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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ledwith US 3,028,729 in view of Rosengart US 2,694,291.
Regarding claim 1, Ledwith a turbopump assembly 20, 27 in a rocket propulsion system, the turbopump assembly comprising: a rotor 38 with at least one integral pump impeller 20 and at least one integral turbine impeller 27; a housing containing the rotor, referring to the sole figure, Ledwith shows a casing surrounding the turbopump which is interpreted as the housing. Ledwith is not relied upon to teach first bearings and second bearings supporting the rotor, the first bearings and second bearings being directly coupled to the rotor and directly mounted on the housing; wherein the rotor is disposed between the first bearings and second bearings such that the at least one integral pump impeller and the at least one integral turbine impeller are supported between the first and second bearings, the at least one integral pump impeller and the at least one integral turbine impeller are between all bearings supporting the at least one integral pump impeller and the at least one turbine impeller in the housing; and the at least one integral pump impeller and the at least one integral turbine impeller are directly interconnected to each other to translate rotation therebetween without a drive shaft positioned between the at least one integral pump impeller and the at least one integral turbine impeller.
PNG
media_image1.png
469
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rosengart teaches first bearings 1 and second bearings 2 supporting the rotor, the first bearings and second bearings being directly coupled to the rotor and directly mounted on the housing, the first and second bearings are directly coupled to the rotor and directly mounted to the housing; wherein the rotor is disposed between the first bearings and second bearings such that the at least one integral pump impeller and the at least one integral turbine impeller are supported between the first and second bearings, the rotor is supported by the first and second bearings and between the bearings to support the integral turbine and impeller, the at least one integral pump impeller IPC and the at least one integral turbine impeller IT are between all bearings supporting the at least one integral pump impeller and the at least one turbine impeller in the housing, the turbocompressor assembly has only turbines 1 and 2; and the at least one integral pump impeller and the at least one integral turbine impeller are directly interconnected to each other to translate rotation therebetween without a drive shaft positioned between the at least one integral pump impeller and the at least one integral turbine impeller, referring to fig. 5, the IPC and the IT are formed together in a similar manner to that disclosed by the Applicant in fig. 2F such that the backs of the IPC and IT are integrally formed, the center of the IPC and IT are hollow in the rotor space, the translation of the IPC by the IT occurs by the integral walls. Rosengart teaches that the arrangement of the engine results in a compact construction with reduced axial dimensions. See col. 4, liens 18-20.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide an integrated turbine impeller having the characteristics of Rosengart, in the fuel turbopump of Ledwith, in order to provide reduced axial dimensions and compact construction. Id.
Regarding claim 2, Ledwith, in view of Rosengart, discloses the at least one integral pump impeller and the at least one integral turbine impeller are fixed directly to each other and rotate at the same rotational velocity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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 for the reasons previously discussed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant first argues that element 2 identified in the office action is not disclosed as a bearing and it is unclear what the element is. The Examiner disagrees. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). The element identified as number 2 is commonly associated with a (ball/thrust) bearing. Such a contention is substantially supported on the record. See Cooper US 3,332,726 element 12; Miller US 3,877,442 elements 71, 72, 86, 88; Hagemeister US 3,890,780, elements 3, 4. The Applicant appears to take issue with rejection merely because element 2 is not expressly labeled; however, the drawings must be evaluated in their entirety for what they reasonably teach to an ordinary skilled worker. As shown in the prior art of record, Rosengart’s drawings clearly show a ball bearing at elements 1 and 2 and thus the pump impeller and turbine are supported between the first and second bearings.
Next, the Applicant argues that Rosengart does not disclose there is a pump. The Examiner agrees that Rosengart does not disclose a pump but is rather directed to a turbocompressor; however, Rosengart was not relied upon to teach the pump. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The pump assembly is taught by Ledwith and thus the combination of Ledwith and Rosengart teaches the claimed turbopump.
The remaining arguments drawn to the combination of Rosengart and Ledwith and drawn to the distinctions on how the two systems operate. Namely, Ledwith is a rocket propellant pressurization system and Rosengart is a gas turbine engine. While the Examiner does concede the two references are materially different in purpose, the references are similar in the manner in which the function. Thus, benefits made from one system can be applied to another system so long as the imported benefit is consistent with the device being modified. The turbocompressor of Rosengart is shown and taught to be a compact design that is nested between two bearings. Ledwith shows an turbo impeller pump similar to Rosengart but separated by a shaft. The device of Ledwith thus may be made more compact by adopting the design of Rosengart to save space. It is the space saving arrangement of Rosengart that is being imported and not the literal air compressor of Rosengart. The imported compact design where the impeller element is integral with the turbine element between two bearings as shown in Rosengart can be applied without materially altering the Ledwith apparatus to provide a more compact design. The Applicant’s arguments are not drawn to the teachings being imported and thus are not found convincing.
The Examiner affirms claim 3 would be allowable but for formalities.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GERALD LUTHER SUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3765. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571)272-7118. 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.
/GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights