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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations “the first bearings are directly coupled to the at least one integral pump impeller” and “the second bearings are directly coupled to the at least one integral turbine impeller” are not taught or fairly suggested in the original disclosure. The disclosure lacks an explicit recitation to the bearings being directly coupled to the pump impeller and turbine impeller. Additionally, claim 1 further requires that the bearings are directly coupled to the rotor. An examination of figures 2b-c, f show the bearings in situ in the turbopump. However, it appears as though the bearings are directly attached to the rotor/shaft portion of the impellers. The drawings do not clearly show that the bearings are attached to the impeller portion. Additionally, the claims recite the integral pump and integral turbine are between the bearings. Thus, it appears the original disclosure does not disclose that the bearings are directly coupled to the impeller pump and turbine respectively
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the at least one integral turbine pump and the at least one integral turbine” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear the antecedent basis thereof. The limitation at least one integral turbine pump is unclear whether this is the integral pump impeller or the integral turbine impeller or not. Additionally, the examiner notes that the at least one integral turbine pump and the at least on integral turbine appears to be the at least one integral pump impeller and the at least one integral turbine impeller.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “directly coupled” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear what exactly is required by the limitation. The specification does not provide any clarity on what the term directly coupled requires.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
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 Clemmens US 4,018,043.
Regarding claim 1, Ledwith discloses a turbopump 20, 27 assembly in a rocket propulsion system, the turbopump assembly comprising: a rotor 38 with at least one pump impeller 20 and at least one 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 the integral pump and turbine impellers, first and second bearings supporting the rotor, the first and second bearings being supported by the housing, wherein the rotor is disposed between the first 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; and the at least one integral pump impeller and the at least one integral turbine impeller are between all bearings supporting the pump and turbine in the housing.
Clemmens teaches a gas turbine engine having a centrifugal impeller 22 and a radial turbine 16 similar to that shown by Ledwith, the centrifugal impeller and the radial turbine are integral with each other and the rotor assembly, first and second bearing assemblies 56, 58 supporting the rotor, the first and second bearings being directly coupled to the rotor and directly mounted on the housing, the bearing 56 is journaled on the inlet frame member 48, the bearings 58 are journaled on the turbine nozzle 40, where the inlet frame member and the turbine nozzle are interpreted as a part of the housing 33 where the other side of the bearings are directly coupled to the rotor, wherein the rotor is disposed between the first 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 bearings and second bearings, the impeller 22 and the turbine 16 are between bearings 56, 58; and 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 turbine pump and the at least one integral turbine in the housing, there are no bearings in between the impeller and the turbine. While Clemmens teaches the benefits of a toroidal combustor, the overall structure allows for a greater compactness of the engine and a reduction in length of the engine. See col. 1, lines 20-42. The structure provided allows for a reduction in weight and bulk. See col. 2, lines 20-24. Though the disclosure discusses the primary constraint on the length of the engine being the combustion process, see col. 1, lines 43-54, the resulting orientation of the compressor and turbine on the shaft contributes to the reduction in length.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide an integrated turbine impeller having the characteristics taught by Clemmens, in the fuel turbopump of Ledwith, in order to provide a shorter more compact turbomachine. Supra.
Regarding claim 2, Ledwith, in view of Clemmens, both disclose 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. Both Ledwith and Clemmens show the pump element is connected to the turbine element directly via a shaft.
Regarding claim 19, Ledwith, in view of Clemmens, disclose the first bearings are directly coupled to the at least one integral pump impeller and directly mounted on the housing and the second bearings are directly coupled to the at least one integral turbine impeller and directly mounted on the housing. As noted above, the bearings are mounted directly on the housing parts as recited in claim 1 above and the bearings are directly coupled to the pump and turbine in a manner shown in fig. 2.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Linhardt US 3,966,362.
Regarding claim 1, Linhardt discloses a turbopump assembly in a rocket propulsion system, the process air compression system discloses structure that is capable of pumping fuel in a rocket propulsion system, the turbopump assembly comprising: a rotor 52 with at least one integral pump impeller 62, 72 and at least one integral turbine impeller 48, 32; a housing containing the rotor, the housing includes all structural housing elements including 88, 80, 40, 42 and structure therebetween, and first bearings 90 and second bearings 92 supporting the rotor, the first bearings and second bearings being directly coupled to the rotor and directly mounted on the housing, the bearings 90, 92 are in direct contact with the shaft 52; and in contact with the housing portion abutting the bearings, 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 bearings 90, 92 support the turbine and the impeller; and the at least one integral pump impeller 62, 72 is between all bearings 90, 92 supporting the at least one integral turbine pump and the at least one integral turbine in the housing.
Regarding claim 2 and 19, Linhardt 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, the turbines and the impellers are all rigidly connected to the same shaft are rotate at the same speed, and the first bearings are directly coupled to the at least one integral pump impeller and directly mounted on the housing and the second bearings are directly coupled to the at least one integral turbine impeller and directly mounted on the housing. As noted above, the bearings are mounted directly on the housing parts as recited in claim 1 above and the bearings are directly coupled to the pump and turbine in a manner shown in fig. 2.
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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In combination with a turbopump assembly having the at least one integral pump impeller and the at least one integral turbine impeller are between all bearings supporting the pump and turbine in the housing and the remaining structure of claim 1, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a rotodynamic seal configured to use the rotation of the rotor to pump fluid from a boundary region between a pump fluidic region and a turbine fluidic region as required in claim 3.
References attached herein but not relied upon show various aspects of the claimed and disclosed inventions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s amendments have broadened the scope of the claims and introduce ambiguities requiring the new rejections above.
The Applicant argues that the prior art previously applied does not teach the bearings directly coupled to the rotor and directly mounting on the housing. The Examiner disagrees. While the structure of Clemmens shows the bearings connected to structure such as elements 40, 48, the claims do not recite the limitations that prevent these elements from being interpreted as part of the housing. The Applicant should consider amending structure that would exclude this interpretation.
Additionally, the amended claims appear to broaden the scope of the claims such that only the integral pump impeller is required to be entirely between the bearings of the system. Such amendment broadens the claim scope to include prior art such as Lindhardt.
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 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