DETAILED ACTION
Amendments filed 26 June 2026 have been entered. Claims 2-3, and 7 were cancelled. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments Remarks (26 June 2026, pg 9-10) regarding the interpretation of “first side” as being an absolute side of the compressor (1) such that each element has a “first side” that is toward the direction “Da1” in fig 2 and a “second side” being the side that is toward the direction “Da2.” Wherein the term “side” does not refer to a structure of each element but rather to a relative position to the element. It overcomes the 112(b) related to claim 1 and its dependent claims.
Applicant’s argument (pg 7 and pg 8) regarding the claim 5, “protruding portion” and the second fitting part disposed on the protruding portion is convincing. It overcomes the 112(b) rejection of claim 5. However, the interpretation offered by applicant introduces a 112(b) rejection of claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 11-12 applicant argues that Yagi fails to teach a combination that shrink fits a sleeve to a shaft and coupling between the sleeve and an impeller. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Land teaches the structure of the claimed sleeve, and shaft. Land provides the motivation for assembling the impeller exterior to a shaft by avoiding keyways (Land, c 1 n 20). Yagi is cited for teaching the shrink fit method attaching a sleeve to a shaft; thereby teaching a well known method of attaching an element to the exterior of a shaft not using keyways. Furthermore, new art Shoyama also teaches the known shrink fit method of attaching a rotor to a shaft in a high speed compressor.
Page 13, applicant argues that Land disparages the reason for the modification because “the collar could be rotated on the shaft if that were desired.” (Land c 2 ln 21-24). Applicant is citing to a different embodiment than the embodiment used in the rejection. The rejection of record cites to Land teaching the collar with the claimed radial splines and teeth (23 with slots (24, c 3 ln 17-25). It is clear that in this embodiment, the collar, impeller and shaft are locked into rotation together by teeth at both sides of the impeller (between collar and impeller, c 3 ln 17-25; and between impeller and nosepiece c 2 ln 45-65; and between nosepiece and shaft, c 2 ln 37-44).
Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that before assembly of the Land toothed connections, Land’s collar is not keyed to the shaft in order to allow easy alignment with the teeth (Land, c 3 ln 20-25). This assembly method is compatible with the Yagi shrink fit method, which also allows a piece to have a slightly larger diameter than the shaft in order to slide into place for positioning before the diameter shrinks and fit happens (Yagi, US 9,664,055; c 3 ln 50-60, c 4 ln 53-56). Therefore, applicant’s allegation that the shrink fit would impose an interference that fixes the collar to the shaft and precludes that rotation is not persuasive because it is directed to both the incorrect embodiment as well as not precluding the conventional assembly methods of expanding a bore in order to slide on the bore before constricting it for the shrink fit (as explained by Yagi).
Pg 13, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, new art Shoyama explicitly teaches that shrink fit is used in analogous high speed compressors in order to compensate for bore sizes increasing due to centrifugal force, and thereby maintain concentricity (Shoyoma, pg 5). This is a recognized problem addressed by Land (c 4 ln 26-30). Thereby, providing a motivation to find a solution that addresses the problem of increasing bore diameter due to centrifugal forces and the loss of concentricity.
Furthermore, the shrink fit of a rotating component of a high speed compressor to the shaft is a conventional fixing method known in the art as evidenced by Wilkes (US 2021/0381522, par 0004) and Englander (US 2004/0096311, par 0003). Therefore, the connection of the collar and the shaft via shrink fit is an obvious conventional fixing method of a high rotational speed compressor; and using a shrink fit in this apparatus yields nothing more than a predictable result.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 dependent on claim 5, recites “the protruding portion is formed at intervals on the outer side in the radial direction with respect to the connecting shaft and the shaft.” It is further explained in applicant Spec (par 0032, 0071). Applicant’s arguments is that the protruding portion is the tube portion and the second fitting port (48) comprising the plurality of protrusions is disposed on the tubular protruding portion. Applicant discloses that the plurality of second protrusions (481) are equally separated from each other in the circumferential direction (fig 6, par 0045).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the limitation “protruding portion formed at intervals” as structurally equivalent to the teeth of “the second protrusions (481)”. It is unclear how the claimed “protrusions portion formed at intervals” is intended to differ from the structure of “the second protrusions.” Therefore, the intended scope of claim 6 is unclear and claim 6 is rejected for indefiniteness. For the limited purpose of examination, claim 6 will be interpreted as repeating the structure of the “second protrusions” of claim 1.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 4-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Land (US 2,577,134) in view of Shoyama (WO 2020/129326).
PNG
media_image1.png
846
1062
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Lang fig 1
PNG
media_image2.png
228
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Land fig 2 and 3, showing tooth 21 and slot 22, c 2 ln 50-53, which are analogous to teeth 23 and slots 24 on the opposite side of impeller 8, c 3 ln 17-25
Claim 1, Land discloses a rotor (fig 1, rotor 8) comprising:
a shaft (3) extending in an axial direction in which an axis extends centered on the axis (axis of 3);
a connecting shaft (4) connected to an end portion of the shaft (4 connects to screw part at 6, which is integral to shaft 3) on a first side in the axial direction (connecting shaft 4 comes from the side of the impeller which is a first side, see applicant’s spec fig 2, da1 is first side, da2 is second side, par 0016) and having a screw part (screw threads on 4) formed at a tip portion of the connecting shaft (fig 1 depicts threads at the tip of 4 at connection to 6);
an impeller (8) including an impeller body (8) formed in a disc-like shape (fig 1, shows 8 as disk shaped) centered on the axis and an insertion hole (bore at 9, c 2 ln 13-20) which is formed in a center portion of the impeller body passing through in the axial direction and through which the connecting shaft is inserted (in 9, shaft 4 passes);
a sleeve (collar 11, c 2 ln 20-25) having a tubular shape (11 encircles shaft 3 and is described as a collar, which indicates it has a tubular shape) that is disposed at a position on a second side opposite to the first side (fig 1, collar 11 is on the side of shaft 3 opposite impeller 8) in the axial direction relative to the impeller (id.) and is fixed to the shaft in such a manner as to cover the shaft on an outer side in a radial direction (fig 1 shows collar 11 radially outside of shaft 3) based on the axis relative to the shaft (id.); and
a nut (15) that is disposed on the first side in the axial direction relative to the impeller (15 is attached to impeller 8 in the same manner as applicant’s nut 8 in fig 2 ), and pinches and fixes the impeller together with the sleeve in the axial direction by being fastened to the screw part (nut 15 pushes the impeller into engagement with collar 11, c 2 ln 21-35), wherein
a position of a sleeve end face of the sleeve (face of collar 11 with radial slots 24, c 3 ln 23) facing the first side in the axial direction and a position of an impeller end face of the impeller (face of the impeller 8 with radial teeth 23, c 3 ln 22) facing the second side in the axial direction are constrained mutually in a circumferential direction around the axis and the radial direction in a state of the sleeve end face and the impeller end face being in contact with each other (the radial splines on the impeller and collar interengage, c 3 ln 15-25; the term “interengage” is taken to plainly mean that the end faces are in contact and engaged, fig 1 shows the teeth overlapping in profile view; reasonably the radial splines are constrained in order to transmit rotation in the same manner as the radial splines on the nosepiece and impeller, c 2 ln 44-56).
[EXAMINER NOTES THE FOLLOWING WAS ORIGINALLY CLAIM 2]
the sleeve includes a first fitting part (surface which includes radial slots 24 on collar 11, c 3 ln 20-25) which is formed on the sleeve end face (11) and in which
first protrusions (the raised surface between slots 24, similar to the arrangement in Land fig 3, showing raised spots between slots 22) protruding in the axial direction from a surface (upper surface of collar 11 between slots 24, c 3 ln 20-25) of the sleeve facing the first side in the axial direction (side of collar 11 facing the impeller 8) and
first recesses (radial slots 24 on collar 11, c 3 ln 20-25) recessed in the axial direction from the first surface are disposed in the circumferential direction (c 3 ln 20-25),
[EXAMINER NOTES THE FOLLOWING WAS ORIGINALLY CLAIM 3]
the first fitting part (surfaces with slots 24 on collar 11, c 3 ln 20-25) includes
first surfaces facing the axial direction (the raised portion of the surface between slots 24),
first separation surfaces (slots 24) each disposed separately in the circumferential direction to be alternately arranged with respect to the first surfaces when viewed from the axial direction and formed at a position shifted in the axial direction relative to the first surface (slots 24 are recessed in ration to the high points between slots 24), and
first connection surfaces (sloped sides of the slots 24) each disposed between one of the first surfaces and an adjacent one of the first separation surfaces in the circumferential direction and connecting the one of the first surfaces and the adjacent one of the first separation surfaces (the slopes of the sides of slots 24 would necessarily connect the bottom of the slot 24 to the top surface of the slot 24 which is the high point between slots),
[EXAMINER NOTES THE FOLLOWING WAS ORIGINALLY CLAIM 2]
the impeller (8) includes a second fitting part (surface of the radial teeth 23 on impeller 8, c 3 ln 20-25) which is formed on the impeller end face (face of impeller facing the collar 11) and in which
a plurality of second protrusions (radial teeth 23 on impeller 8, c 3 ln 20-25) protruding in the axial direction from a second surface (surface of impeller 8) facing the second side in the axial direction and
a plurality of second recesses (the recesses between each tooth 23 on the impeller 8) recessed in the axial direction from the second surface are disposed in the circumferential direction (c 3 ln 20-25),
[EXAMINER NOTES THE FOLLOWING WAS ORIGINALLY CLAIM 3]
the second fitting part (surfaces with teeth 23 which is on the impeller 8, c 3 ln 20-25) includes second surfaces facing the axial direction and each disposed at a position overlapping a corresponding one of the first surface when viewed from the axial direction relative to the second surfaces (the teeth 23 of impeller 8 and slots 24 of collar 11 overlap as the interengage with each other, c 3 ln 20-25),
a plurality of second separation surfaces (lower parts between teeth 23) each disposed at a position overlapping the first separation surface when viewed from the axial direction and formed at the position shifted in the axial direction relative to the second surface (these sections overlap to make the connection between collar 11 and impeller 8, id.), and
second connection surfaces (sides of teeth 23 which connect the lowest part of the teeth with the highest part) each disposed at a position overlapping a corresponding one of the first connection surfaces when viewed from the axial direction and connecting one of the second surfaces and an adjacent on of the second separation surfaces (this overlap occurs when the sections interengage, c 3 ln 20-25),
[EXAMINER NOTES THE FOLLOWING WAS ORIGINALLY CLAIM 2]
Each of the first protrusion is fitted to a corresponding one of the second recess while mutually restricting movements in the circumferential direction (teeth “interengage” c 3 ln 20-25), each of the first recess is fitted to a corresponding one of the second protrusions while mutually restricting movements in the circumferential direction (c 3 ln 20-25; the term “interengage” is taken to plainly mean that the end faces are in contact and engaged, fig 1 shows the teeth overlapping in profile view; reasonably the radial splines are constrained in order to transmit rotation in the same manner as the radial splines on the nosepiece and impeller, c 2 ln 44-56).
[EXAMINER NOTES THE FOLLOWING WAS ORIGINALLY CLAIM 3]
and the first connection surfaces are in contact with at least part of the second connection surfaces (this contact occurs when the sections interengage, c 3 ln 20-25).
[EXAMINER NOTES THE FOLLOWING WAS ORGINALLY CLAIM 7]
Land is silent on wherein the sleeve and the shaft are fitted to each other by shrink fit.
Nevertheless, Land recognizes the object of their invention is keeping the impeller concentric on the drive shaft at all speeds without using keyways (c 1 ln 18-22); and to maintain the centering of impellers even at high speeds when the impeller bore is expanded by centrifugal force (c 4 ln 26-30).
Shoyama teaches a turbo compressor where the rotor is attached to the shaft by shrink fitting so that shrink fit connection remains even if the rotary shaft rotates at a high speed and the diameter of the rotor is slightly increased by centrifugal force (NPL pg 5, fifth paragraph).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in eth art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection of collar (11) and shaft (3) of Land by shrink fit taught by Shoyama, in order to fix the sleeve to the shaft and maintain the concentricity of the sleeve during high speed rotation (Land, c 1 ln 18-22, Shoyama, pg 5) and counteract the expanding bore size due to centrifugal force (Land, c 4 ln 26-30, Shoyama, pg 5). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that both the impeller and collar around the shaft of Land and the impeller around the shaft of Shoyama are similar rotors in a compressor, and that the shrink fit of Shoyama is a known technique of fixing that can be applied to the impeller and collar and shaft connections of Land to improve those connections in the same way.
Claim 4, Land in view of Shoyama teaches the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the first surface (Land, surface of the slots 24 on collar 11, c 3 ln 20-25) is located on the first side in the axial direction relative to the first separation surface when viewed from the radial direction (the interengagement of collar 11 slots and impeller 8 teeth causes this, c 3 ln 20-25), and the plurality of first connection surfaces (sides of slots 24 which connect the tops and bottom of the slots), when viewed from the radial direction, each stretch to be away from the first surface in the circumferential direction as the plurality of first connection surfaces extend from the first side toward the second side in the axial direction (the sides of slots 24 are sloped toward the axis in order to connect the tops and bottoms of slots 24, since they are sloped along the axis of the shaft, they extend and stretch as claimed. Stretch is interpreted as synonymous with extend).
Claim 5, Land in view of Shoyama teaches the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the impeller (Land, 8) includes a protruding portion (teeth 23, c 3 ln 22) protruding in a tubular shape (fig 2, teeth 23 are arranged in the same way as the teeth 21 on the other side of the impeller, c 3 ln 17-19, teeth 21 are arranged around the shaft, c 2 ln 50-55) from the impeller body toward the second side in the axial direction (teeth on impeller 8 which face collar 11 are facing the second side), and the second fitting part is formed on the protruding portion (surface of radial teeth 23 on the impeller 8 protrude and form a protruding portion, c 3 ln 20-25).
Claim 6, Land in view of Shoyama teaches the rotor according to claim 5, wherein the protruding portion is formed at intervals on the outer side in the radial direction (Land, teeth 23 on the impeller 8 encircle the shaft 3, they are similar to the teeth on eth other side of the impeller, c 3 ln 15-20, c 2 ln 50-51) with respect to the connecting shaft and the shaft (teeth 23 meets slots 24 around the shaft, c 3 ln 20-25, c 2 ln 50-51).
Claim 8, Land in view of Shoyama teaches the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the shaft includes a hole forming portion (Land, shaft 3 is hollow) having an insertion hole into which the connecting shaft is inserted (rod 4 is insert into the hollow shaft 3, c 2 ln 4-5), and
a solid portion (shaft 3 is solid along its length, including at radial shoulder 12 of the shaft, c 2 ln 25; reasonably it is solid enough at the shoulder 12 to receive tightening force from the rod 4) formed on the second side in the axial direction relative to the hole
forming portion, and the sleeve (11) and the shaft (3) are fitted to each other by shrink fit (Claim 1 explains the sleeve and shaft shrink fit connection in view of Shoyama) at a position overlapping the solid portion in the axial direction (Land, sleeve 11 and shaft 3 are fit to each other, c 2 ln 20-25).
Claim 9, Land in view of Shoyama teaches the rotor according to claim 1, further comprising:
a sealing portion (Land, the collar 11 is held tightly to the shaft 3 by the tightening of nut 15 which presses the collar against radially shoulder 12 of the shaft, c 2 ln 21-29; this fits the plain meaning of the term seal; meaning something that secures with tightness) configured to seal a space between an outside surface of the shaft and an inside surface of the sleeve (since collar 11 is pressed against a shoulder 12 that rises radially outward from the shaft 3, then that space between the inner side of collar 11 and shoulder 12 / shaft 3 is reasonably closed, c 2 ln 21-29).
Claim 10, Land in view of Shoyama teaches a rotary machine (Land, c 1 ln 1, turbo charger), comprising:
the rotor according to claim 1; and
a casing (fig 1 shows the volute for impeller 8)configured to cover the rotor from the outer side in the radial direction (fig 1, volute covers the impeller radially).
Claim 11, Land in view of Shoyama teaches a method for assembling the rotor according to claim 1, the method comprising:
fixing the sleeve to the shaft (Land, 11 is attached to the outside of shaft 3, c 2 ln 21-35);
connecting the connecting shaft to the shaft (4 and 3 are connected via wheel 6, c 2 ln 3-10);
constraining a position of the impeller end face (face of impeller 8 with teeth 23, c 3 ln 20-25) and a position of the sleeve end face (face of collar with slots 24, c 3 ln 20-25) by inserting the connecting shaft into the insertion hole of the impeller from the axial direction to bring the impeller end face and the sleeve end face into contact with each other (rod 4 holds the impeller against the shaft axially, c 2 ln 29-35; reasonably this axial force causes the teeth 23 and slots 24 to stay in contact); and fastening the nut to the screw part of the connecting shaft (nut 15 maintains the shaft 4 in position, c 2 ln 30-31).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haugen (US 6,499,958) discloses an impeller connected to a main shaft with a connecting shaft, which includes protrusions to aid in the transmission of torque.
Asano (US 2015/0093247) discloses an impeller attached to a main shaft via a connecting shaft with axial protrusions between the main shaft and the impeller which aid in torque transfer.
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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 /DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights