DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 26 June 2026, with respect to the objection of the specification and the claim rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification and the claim rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 26 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Morita et al (JP 201637901 A), Biesenbach (EP 3364040 A1) and/or Uhlmann et al (WO 2018046182 A1).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, 13, 15 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morita et al – hereafter Morita – (JP 201637901 A).
Regarding claim 1, Morita teaches a radial wheel (Fig.2 & Annotated Fig.2) for a charging system (machine translation ¶1, note turbochargers), the radial wheel having a rotational axis (Annotated Fig.2) and comprising:
a hub portion having an outer hub face (4) defining a gas flow passage, the outer hub face being curved for radial gas flow so that a root-end portion of the outer hub face axially located at a root side is more radially outwardly arranged than a nose-end portion of the outer hub face axially located at a nose side (Fig.2);
a plurality of blades (5) extending radially outward from the hub portion into the gas flow passage; and
an interior structure comprising:
a plurality of chambers, including a first chamber (Annotated Fig.2) and a second chamber (Annotated Fig.2);
a radial structure element (Annotated Fig.2) being arranged axially between the first chamber and the second chamber and extending from the rotational axis radially outwards across the hub portion; and
an axial structure element (Annotated Fig.2) extending axially from the radial structure element across the first chamber (Annotated Fig.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Morita further teaches the radial structure element extends continuously between two mutually opposite circumferential positions across the hub portion in at least one cross-section containing the rotational axis (Annotated Fig.2).
Regarding claim 4, Morita further teaches the interior structure further comprises a lattice structure (Annotated Fig.2) within at least one of the plurality of chambers.
Regarding claim 5, Morita further teaches the plurality of chambers further comprises a third chamber (Annotated Fig.2) being arranged axially at a root side of the first chamber and the second chamber, and/or a fourth chamber being arranged axially at a nose side of the first chamber and the second chamber (Annotated Fig.2).
Regarding claim 7, Morita further teaches the interior structure further comprises a plurality of radial spokes connecting a nose side of the radial structure element to a radially outer surface of the second chamber (Annotated Fig.2).
Regarding claim 8, Morita further teaches the first chamber is arranged substantially at an axial level of a widest radius of the hub portion (Annotated Fig.2), and/or wherein the second chamber is arranged closer to the nose side than the first chamber (Annotated Fig.2).
Regarding claim 9, Morita further teaches the radial structure element comprises a non-planar lower face (Annotated Fig.2).
Regarding claim 10, Morita further teaches the axial structure element is formed rotationally symmetric about the rotational axis (Annotated Fig.2).
Regarding claim 11, Morita further teaches the axial structure element is supported at its root side (Annotated Fig.2) for absorbing an axial load (machine translation ¶14 last sentence).
Regarding claim 13, Morita further teaches the radial wheel is integrally formed by a layer-by-layer process, in particular from one or more kinds of powder (machine translation ¶18).
Regarding claim 15, Morita further teaches a charging system having the radial wheel according to claim 1 (machine translation ¶2, note turbocharger).
Regarding claim 20, Morita further teaches the radial wheel is integrally formed from one or more kinds of powder (machine translation ¶18).
Regarding claim 21, Morita further teaches the rotational axis of the radial wheel passes through at least one of the plurality of chambers, wherein the at least one of the plurality of chambers is surrounded radially and axially by the radial structure element and the axial structural element of the radial wheel (Annotated Fig.2).
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.
Claim(s) 12, 14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita.
Regarding claims 12 and 18-19, Morita teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach the radial wheel comprises a material ratio of 30% to 70%, the material ratio is between 40% and 60%, the material ratio is between 45% and 55%.
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In the current instance the only difference between claims 12 and 18-19 and the disclosed radial wheel of Morita is the relative dimensions of the material ratio of 30% to 70%, the material ratio is between 40% and 60%, the material ratio is between 45% and 55%. Since Morita has disclosed a radial wheel with the claimed components and with chambers (Annotated Fig.2) and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between the material ratio of 30% to 70%, the material ratio is between 40% and 60%, the material ratio is between 45% and 55% would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claims are not patentably distinct and said relative dimensions modification would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Morita teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach the radial wheel is a radial compressor wheel.
Note Morita’s disclosed radial wheel is disclosed as being a turbine wheel of a turbocharger (machine translation ¶2). Morita further teaches that the turbocharger wheel is manufactured via additive manufacturing which can manufacture complex shapes (machine translation ¶6).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the radial wheel of Morita by having said radial wheel being a radial compressor wheel based on the further teachings of Morita because this would allow manufacturing a radial compressor wheel with complex shapes via additive manufacturing.
Regarding claim 17, Morita teaches all the limitations of claim 7, see above, however, does not explicitly teach each of the plurality of radial spokes extend, from the nose side of the radial structure element, radially outward and axially towards the nose side.
However, it is noted that applicant has not disclosed persuasive evidence that having the each of the plurality of radial spokes extend, from the nose side of the radial structure element, radially outward and axially towards the nose side is significant other than general effects of spokes in various spoke arrangements, e.g., increasing stability and stiffness of the radial wheel. Accordingly, absent persuasive evidence that the claimed configuration is significant, the limitations above constitute a matter of choice of changes in shape and fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(b).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita in view of Biesenbach (EP 3364040 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Morita teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach the plurality of chambers further comprises a blade chamber arranged in at least one of the blades.
Biesenbach teaches of a rotor component (Fig.2) including a plurality of chambers (CVTs denoted by dashed circles) further including a blade chamber arranged in at least one of the blades (Fig.2). This configuration allows the rotor component to be weight-reduced (machine translation ¶7).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the radial wheel of Morita by having the plurality of chambers further comprises a blade chamber arranged in at least one of the blades based on the teachings of Biesenbach because this would result in weight reductions for the radial wheel.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita in view of Uhlmann et al – hereafter Uhlmann – (WO 2018046182 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Morita teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach at least one of the plurality of chambers is connected to another one of the plurality of chambers.
Uhlmann teaches a radial wheel (Fig.4 & Annotated Fig.4), the radial wheel having a rotational axis (unlabeled) and comprising:
a hub portion (Annotated Fig.4) having an outer hub face (unlabeled) defining a gas flow
passage, the outer hub face being curved for radial gas flow so that a root-end portion (Annotated Fig.4, left end portion of wheel) of the outer hub face axially located at a root side (left end side of wheel) is more radially outwardly arranged than a nose-end portion (Annotated Fig.4, right end portion of wheel) of the outer hub face axially located at a nose side (right end side of wheel);
a plurality of blades (7) extending radially outward from the hub portion into the gas flow passage;
an interior structure comprising:
a plurality of chambers, including a first chamber (Annotated Fig.4) and a second chamber (Annotated Fig.4);
a radial structure element (Annotated Fig.4) being arranged axially between the first chamber and the second chamber and extending from the rotational axis radially outwards across the hub portion (Annotated Fig.4).
Uhlmann further teaches at least one of the plurality of chambers is connected to another one of the plurality of chambers (machine translation ¶72, note 80a, 80c can also be provided with perforations) or the chambers could be closed off from each other (machine translation ¶72).
PNG
media_image2.png
702
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the radial wheel of Morita by having at least one of the plurality of chambers is connected to another one of the plurality of chambers based on the teachings of Uhlmann as an obvious to try because this would require choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (connected chambers or closed off chambers), with a reasonable expectation of success of providing a radial wheel with plural internal chambers.
Regarding claim 16, Morita teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach two or more of the plurality of chambers are connected to each other.
Uhlmann teaches a radial wheel (Fig.4 & Annotated Fig.4), the radial wheel having a rotational axis (unlabeled) and comprising:
a hub portion (Annotated Fig.4) having an outer hub face (unlabeled) defining a gas flow
passage, the outer hub face being curved for radial gas flow so that a root-end portion (Annotated Fig.4, left end portion of wheel) of the outer hub face axially located at a root side (left end side of wheel) is more radially outwardly arranged than a nose-end portion (Annotated Fig.4, right end portion of wheel) of the outer hub face axially located at a nose side (right end side of wheel);
a plurality of blades (7) extending radially outward from the hub portion into the gas flow passage;
an interior structure comprising:
a plurality of chambers, including a first chamber (Annotated Fig.4) and a second chamber (Annotated Fig.4);
a radial structure element (Annotated Fig.4) being arranged axially between the first chamber and the second chamber and extending from the rotational axis radially outwards across the hub portion (Annotated Fig.4).
Uhlmann further teaches two or more of the plurality of chambers are connected to each other (machine translation ¶72, note 80a, 80c can also be provided with perforations) or the chambers could be closed off from each other (machine translation ¶72).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the radial wheel of Morita by having two or more of the plurality of chambers are connected to each other based on the teachings of Uhlmann as an obvious to try because this would require choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (connected chambers or closed off chambers), with a reasonable expectation of success of providing a radial wheel with plural internal chambers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights