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 .
Examiner’s note: Please provide future documents with only black text, no color or greyscale.
37 CFR § 1.52 (b)(1)(i) requires the application to be “presented in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast” to permit “electronic capture by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition”; see 37 CFR § 1.52(a)(1)(v). To meet this requirement, the Patent Center guidelines suggest that Applicant submit all text in only black. In this case, Applicant has submitted documents (i.e., specification, claims, etc.) with text/font/characters in color or greyscale, rather than only black. This results in issues and delays prosecution because USPTO systems/tools for recognition/conversion do not handle well documents which contain color or greyscale.
In the future, failure to follow Patent Center guidelines to provide documents and all text in only black will result in a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference characters 51 (e.g. para 0044) and 52 (e.g. para 0052) are both used to designate “the end portion of the first flow guide”, illustrated in at least Fig 7. The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character.
For each of the drawing objections above, 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because:
Reference character 30 appears in the specification (e.g. para 0018) but does not appear in the drawings.
For each of the drawing objections above, 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. 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.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a radial distance” in line 25 and “a radial distance” in line 29, which it is suggested that this should be rewritten as -- a first radial distance -- and -- a second radial distance -- respectively in order to remove potential confusion.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 line 25 recites the following limitation:
“a radial distance, measured from a downstream-side intersection position where a downstream-side perpendicular line extending inward in the radial direction from the end portion of the first flow guide on the axial downstream side as a start point in a direction perpendicular to an axial direction with respect to the axis intersects the inner diffuser to an end portion of the inner diffuser on an axial upstream side,”
Which is interpreted to mean:
a radial distance (L4; Fig 8; top of page 37) which is measured
from a downstream-side intersection position (P1; Fig 8)
to an end portion (29a) of the inner diffuser (29) on an axial upstream side (n/a),
wherein the downstream-side intersection position (P1; Fig 8) is defined as a point at an intersection of:
a downstream-side perpendicular line (Lpe1) extending inward in the radial direction (n/a) from the end portion (52) of the first flow guide (50) on the axial downstream side (n/a) as a start point in a direction perpendicular to an axial direction with respect to the axis (AX)
and the inner diffuser (29)
Claim 1 line 29 recites the following limitation:
“a radial distance, measured from an upstream-side intersection position where an upstream-side perpendicular line extending outward in the radial direction from the end portion of the inner diffuser on the axial upstream side as a start point in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction intersects the first flow guide to the end portion of the first flow guide on the axial downstream side,”
Which is interpreted to mean:
a radial distance (L8; Fig 8; top of page 37) which is measured
from an upstream-side intersection position (P2)
to the end portion (52) of the first flow guide (50) on the axial downstream side (n/a),
wherein the upstream-side intersection position (P2) is defined as a point at an intersection of:
an upstream-side perpendicular line (Lpe2) extending outward in the radial direction (n/a) from the end portion (29a) of the inner diffuser (29) on the axial upstream side (n/a) as a start point in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction
and the first flow guide (50)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (line 19) recites the limitation “a last rotor blade row” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same last rotor blade row previously identified in claim 1 or a different last rotor blade row. If the former, then it is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- the last rotor blade row --.
Claim 1 (line 22) recites the limitation “an end portion of the first flow guide on the axial downstream side” and subsequently references “the end portion on the axial downstream side” (line 24) and “the end portion of the first flow guide on the axial downstream side” (line 27), which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the latter terms, each being different terms, each reference the same element or not. If so, then it is suggested that the line 24 limitation be rewritten as -- the end portion of the first flow guide on the axial downstream side --.
Claim 3 (last line) recites the limitation “the blade height” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 4 (last line) recites the limitation “an end portion of the inner diffuser on the axial upstream side” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same end portion of the inner diffuser on the axial upstream side previously identified in claim 1 or a different end portion of the inner diffuser on the axial upstream side. If the former, then it is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- the end portion of the inner diffuser on the axial upstream side --.
Claim 11 (last line) recites the limitation “a steam turbine rotor” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same steam turbine rotor previously identified in claim 1 line 3 or a different steam turbine rotor.
Claim(s) 2-11 is/are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim(s) 2-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, JP 2015194085 (hereinafter Saeki) is regarded as the closest known prior art reference. Saeki shows in Fig 3 a steam turbine exhaust hood comprising an outer diffuser (radially outer wall of the diffuser, generally shown at 31 combined with 32), having a first flow guide (generally at reference character 31) and a second flow guide (generally at reference character 32) and a separation point between them, and an inner diffuser (radially inner wall of the diffuser, generally shown at 41 combined with 42 and 43). Saeki particularly discloses dimensions (e.g. L0, L1, L2, L3, LS; Fig 3) which are specified at relative values to one another in order to create a relatively short exhaust chamber and to reduce exhaust loss (e.g. abstract). In this way Saeki establishes a recognition that the relative dimensions of certain features of the diffuser are important for efficiency, and thus it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify those relative dimensions in order to obtain a desired efficiency.
However, Applicant’s claim 1 recites very specific dimensions:
Claim 1 line 25 specifies dimension L4 as shown in Fig 8, extending from a first specific feature to an intersection of a second specific feature,
Claim 1 line 29 specifies dimension L8 as shown in Fig 8, extending from a third specific feature to an intersection of a fourth specific feature,
Claim 1 line 33 specifies dimension L7 as shown in Fig 8, extending between specific elements, and relates dimensions L4, L8, and L7 to be specific values relative to each other.
Saeki does not focus on the specifically claimed dimensions of Applicant’s claim 1. Furthermore, although Saeki illustrates some dimensions (e.g. L0, L1, L2, L3, LS; Fig 3) within his figures, his figures are not identified as drawn to scale, thus exact measurements may not be taken from Saeki’s figures at locations which correspond to Applicant’s dimensions L4, L8, L7 as evidence that Saeki’s figures might show Applicant’s claimed values. Saeki’s written disclosure does not otherwise include information which would lead one having ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that Saeki is directed toward or otherwise discloses the Applicant’s specific dimensions within claim 1. Thus, Saeki does not disclose the specifically claimed dimensions (L4, L8, L7) and relative sizes of Applicant’s claim 1.
Other similar prior art references have similar shortcomings, wherein many references might show the structure of an outer diffuser, having a first flow guide and a second flow guide and a separation point between them, and an inner diffuser, but then do not even identify any dimensions as Saeki and Applicant do. For example: JP 2020186709 (Fig 1), US 20100232966 (Fig 4A), US 4013378 (Fig 1), JP H06193408 (Fig 1), CN 113123838 (Fig 1), WO 2021153556 (Fig 1), WO 2022039107 (Fig 1).
At this time, the prior art of record does not fairly disclose, teach, or suggest the missing limitation(s) as claimed within claim 1 such that a modification would be possible in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Claim 1 is therefore deemed to be allowable over the prior art.
Claims 2-11 each depend from claim 1 and are therefore allowable over the prior art for at least that reason.
Conclusion
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
See discussion of references JP 2015194085 (Fig 3), JP 2020186709 (Fig 1), US 20100232966 (Fig 4A), US 4013378 (Fig 1), JP H06193408 (Fig 1), CN 113123838 (Fig 1), WO 2021153556 (Fig 1), WO 2022039107 (Fig 1), above in the allowable subject matter section, wherein each are cited for teaching a steam turbine exhaust hood comprising an outer diffuser, having a first flow guide and a second flow guide and a separation point between them, and an inner diffuser.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Courtney 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights