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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5-8 of the response, filed August 13, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1, 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Deshpande et al. (US 2022/0325634 A1), hereinafter Deshpande. Note that Deshpande was previously cited as pertinent art.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, Applicant’s arguments are found to be persuasive. Particularly, with respect to the amended limitation requiring the interruption zone only be “recessed partly into the flange” in view of Schumnig et al. (US 9,115,599 B2). Therefore, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, the claims are still believed to be met by Deshpande as detailed in the rejection below.
It is noted Applicant commented on Striedelmeyer (EP 3252284 A1) being provided only in German. A machine translation was provided with the previous action, which Applicant may review. The action explicitly stated the machine translation would be referenced. See the attached NPL documents in the previous action.
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 8 of the response, filed with respect to the rejection of Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 17, as best understood, Applicant believes Schumnig does not expressly teach the concept of a flange extended around the circumference of the bearing housing with an interruption zone forming a recess in the flange. The Office respectfully disagrees. The flange is interpreted as (24, 24’, 24’’) together, which extends along a circumference of the bearing housing. Subsequently, the spaces between (24), (24’), and (24’’) satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of an interruption zone defining a recess. The spaces are recessed from the radial direction of an otherwise complete flange. Therefore, the argument with respect to Claim 17 is found to be unpersuasive. Regarding the different stated purpose of Schumnig compared to the instant application, Schumnig already meets all the required stated structure in the claim. The record does not indicate what structural difference would prevent Schumnig from performing the alleged function, which appears to be a result of the claimed structure according to Applicant’s arguments.
No further arguments have been provided with respect to the remaining claims.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deshpande et al. (US 2022/0325634 A1), hereinafter Deshpande.
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 1a-2d of Deshpande disclose a bearing housing (8) for a turbocharger (see paragraph [0002]), comprising: a bearing housing body (40); a flange (42) on the bearing housing body (40) at an interface with an adjacent housing (10), the flange (42) extending around an entire circumference of the bearing housing body (40); an interruption zone (52) recessed partly into the flange (42), the interruption zone (52) defining a recess to interrupt thermal conduction paths, the interruption zone (52) being configured to direct heat flux away from the bearing housing body (40) for reducing thermal stress on the bearing housing (8) without affecting structural integrity [0148-0154]. Paragraph [0145] discusses a portion (56) of the flange (42) conducting heat flux away. Deshpande teaches all the listed structure of the claim. There is currently no evidence of record of affecting structural integrity, nor does the claim recite specific structure which performs the function of not affecting structural integrity compared to the prior art.
Regarding Claim 2, Deshpande discloses the bearing housing as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 2a-2b of Deshpande disclose wherein a plurality of interruption zones (52) are provided on the flange (42) [0151].
Regarding Claim 3, Deshpande discloses the bearing housing as set forth in Claim 2.
Figures 2a-2b of Deshpande discloses wherein the plurality of interruption zones (52) are spaced evenly around the flange (42) [0151].
Regarding Claim 5, Deshpande discloses the bearing housing as set forth in Claim 2.
Figures 2a-2b of Deshpande disclose wherein the plurality of interruption zones (52) are elongated gaps. For instance, each zone (52) is a gap between circumferentially adjacent portions of (50) where the zones are present.
Regarding Claim 7, Deshpande discloses the bearing housing as set forth in Claim 1.
Deshpande discloses wherein the flange (42) is casted or machined to form the gap or recesses (forming 52) formed on the bearing housing body (8) [0203].
Regarding Claim 9, Figures 1a-2d of Deshpande disclose a turbocharger (2) comprising: a turbine housing (10) configured to receive exhaust gases from an internal combustion engine (paragraphs [0003, 0120] discussing being for an internal combustion engine and receiving exhaust gas); a compressor housing (14) configured to receive compressed air from a rotor shaft (18); a bearing housing (8) connecting the turbine housing (10) and the compressor housing (14), the bearing housing (8) including; a bearing housing body (40); a flange (42) on the bearing housing body (40) at an interface with an adjacent housing (10), the flange (42) extending around an entire circumference of the bearing housing body (40); an interruption zone (52) recessed partly into the flange (42), the interruption zone (52) defining a recess to interrupt thermal conduction paths, the interruption zone (52) being configured to direct heat flux away from the bearing housing body (40) for reducing thermal stress on the bearing housing (8) without affecting structural integrity [0117-0120, 0148-0154]. Paragraph [0145] discusses a portion (56) of the flange (42) conducting heat flux away. Deshpande teaches all the listed structure of the claim. There is currently no evidence of record of affecting structural integrity, nor does the claim recite specific structure which performs the function of not affecting structural integrity compared to the prior art.
Regarding Claim 10, Deshpande discloses the turbocharger as set forth in Claim 9.
Figures 2a-2b of Deshpande disclose wherein a plurality of interruption zones (52) are provided on the flange (42) [0151].
Regarding Claim 11, Deshpande discloses the turbocharger as set forth in Claim 10.
Figures 2a-2b of Deshpande disclose wherein the plurality of interruption zones (42) form an air gap in the bearing housing-turbine housing (8-10) interface configured to allow convection cooling. Convection would be capable of occurring since the zones provide a space. Paragraph [0156] notes the zones (52) are generally empty after assembly.
Regarding Claim 13, Deshpande discloses the turbocharger as set forth in Claim 10.
Figures 2a-2b of Deshpande discloses wherein the plurality of interruption zones (52) are spaced evenly around the flange (42) [0151].
Regarding Claim 15, Deshpande discloses the turbocharger as set forth in Claim 10.
Figures 2a-2b of Deshpande disclose wherein the plurality of interruption zones (52) are elongated gaps. For instance, each zone (52) is a gap between circumferentially adjacent portions of (50) where the zones are present.
Regarding Claim 16, Deshpande discloses the turbocharger as set forth in Claim 10.
Deshpande discloses wherein the flange (42) is casted or machined to form the plurality of interruption zones (52) [0203].
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schumnig et al. (US 9,115,599 B2), hereinafter Schumnig.
Regarding Claim 17, Figures 1-2, 4 of Schumnig discloses a method for a bearing housing of a turbocharger (see Col. 1, Lines 3-4), the method comprising: forming a bearing housing body (28) with a flange (24, 24’, 24’’ collectively in the circumferential direction) along a circumference on the bearing housing body (28) for interfacing with an adjacent housing component (2); and casting (Col. 2, Lines 39-43) a plurality of interruption zones in the flange (24, 24’, 24’’), each interruption zone defining a recess. The limitation of to interrupt a thermal conduction path between the bearing housing and the adjacent housing component is met by the disclosed structure provided in the steps. Schumnig discloses all the required structure in the method steps of the claim. The record does not indicate further structure is required to perform the function of interrupting thermal conduction paths. As can be seen in Figure 4 of Schumnig, each portion of the flange (24, 24’, 24’’) is separate compared to a full flange, thus the conduction path is considered “interrupted” compared to a full flange that is capable of conducting heat continuously. Since all the steps of the method are met by the prior art, particularly including the aspect of interrupting a thermal conduction path, such a method is considered a method of reducing thermal stress as claimed in the preamble.
Regarding Claim 18, Schumnig discloses the method as set forth in Claim 17.
Schumnig discloses positioning the plurality of interruption zones to direct heat flux away from the bearing housing towards regions capable of dissipating heat more efficiently. Figure 4 of Schumnig exemplifies interruption zones (circumferential space between 24, 24’, 24’’). Thus, the heat flux of the bearing housing (28) are directed away from those regions, particularly towards the portions that still have physical structure, such as at (24, 24’, 24’’), that are capable of dissipating heat more efficiently compared to the empty spaces that do not directly conduct heat.
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 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.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande in view of Kobielski et al. (US 2021/0156304 A1), hereinafter Kobielski.
Regarding Claim 4, Deshpande teaches the bearing housing as set forth in Claim 1.
Deshpande does not expressly teach at least one cooling core positioned within the bearing housing body for circulating a cooling medium as claimed. However, a cooling core would have been obvious in view of Kobielski.
Figure 2 of Kobielski teaches a bearing housing (note 224 is a bearing, [0027]) comprising at least one cooling core (218) positioned within the bearing housing body (205) for circulating a cooling medium. The cooling core (218) cools areas which may be exposed to temperature gradients during operation. The cooling core (218) also provides a uniform cooling to the bearing housing body (205) so that thermal stress would be decreased [0034].
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 bearing housing taught by Deshpande with at least one cooling core positioned within the bearing housing body for circulating a cooling medium as suggested by Kobielski, to provide the benefit of uniformly cooling the housing.
Regarding Claim 14, Deshpande teaches the turbocharger as set forth in Claim 10.
Deshpande does not expressly teach at least one cooling core positioned within the bearing housing body for circulating a cooling medium as claimed. However, a cooling core would have been obvious in view of Kobielski.
Figure 2 of Kobielski teaches a bearing housing (note 224 is a bearing, [0027]) comprising at least one cooling core (218) positioned within the bearing housing body (205) for circulating a cooling medium. The cooling core (218) cools areas which may be exposed to temperature gradients during operation. The cooling core (218) also provides a uniform cooling to the bearing housing body (205) so that thermal stress would be decreased [0034].
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 taught by Deshpande with at least one cooling core positioned within the bearing housing body for circulating a cooling medium as suggested by Kobielski, to provide the benefit of uniformly cooling the housing.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande in view of Schippers et al. (US 4,364,717 A), hereinafter Schippers.
Regarding Claim 6, Deshpande teaches the bearing housing as set forth in Claim 1.
Deshpande does not expressly teach a thermal coating applied on the flange to enhance heat dissipation as claimed. However, a coating would have been obvious in view of Schippers.
Figure 1 of Schippers teaches a bearing housing (2) with a flange (4) (Col. 2, Lines 32-35). Schippers proposes having a thermal coating applied to the flange (4, noted as end wall of the bearing housing) to enhance heat dissipation. The coating further insulates the internal components of the bearing housing (2) from the turbine housing (1) (Col. 4, Lines 34-40). It is desirable to avoid excessive heat from the turbine housing to the adjacent bearing housing to protect the bearings and lubricating oil (Col. 1, Lines 14-26).
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 bearing housing taught by Deshpande with a thermal coating applied on the flange to enhance heat dissipation as suggested by Schippers, to provide the benefit of insulating the bearing housing from heat from the turbine housing.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande in view of Wang et al. (US 2015/0213164 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding Claim 8, Deshpande teaches the bearing housing as set forth in Claim 1.
Deshpande does not expressly teach wherein the bearing housing body is made of an aluminum alloy with a thermal conductivity greater than 150 W/m∙K as claimed. However, such an alloy would have been obvious in view of Wang.
Wang teaches the use of aluminum alloys. In one instance, Wang exemplifies aluminum alloys, such as alloy 356, are known to be suitable for use for turbocharger housings [0002-0003]. The bearing housing body is considered part of the turbocharger housing, since it is a body of a housing of a turbocharger. Thus, Wang exemplifies that aluminum 356 is a known material suitable for use as the housing. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.07).
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 bearing housing taught by Deshpande such that the bearing housing body is made of aluminum 356 as exemplified by Wang, since such an alloy is a known material that is suitable for use as bearing housing bodies. Aluminum 356 alloy has a thermal conductivity greater than 150 W/m∙K. See the thermal conductivity portion “Aluminum 356” cited as pertinent art. 151 is greater than 150, thus the claimed range of greater than 150 is anticipated.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande in view of Striedelmeyer (EP 3252284 A1), hereinafter Striedelmeyer. References to the text of Striedelmeyer will refer to the machine translation provided with the action of May 13, 2026.
Regarding Claim 12, Deshpande teaches the turbocharger as set forth in Claim 10.
Deshpande does not expressly show a thermal insulation layer positioned between the bearing housing and the compressor housing. However, such an arrangement would have been obvious in view of Striedelmeyer.
Figure 2 of Striedelmeyer teaches a turbocharger with a thermal insulation layer (33) positioned between the bearing housing (14) and the compressor housing (16) [0052]. Note (23) is also interpretable as an insulating layer, as it is a low thermally conductive material [0042]. The thermal insulation helps reduce heat transfer from the bearing housing to the compressor housing [0012, last section]. Such a reduction in thermal coupling leads to increase in the efficiency of the compressor [0010-0011].
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 taught by Deshpande with a thermal insulation layer positioned between the bearing housing and the compressor housing as suggested by Striedelmeyer, to provide the benefit of thermally insulating the compressor housing from the bearing housing, resulting in greater efficiencies.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumnig in view of Schippers.
Regarding Claim 19, Schumnig teaches the method as set forth in Claim 18.
Schumnig does not expressly teach applying a thermal barrier coating to the flange to reduce heat absorption as claimed. However, a coating would have been obvious in view of Schippers.
Figure 1 of Schippers teaches a bearing housing (2) with a flange (4) (Col. 2, Lines 32-35). Schippers proposes applying a thermal barrier coating (noted to be thermally insulating, i.e. a barrier) to the flange (4, noted as end wall of the bearing housing) to reduce heat absorption. The coating further insulates the internal components of the bearing housing (2) from the turbine housing (1) (Col. 4, Lines 34-40). It is desirable to avoid excessive heat from the turbine housing to the adjacent bearing housing to protect the bearings and lubricating oil (Col. 1, Lines 14-26).
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 method taught by Schumnig by applying a thermal barrier coating to the flange to reduce heat absorption as suggested by Schippers, to provide the benefit of insulating the bearing housing from heat from the turbine housing.
Regarding Claim 20, Schumnig and Schippers teach the method as set forth in Claim 19.
Figure 4 of Schumnig teaches the plurality of interruption zones (see circumferential spaces between 24, 24’, 24’’) in elongated gaps. Col. 2, Lines 39-43 of Schumnig discuss casting.
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 ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights