DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the claims filed 2/16/2025.
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki in JP2007309140 (it is noted that this document and a translation have been provided by the Applicant with the IDS filed 4/12/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki discloses an assembly comprising: an exhaust gas turbine housing that comprises an inner wall 30 and an outer wall 61 (see Fig. 2) that define a first exhaust gas channel 5a and a second exhaust gas channel 5b to a turbine wheel space wherein the inner wall comprises an inner wall end at 32 at the turbine wheel space and the outer wall comprises an outer wall end at 33 at the turbine wheel space; a first flow body 32 disposed adjacent to the inner wall end; a second flow body 33 disposed adjacent to the outer wall end; and at least one set of adjustable variable geometry nozzle vanes 15 that define nozzle throats that direct flow of exhaust gas from at least one of the exhaust gas channels to the turbine wheel space, wherein at least one of the first flow body and the second flow body comprises a concave trailing surface 35 (Fig. 3 and 4) that is defined in part by an extension of an airfoil surface (“Each vane side opposing part 35 is formed in the circular arc shape centering on the rotation axis 15b of this opposing vane 15.”)
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the first flow body 32 and the second flow body 33 are fixed (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the inner wall end forms a first tongue and wherein the first flow body is adjacent to the first tongue (simply, wall 30 could be considered “tongue” shaped).
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the outer wall end forms a second tongue and wherein the second flow body is adjacent to the second tongue (simply, wall 61 may be considered tongue-shaped, and element 33 is at the end of the tongue).
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the extension defines a pocket that receives a leading edge of one of the adjustable variable geometry nozzle vanes (Fig. 3 and 4; see element 35 forming the equivalent pocket).
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the extension limits rotation of one of the adjustable variable geometry nozzle vanes in one of two rotational directions (physically so as demonstrated in the open and closed configurations of Fig. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 7, Sasaki discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first flow body and the second flow body comprises a spacer (the bodies themselves are spacers as they space apart the walls between which vanes 15 extend).
Regarding claim 8, Sasaki discloses the assembly of claim 7, wherein the spacer is disposed at a leading surface of the at least one of the first flow body and the second flow body (see the leading edge of a vane 15 in the bottom left of Fig. 3 at 35, which spaces apart the walls between which the vanes extend).
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki discloses the assembly of claim 7, wherein the spacer is disposed at a leading surface of the at least one of the first flow body and the second flow body (as the flow bodies themselves are being equated to “spacers” and the space apart structures) and does not extend to a post of the at least one of the first flow body and the second flow body (the flow bodies don’t have posts).
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the first flow body 32 comprises a leading surface (the radially outer extent), the concave trailing surface 35, and a first airfoil surface and a second airfoil surface that extend between the leading surface and the concave trailing surface (simply the sides of the body between the leading edge and trailing edge).
Regarding claim 11, Sasaki discloses the assembly of claim 10, wherein one of the first airfoil surface and the second airfoil surface is formed in part by the extension (the shape of the concavity 35 may be said to form the end of the “airfoil surfaces”, which are just the sides of the body).
Regarding claim 13, Sasaki discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the extension comprises a height approximately equal to a vane height (both extend between casing walls 16 and 61 and near the vanes 15 the extension and the vanes have approximately the same axial extent).
Regarding claim 14, Sasaki discloses the assembly of claim 13, wherein a maximum flow body height exceeds a vane height (here, absent a definition of height, Sasaki may be said to disclose flow bodies with radial extents that are greater than the radial extent of vanes; if this dimension is called height, Sasaki anticipates claim 14).
Regarding claim 15, Sasaki discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the first exhaust gas channel and the second exhaust gas channel comprise different A/R values (see the differences in cross-section in Fig. 1 and 2 of passages 5a and 5b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
Regarding claim 12, striking the word “optionally” from this claim would overcome the 112(b) rejection above and distinguish over Sasaki. Sasaki is silent to the one of the first airfoil surface and the second airfoil surface comprises a varying height, wherein the varying height comprises a lesser height at the extension. As best understood from Sasaki the equivalent first and second airfoil surfaces, or sides of the guide walls 32, 33, do not vary in height down to a minimum at the concavity 35.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11530618. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. The claims are identical.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Notable Prior Art:
US10227889 discloses an exhaust gas turbine housing that includes an inner wall and an outer wall that define a first exhaust gas channel and a second exhaust gas channel to a turbine wheel space where the inner wall includes an inner wall end at the turbine wheel space and the outer wall includes an outer wall end at the turbine wheel space; a first adjustable divider vane disposed adjacent to the inner wall end; a second adjustable divider vane disposed adjacent to the outer wall end; and at least one set of adjustable variable geometry nozzle vanes that define nozzle throats that direct flow of exhaust gas from one of the exhaust gas channels to the turbine wheel space.
US11668201 discloses a vane ring that includes a plurality of rotatable vanes disposed on a vane ring surface of an annular disk in an asymmetric or asymmetric vane pattern that receives the turbine wheel therewithin and a pair of aerodynamic spacers spaced circumferentially outward of the plurality of vanes with each spacer positioned adjacent to a respective one tongue, with the spacers and vanes directing and controlling the flow of exhaust from the volutes into the turbine wheel with generally equal flow while significantly reducing HCF forcing function.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDON T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/ELDON T BROCKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799