines 1-21 describe the operation of the connecting system and describe that the complete assembly is clamped together between a washer and the collar with a nut such that the impeller and shaft, and thereby the connection adapter, are frictionally clamped together. As this would prevent the three items from rotating circumferentially to each other they provide circumferential alignment means between both the shaft and the adapter and the impeller and the adapter to lock in a predetermined circumferential position. The specific adapter structures that cause this are the adapter threading 11, the adapter outer surface 20, the adapter inner surface and slots 9 and 6, and the subsequent blocks 15-17.
Regarding claim 5, Gessler in view of Barthes teaches that the connection adapter is configured to extend at least with its impeller section in the axial direction into the impeller (Gessler Figure 2 shows the connection adapter 10 extending axially into and through the impeller), so that the connection adapter overlaps with the impeller in the axial direction at least in its impeller section (Figure 2, items 10 and 3 show the impeller and connection adapter axially overlapping).
Regarding claim 6, Gessler in view of Barthes teaches that the connection adapter is configured to encompass the shaft radially on the outside (Gessler Figure 2, item 5 shows the connection adapter having a sleeve that radially encompasses the shaft on the outside), so that the connection adapter overlaps with the shaft in the axial direction at least in its shaft section (Figure 2, items 5 and 2 show the shaft and connection adapter axially overlapping).
Regarding claim 7, Gessler in view of Barthes teaches that the impeller section and the shaft section are designed to produce an axial overlap of the impeller fixable to the connection adapter with the shaft fixable to the connection adapter (Gessler Figure 2 shows that the two sections of the connection adapter overlap axially with the impeller and shaft respectively and as described in the rejection of claim 1 above the connection adapter serves to fix to both the impeller and shaft).
Regarding claim 9, Gessler in view of Barthes teaches that the impeller section is connected to the shaft section in a thermally conductive manner and the connection adapter is designed to connect the impeller to the shaft in a thermally conductive manner. Gessler Figure 2 shows the connection adapter being connected to both the shaft and the impeller and as those connections are capable of transmitting thermal energy they are connected in a thermally conductive manner. The application describes the impeller being made of metal and the shaft being made of a ceramic and does not describe the sleeve being made of a thermal insulator. Further, the abstract describes the connection as being thermally and mechanically loadable.
Regarding claim 10, Gessler in view of Barthes teaches A rotor assembly with an impeller of a shaft and a connection adapter connecting the impeller to the shaft configured according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above and Figure 1 of Gessler),
wherein the impeller and the shaft are axially and radially aligned with each other and fixed to each other via the connecting adapter (Figure 2 shows the shaft 2 and impeller 3 being both axially and radially aligned and connected via the connecting adapter 5).
Regarding claim 12, Gessler in view of Barthes teaches that the shaft is made of ceramic or tungsten carbide (Gessler Column 2, lines 46-54).
Regarding claim 14, Gessler in view of Barthes teaches that the thread is an external thread extending with its longitudinal axis in the axial direction (Gessler Figure 2, item 11), so that the impeller can be screwed to the external thread by a nut or an internal thread formed by the impeller (Figure 2, items 11 and 14 show a screw and nut connection for the impeller).
Regarding claim 17, Gessler in view of Barthes teaches a balancing section provided between the impeller section and the shaft section for balancing the connection adapter or a unit comprising the connection adapter and the shaft or a unit comprising the connection adapter and the impeller or the rotor assembly,
wherein a mass configured for material removal and/or interfaces for fixing balancing weights are provided in the balancing section. Figures 2 and 6 item 6 of Gessler shows slots arranged between the shaft and impeller sections that has material removed from the connection adapter to create the slots. As the balancing section must simply be capable of balancing the connection adapter and removal of such material to create the slots changes the balance of the connection adapter, the slots 6 meet the limitations of a balancing section. Further, while item 6 is being pointed to as the balancing section here, as any portion of the connection adapter is capable of providing a variable balance for the entire system, any portion of the connection adapter is capable of being considered the balancing section. The “mass being configured for removal” can further be any portion of the balancing section and the connection adapter, as this limitation is a functional limitation. As any material is capable of being removed either by a machining process or by destruction, any structure provided meets those limitations. See MPEP 2173.06(g) for detailed discussion of functional limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Gessler in view of Barthes teaches that the balancing section is located between axially facing surfaces of the impeller and the shaft when assembled to the connection adapter. Gessler Figure 2 shows the balancing section 6 being located between axially facing surfaces of the impeller and the shaft. Annotated Figure 2-B provided below shows axially facing surfaces of the impeller and axially facing surfaces of the shaft. As can be seen there, the balancing section 6 is axially located between the left impeller axial surface and both shaft axially facing surfaces and between the right impeller axial surface and the right shaft axial facing surface. As described above, other portions of the connection adapter can be considered the balancing section as they all meet the limitations of claim 1 above, and as such other portions of the balancing section that are located between each of the surfaces can meet these limitaitons.
PNG
media_image2.png
716
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2-B
Regarding claim 16, Gessler in view of Barthes teaches that the balancing section is radially exposed when the impeller and the shaft are assembled to the connection adapter, such that material can be removed and/or balancing weights affixed to the balancing section. As described above, any portion of the connection adapter can be considered the balancing section with the limitations provided from claim 1. As such, when the two are fully assembled, item 26 shows a portion of the adapter being radially exposed and as such it is possible in that state for material to be removed from that section. Similarly to what was described above, the limitations for material removal are functional limitations and the structure provided by Gessler makes material removal possible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights