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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted July 25, 2025 and January 21, 2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: there are numerous reference characters which appear in the drawings, but do not appear in the specification. Page 25, line 8 refers to “two protrusions 130, 132” however Figure 2A shows protrusions labelled “30” and “32”. The specification includes many other reference numbers which are 100 more than the reference number shown in the Figures. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant review the specification and drawings to ensure the reference numbers are matching.
As another example, page 28, lines 24-26 describe Figure 3C and every reference number in the description begins with a “1”, however none of the numbers in the Figure include a “1”.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first gap being tapered so that a dimension of the gap is smaller at a distal end of the protrusions and larger proximate to the inner or outer flange from which the two protrusions extend as recited in claim 2, and the third gap being tapered so that a dimension of the gap is smaller at a distal end of the protrusions of the second set and larger proximate to the inner or outer flange from which the two protrusions of the second set extend as recited in claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Figures 2A and 2B show the distal end of the protrusions being smaller than the ends attached to the outer flange, which results in the first gap having a dimension being larger at the distal end of the protrusions, which is the opposite of the claim language. None of the Figures show the distal end of a tapered gap being larger than the proximate end.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Examiner’s Comment Regarding Claims Statuses
Regarding the preliminary amendment filed July 25, 2025, the amendment to the claims include several improper amendments which do not comply with 37 CFR 1.121. In order to expedite prosecution, the amendment will be considered as far as it complies with 37 CFR 1.121.
Claim 5 was amended to remove the period at the end, and claims 6 and 7 were amended to remove their preambles, and then claims 6 and 7 are listed as cancelled. It appears the applicant intended to add the text of claims 6 and 7 to claim 5; however claims as originally presented are separate, and deleting the punctuation between claims does not combine them into a single claim. The proper manner of adding text to a claim is to underline the added text (see 37 CFR 1.121 (C)(2) for clarification). Accordingly, claim 5 will be treated as including lines 1-4 as recited, and the text of former claims 6 and 7 will not be considered, because claims 6 and 7 are cancelled.
Similarly, claim 8 will be treated as containing lines 1-5, and claims 9 and 10 will be treated as cancelled.
Claim 13 will be treated as containing lines 1-5, and claim 14 will be treated as cancelled.
Claim 16 will be treated as containing lines 1-2, and claim 17 will be treated as cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 is missing a period at the end of the claim.
Claim 8 is missing a period at the end of the claim.
Claim 8, lines 1-2 recite “at least one of”, however there is only a single limitation after this. As stated above, claim 8 is not being treated as including the limitations of claims 9 and 10. If the limitations are properly added, then the phrase is proper, however as the claim is currently written, the language creates confusion.
Claim 11, line 3 recites “the axially extending apertures” which should be changed to “the plurality of axially extending apertures” to be consistent with line 2.
Claim 11, line 4 recites “the inlet vanes” which lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13 is missing a period at the end of the claim.
Claim 13, line 1 recites “at least one of”, however there is only a single limitation after this. As stated above, claim 13 is not being treated as including the limitations of claim 14. If the limitation is properly added, then the phrase is proper, however as the claim is currently written, the language creates confusion.
Claim 15, lines 4-5 recite “the head portion” which should be changed to “the arcuate head portion” to be consistent with line 4.
Claim 15, line 6 recites “a two opposed curved surfaces” and the phrase “a two” is grammatically incorrect and causes confusion since “a” introduces only a single feature. The examiner recommends deleting the word “a”.
Claim 22, line 2 recites “the or each at least one support” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 22, lines 5-6 recite “the head portion” and the word “arcuate” should be added before “head” to be consistent with line 5.
Claim 22, line 7 recites “a two opposed curved surfaces” and the phrase “a two” is grammatically incorrect and causes confusion since “a” introduces only a single feature. The examiner recommends deleting the word “a”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-13, 15, 16, 18-26 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24 all recite the term “generally” at least once, however neither the claims nor the specification clarify the scope of the term, which renders the claims indefinite.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 20-25 depend from claims 1, 2, 15, and 18 and contain their respective limitations, and therefore are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 11 depends from claim 9, however claim 9 was cancelled, which makes claim 11 incomplete. The scope of the claim is unclear. For the purpose of examination, claim 11 will be treated as depending from claim 1.
Claim 18, line 2 introduces “a nozzle ring” and line 14 introduces “a nozzle ring” and it is unclear whether these are the same feature or different features. For the purpose of examination, these will be treated as being the same feature.
Claim 18, lines 23-24 introduce “a portion of the at least one support” and line 26-27 also introduce “a portion of the at least one support” and it is unclear whether these are the same feature or different features. For the purpose of examination, these will be treated as being the same feature.
Claim 18, lines 18-19 introduce “an axis of the elongate portion” and line 30 also introduces “an axis of the elongate portion” and it is unclear whether these are the same feature or different features. For the purpose of examination, these will be treated as being the same feature.
Claim 19, line 2 introduces “a nozzle ring” and line 14 introduces “a nozzle ring” and it is unclear whether these are the same feature or different features. For the purpose of examination, these will be treated as being the same feature.
Claim 20, lines 2-3 recite “a portion of the at least one support” however claim 20 depends from claim 18 which previously introduced “a portion of the at least one support”, and it is unclear whether claim 20 is introducing an additional feature or referring to the previously introduced feature.
Claim 20 similarly re-introduces “an angular clearance”, “two portions of the nozzle ring”, “a line that connects said two portions” and “an axis of the elongate portion” which were all previously introduced in claim 18 and render claim 20 indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 21 depends from claim 18 and reintroduces numerous features which were previously introduced in claim 18: a nozzle ring, an annular wall, an inner flange, a radially inner edge, an outer flange, a radially outer edge, two protrusions, a first gap, and a second gap. It is unclear whether these are additional features or not.
Claim 22 states the invention is “The kit of parts of claim 1” however claim 1 is directed to a nozzle ring. For the purpose of examination, claim 22 will be treated as referring to “The nozzle ring of claim 1”. The examiner notes the amendment to claim 22 changed the dependency from “claims 18 to 21” by deleting “8 to 21”. Claim 18 is directed to a “kit of parts”. If the applicant intended claim 22 to depend from claim 18, then the same issue as claim 21 would be raised since claim 18 introduces “at least one support for a nozzle ring” and many features for the support, and claim 22 re-introduces the same features.
Claim 26, line 3 introduces “a nozzle ring” and line 4 also introduces “a nozzle ring”, and it is unclear whether line 4 is an additional feature or the same feature.
Claim 26, line 7 introduces “a main axis” and line 10 also introduces “a main axis”, and it is unclear whether line 10 is an additional feature or the same feature.
Any and all claims rejected above under 35 USC 112(b), if rejected with art below under sections 35 USC 102 and/or 103, is/are rejected as best understood.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,381. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims are broader in at least one aspect.
The comparison below shows the differences between the application claim and the patent claim. The underlined features are not found in the other claim.
Application Claim 1
Patent Claim 1
A nozzle ring for a variable geometry turbine, the nozzle ring comprising:
a generally annular wall;
an inner flange that is generally perpendicular to the generally annular wall, and which extends from a radially inner edge of the generally annular wall;
an outer flange that is generally perpendicular to the generally annular wall, and which extends from a radially outer edge of the generally annular wall; and
two protrusions extending from one of the inner or outer flange towards the other one of the inner or outer flange, at least one of the two protrusions extending only partially towards the other one of the inner or outer flange;
wherein the two protrusions define a first gap therebetween;
wherein the generally annular wall and the two protrusions define a second gap between the generally annular wall and both of the two protrusions; and
wherein a radial extent of the second gap is less than a radial extent of the two protrusions.
A nozzle ring for a variable geometry turbine, the nozzle ring comprising: an annular wall;
an inner flange that is perpendicular to the annular wall, and which extends from a radially inner edge of the annular wall;
an outer flange that is perpendicular to the annular wall, and which extends from a radially outer edge of the annular wall; and
two protrusions extending from one of the inner or outer flange towards the other one of the inner or outer flange, at least one of the two protrusions extending only partially towards the other one of the inner or outer flange,
wherein both of the two protrusions extend either from the inner flange or from the outer flange;
wherein the two protrusions define a first gap therebetween; and
wherein the annular wall and the two protrusions define a second gap between the annular wall and both of the two protrusions.
Regarding the radial extent of the second gap, while the patent claim does not explicitly recite this limitation, patent claim 1 defines the second gap as being between the annular wall and the two protrusions, where the two protrusions are on either the inner or outer flange which extend perpendicularly from the annular wall at either the radially inner or outer edges. Since the inner and outer flanges are perpendicular to the annular wall, and the annular wall is radially extending (in order to have the radially inner and outer edges), the second gap inherently extends axially. Since the second gap extends axially there is not a radial extent of the second gap (put another way, the radial extent is 0), and therefore the radial extent of the second gap is less than the radial extent of the two protrusions inherently.
Thus it is apparent that the more specific patent claim 1 encompasses application claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited above, where the applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for a specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since application claim 1 is anticipated by patent claim 1 and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 1 is obvious over patent claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations are recited in patent claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, patent claim 5 recites the same limitation except the range is between 0.25 and 0.5 times a radial distance between the inner flange and the outer flange, which is narrower – and thus anticipated by – application claim 8 and its range of between 0.25 and 0.75 times a radial distance between the inner flange and the outer flange.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations are recited in patent claim 8. Patent claim 8 depends from patent claim 7, and claims 7 and 8 recite both limitations in application claim 11. Since patent claim 8 depends from claim 7, claim 8 contains the limitations of claim 7 and thus recites the same limitations as application claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations are recited in patent claim 9.
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, 12, 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0147255 to Garrett.
In Reference to Claim 1#
Garrett teaches:
A nozzle ring (11) for a variable geometry turbine, the nozzle ring comprising:
an annular wall (radial wall having face 10 in Figure 1);
an inner flange (17) that is perpendicular to the annular wall, and which extends from a radially inner edge (radially inner end of annular wall) of the annular wall;
an outer flange (18) that is perpendicular to the annular wall, and which extends from a radially outer edge (radially outer end of annular wall) of the annular wall; and
two protrusions (not numbered, forms slots 238, see Figure 4) extending from the outer flange towards the inner flange, at least one of the two protrusions extending only partially towards the inner flange (see annotated Figure 4);
wherein the two protrusions define a first gap (not numbered, see annotated Figure 4) therebetween;
wherein the annular wall and the two protrusions define a second gap (not shown, gap between surface of protrusion facing the annular wall and the axial face of annular wall facing the protrusion) between the annular wall and both of the two protrusions; and
wherein a radial extent of the second gap is less than a radial extent of the two protrusions (see paragraphs 45-47, 49, and Figures 1, 4, and 6).
The second gap only extends axially, and therefore has no radial extent. Thus, the radial extent of the second gap is less than the radial extent of the two protrusions.
PNG
media_image1.png
764
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
536
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 12#
Garrett teaches:
The nozzle ring of claim 1, further comprising a second set of two protrusions (not numbered, see annotated Figure 4 below) extending from the inner flange towards the outer flange, at least one of the second set of two protrusions extending only partially towards the outer flange;
wherein the two protrusions of the second set define a third gap (not numbered, see annotated Figure 4 below) therebetween; and
wherein the annular wall and the two protrusions of the second set define a fourth gap (not shown, space between the two protrusion of the second set and annular wall) between the annular wall and both of the two protrusions of the second set.
PNG
media_image3.png
494
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 23#
Garrett teaches:
A variable geometry turbine comprising:
a housing (1);
a turbine wheel (5) supported in the housing for rotation about an axis (axis of rotation);
a nozzle ring according to claim 1;
a cavity (space containing nozzle ring 11 and support 16) provided in the housing for receipt of the inner and outer flanges of the nozzle ring, the nozzle ring being axially movable relative to the housing to vary the extent to which the inner and outer flanges of the nozzle are received in the cavity (nozzle ring is moved by an actuator, see paragraph 48); and
an inlet passageway (9) extending radially inwards towards the turbine wheel and defined between a face (10) of the annular wall of the nozzle ring and an opposing wall (shroud 12) of the housing, such that said axial movement of the nozzle ring relative to the housing varies the axial width of the inlet passageway (see paragraph 48).
In Reference to Claim 24#
Garrett teaches:
The variable geometry turbine of claim 23, wherein the annular wall supports a plurality of circumferentially spaced inlet vanes (14) each of which extends axially away from a surface (10) of the annular wall opposite from the inner and outer flanges, and wherein the opposing wall of the housing defines a plurality of circumferentially spaced slots (not numbered, see paragraph 47, lines 6-8) arranged such that each of the plurality of inlet vanes is received in a respective one of the plurality of slots (see paragraph 47 and Figure 1).
In Reference to Claim 25#
Garrett teaches:
A turbocharger comprising the variable geometry turbine of claim 23 (see Figure 1).
Claim(s) 15 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,684,677 to Mann.
In Reference to Claim 15#
Mann teaches:
A support (16) for a nozzle ring (11), the support comprising:
a body, the body comprising:
an elongate portion (not numbered, see Figure 3); and
an arcuate head portion (32) disposed adjacent one end (left end in Figure 3) of the elongate portion, the arcuate head portion extending perpendicular to an axis (not shown) of the elongate portion;
wherein the arcuate head portion defines two opposed curved surfaces (top and bottom ends) and wherein at least one of the two opposed curved surfaces defines one or more protrusions (not numbered, raised portions around apertures 34, see Figure 3) therefrom; and
wherein a portion (left side of Figure 3) of the body proximate the arcuate head portion is cylindrical (see column 6, lines 52-62 and Figure 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
530
821
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 26#
Mann teaches:
A method of assembling a variable geometry turbine, the method comprising:
providing a nozzle ring (11) comprising a plurality of inlet vanes (14) (see Figure 1);
providing two supports (16) for a nozzle ring (see Figure 1);
engaging the two supports with the nozzle ring so as to form a nozzle ring assembly (see Figure 1);
coupling the two supports of the nozzle ring assembly with a first housing member (3, 15) such that the two supports cannot rotate freely about a main axis (axis of rotation 4a) of the variable geometry turbine relative to the first housing member (see Figure 1);
providing a shroud (12) that defines a plurality slots (“suitably configured slots”, column 5, lines 44-47) and which is fixed to a second housing member (1) such that the shroud cannot rotate freely about the main axis of the variable geometry turbine relative to the second housing member (see Figure 1);
engaging the nozzle ring assembly with the shroud such that each of the plurality of inlet vanes is received in a respective one of the plurality of slots (see column 5, lines 40-50); and
fixing the first housing member to the second housing member such that the rotation of the nozzle ring about the main axis of the variable geometry turbine is not constrained by the two supports (see column 5, lines 18-22 and Figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0147255 to Garrett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of case law.
In Reference to Claim 8
Garrett teaches:
The nozzle ring of claim 1, wherein:
a radial extent of the at least one of the two protrusions extending only partially towards the other one of the inner flange.
Garrett fails to teach:
The radial extent is between 0.25 and 0.75 times a radial distance between the inner flange and the outer flange.
The Court has 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 dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), see MPEP §2144.04 IV A for further clarification).
In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., Gardner received a patent for an apparatus used to dry ink applied to high-gloss papers by supporting the paper with wet ink over a field of static air. The applied prior art taught the claimed apparatus except for dimensional limitations. The trial Court held the opinion that the dimensional limitations had no impact on the function of the apparatus and no evidence was shown that departing from the claimed dimensions would cause the apparatus to fail.
In the instant case, Garrett teaches the protrusions extend partially between the outer flange and the inner flange, and is less than 0.5 times the radial distance between the inner flange and the outer flange, however Garrett is silent regarding the exact dimensions.
There is a reasonable expectation of success when re-sizing the protrusions because the protrusions are used for forming slots (238, 241, 242) for securing the supports (216) (see paragraph 61), and changing the size of the slots can merely accommodate a different sized support.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle ring of Garrett by sizing the protrusions to be between 0.25 and 0.75 times a radial distance between the inner flange and the outer flange in view of case law for the purpose of being able to accommodate an appropriately sized support.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0147255 to Garrett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2008/0089782 to Parker.
In Reference to Claim 11
Garrett teaches:
The nozzle ring of claim 1, comprising the annular wall.
Garrett fails to teach:
A plurality of axially extending apertures are provided through the annular wall, and wherein at least some of the axially extending apertures provided through the annular wall are located between inlet vanes.
Parker teaches:
A nozzle ring (5) comprising an annular wall (wall having vanes 8), and a plurality of axially extending apertures (24) are provided through the annular wall, and wherein at least some of the axially extending apertures provided through the annular wall are located between inlet vanes (8) (see paragraph 27 and Figure 1c).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle ring of Garrett by adding a plurality of axially extending apertures to the annular wall, including between the inlet vanes as taught by Parker for the purpose of balancing pressure on the nozzle ring (paragraph 27 of Parker).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,684,677 to Mann as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 9,945,286 to Parker.
In Reference to Claim 16
Mann teaches:
The support of claim 15 comprising the arcuate head portion.
Mann fails to teach:
A bisector of the arcuate head portion in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the cylindrical portion is offset from said axis.
Parker teaches:
A support for a nozzle ring (10) comprising an arcuate head portion (245), wherein a bisector (not shown, see annotated Figure 14C) of the arcuate head portion in a plane perpendicular to an axis of a cylindrical portion (242) is offset from said axis (see Figure 14C).
PNG
media_image5.png
295
565
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support of Mann by positioning the cylindrical portion such that a bisector is offset from said axis as taught by Parker which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be an arcuate head portion which fits within and engages the nozzle ring to move the nozzle ring. The shape of the nozzle head – including the location of the cylindrical portion would fit within the housing and allow the nozzle ring to move axially.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0147255 to Garrett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 8,684,677 to Mann.
In Reference to Claim 22
Garrett teaches:
The nozzle of claim 1, comprising at least one support (216), the support comprising:
a body, the body comprising:
an elongate portion (not numbered, see annotated Figure 5); and
an head portion (225a) disposed adjacent one end of the elongate portion, the head portion extending generally perpendicular to an axis (through middle of elongate portion) of the elongate portion;
wherein the head portion defines two opposed surfaces (left and right in Figure 5); and
wherein a portion (bottom of elongate portion in Figure 5) of the body proximate the head portion is generally cylindrical (see Figure 5).
PNG
media_image6.png
466
480
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Garrett fails to teach:
The head portion is an arcuate head portion and the two opposed surfaces are curved surfaces which define one or more protrusions therefrom.
Mann teaches:
A support (16) for a nozzle ring (11), the support comprising:
a body, the body comprising:
an elongate portion (not numbered, see Figure 3); and
an arcuate head portion (32) disposed adjacent one end (left end in Figure 3) of the elongate portion, the arcuate head portion extending perpendicular to an axis (not shown) of the elongate portion;
wherein the arcuate head portion defines two opposed curved surfaces (top and bottom ends) and wherein at least one of the two opposed curved surfaces defines one or more protrusions (not numbered, raised portions around apertures 34, see Figure 3) therefrom; and
wherein a portion (left side of Figure 3) of the body proximate the arcuate head portion is cylindrical (see column 6, lines 52-62 and Figure 3 with the rejection of claim 15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle of Garrett by forming the head portion as an arcuate head portion having opposing curved surfaces and protrusions as taught by Mann which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result is a head portion having a curved shape which fits within the nozzle ring. The protrusions facilitate a connection with the nozzle ring (column 6, lines 57-58 of Mann).
Claim(s) 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0147255 to Garrett in view of US 8,684,677 to Mann and case law.
In Reference to Claims 18-21
Garrett teaches:
A kit of parts and an assembly comprising:
a nozzle ring (11) for a variable geometry turbine, the nozzle ring comprising:
an annular wall (radial wall having face 10 in Figure 1);
an inner flange (17) that is perpendicular to the annular wall, and which extends from a radially inner edge (radially inner end of annular wall) of the annular wall;
an outer flange (18) that is perpendicular to the annular wall, and which extends from a radially outer edge (radially outer end of annular wall) of the annular wall; and
two protrusions (not numbered, forms slots 238, see annotated Figure 4 with the rejection of claim 1) extending from the outer flange towards the inner flange, at least one of the two protrusions extending only partially towards the inner flange;
wherein the two protrusions define a first gap (not numbered, see annotated Figure 4 with the rejection of claim 1) therebetween; and
wherein the annular wall and the two protrusions define a second gap (not shown, gap between surface of protrusion facing the annular wall and the axial face of annular wall facing the protrusion) between the annular wall and both of the two protrusions; and
at least one support (216) for the nozzle ring, the support comprising:
a body, the body comprising:
an elongate portion (not numbered, see annotated Figure 5 with the rejection of claim 22); and
a head portion (225a) disposed adjacent one end of the elongate portion, the head portion extending perpendicular to an axis (through middle of elongate portion) of the elongate portion;
wherein the nozzle ring and the at least one support are configured such that the head portion of the at least one support is receivable/received in the second gap and a portion (section between 225a and 225b, see Figure 6) of the at least one support is disposed in the first gap; and
wherein the nozzle ring and the or each support are arranged such that when the head portion of the at least one support is received in the second gap and the portion of the at least one support is disposed in the first gap there is an angular clearance (not shown, space between support and protrusion in slot 242) between the nozzle ring and the or each support, the angular clearance being localized and defined by two portions of the nozzle ring and wherein a line (not shown, see annotated Figure 6) that connects said two portions of the nozzle ring is proximate to the axis of the elongate portion (see Figures 1, 4, and 6).
PNG
media_image7.png
682
946
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Garrett fails to teach:
The head portion is an arcuate head portion, wherein an external axial dimension of the arcuate head portion of the at least one support matches an internal axial dimension of the second gap.
Mann teaches:
A support (16) for a nozzle ring (11), the support comprising:
a body, the body comprising:
an elongate portion (not numbered, see Figure 3); and
an arcuate head portion (32) disposed adjacent one end (left end in Figure 3) of the elongate portion (see Figure 3).
The Court has 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 dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), see MPEP §2144.04 IV A for further clarification).
In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., Gardner received a patent for an apparatus used to dry ink applied to high-gloss papers by supporting the paper with wet ink over a field of static air. The applied prior art taught the claimed apparatus except for dimensional limitations. The trial Court held the opinion that the dimensional limitations had no impact on the function of the apparatus and no evidence was shown that departing from the claimed dimensions would cause the apparatus to fail.
In the instant case, Garrett teaches the head portion of the support is within the second gap. Garrett does not teach the external axial dimension of the head portion matches the internal axial dimension of the second gap.
There is a reasonable expectation of success of sizing the components to have matching sizes because the support would better function when moving the nozzle ring by not needing to move through excess space in a gap between the components.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of parts and assembly of Garrett by shaping the head portion as an arcuate head portion as taught by Mann which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result is a curved head portion of a support which fits within the nozzle ring and causes the nozzle ring to translate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kit of parts and assembly of Garrett by sizing the head portion such that an external axial dimension of the head portion matches an internal axial dimension of the second gap in view of case law for the purpose of improving the fit of the head portion in the nozzle ring to better move the nozzle ring during actuation of the support.
Regarding claim 20, the kit of parts are assembled to form the assembly comprising the claimed components as explained above.
Regarding claim 21, the kit of parts comprise the claimed features of the nozzle ring as explained above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 5 and 13 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: The prior art of record fails to teach the first gap between the two protrusions is tapered such that a dimension of the gap is smaller at a distal end of the protrusions and larger proximate to the inner or outer flange from which the protrusions extend as recited in claim 2. The first gap of Garret is tapered, however the gap is smaller proximate to the outer flange and larger at the distal end of the protrusion. The applicant has shown criticality for this arrangement by stating the distal end of the protrusions provides a physical stop that limits relative rotational movement (page 9, lines 25-30 of the specification), and thus the feature is not merely a design choice. Modifying the first gap of Garrett to have the claimed arrangement would require improper hindsight.
Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 2 and contain its limitations and therefore would be allowable for the same reason.
The prior art of record fails to teach the inner and outer flanges extend further from the annular wall than the two protrusions as recited in claim 5. The retaining member 224 of Garrett which forms the protrusions is at the axial ends of the inner and outer flange, and joined there via welding or the like (paragraph 60 of Garrett). Relocating the retaining member to be within the walls of the inner and outer flanges would require improper hindsight reasoning.
The prior art of record fails to teach the third gap is tapered to that a dimension of the gap is smaller at a distal end of the protrusions of the second set and larger proximate to the inner or outer flange from which the protrusions of the second set extend as recited in claim 13. Similar to claim 2, Garrett teaches the gap is larger at the distal end and narrower proximate to the outer flange.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6,401,563 to Franklin teaches a support for a nozzle ring comprising an arcuate head portion. US 5,183,381 to McKean teaches a nozzle ring assembly comprising a nozzle ring and a support having an arcuate head portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights