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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “a twin-entry turbine housing and nozzle ring”.
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17, 21, 24, and 26 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim must refer back in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 17, 21, 24, and 26 have not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 19 is objected to be cause of the following informalities:
Line 5 recites, “radius (R_n)F.” and should read, “radius (R_n).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 6 recites, “the stepped portion defines an outer edge, and wherein the outer edge is sharp or”
Line 7 also recites, “the stepped portion defines an outer edge, and wherein the outer edge is sharp.”
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 2-3, 6, 13-14, 28, 32-33, 36, and 39 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.
Regarding claim 2,
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a tortuous geometry" in line 2; however, claim 1 also recites, “a tortuous geometry” in line 5. It is unknown from the language of the claims if there is intended to be a second set of tortuous geometry or if the instance of “a tortuous geometry” in claim 2 is also referring to the “a tortuous geometry” in claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected based on its dependency.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the formation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6,
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a tortuous geometry” in line 5; however, claim 1 also recites, “a tortuous geometry” in line 5 and claim 2 recites “a tortuous geometry” in line 2. It is unknown from the language of the claims if there is intended to be a second set of tortuous geometry or if the instance of “a tortuous geometry” in claim 6 is also referring to the “a tortuous geometry” in claims 1 and 2.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the formation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14,
The term "around" in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “around” is defined as "with some approach to exactness” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the term “around” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “around” the target any more.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “around 0.5% to around 1.5%”, and the claim also recites “preferably around 0.9% to 1%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “around 0.1% to around 0.5%”, and the claim also recites “preferably around 0.2% and 0.3%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “around 0.3% to around 1.5%”, and the claim also recites “preferably around 0.4%, around 0.7% or around 1.1%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 28,
Claim 28 recites the limitation "a tortuous geometry" in line 2; however, claim 27 also recites, “a tortuous geometry” in lines 8-9. It is unknown from the language of the claims if there is intended to be a second set of tortuous geometry or if the instance of “a tortuous geometry” in claim 28 is also referring to the “a tortuous geometry” in claim 27.
Regarding claim 32,
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the formation" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "a tortuous geometry" in line 6; however, claim 27 also recites, “a tortuous geometry” in lines 8-9. It is unknown from the language of the claims if there is intended to be a second set of tortuous geometry or if the instance of “a tortuous geometry” in claim 32 is also referring to the “a tortuous geometry” in claim 27.
Claims 33 and 36 are rejected based on their dependencies.
Regarding claim 39,
Claim 39 recites the limitation “a first inlet volute” in line 4; however, claim 1 also recites, “a first inlet volute” in line 3. It is unknown from the language of the claims if there is intended to be a second first inlet volute or if the instance of “a first inlet volute” in claim 39 is also referring to the “a first inlet volute” in claim 1.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “a second inlet volute” in line 4; however, claim 1 also recites, “a second inlet volute” in line 3. It is unknown from the language of the claims if there is intended to be a second “second inlet volute” or if the instance of “a second inlet volute” in claim 39 is also referring to the “a second inlet volute” in claim 1.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “a housing dividing wall” in line 4; however, claim 1 also recites, “a house dividing wall” in line 2. It is unknown from the language of the claims if there is intended to be a second set of a house dividing wall or if the instance of “a house dividing wall” in claim 39 is also referring to the “a housing dividing wall” in claim 1
Claim 39 recites the limitation “a leakage passage” in line 11; however, claim 1 also recites, “a leaking passage” in lines 6-7. It is unknown from the language of the claims if there is intended to be a second set of a leakage passage or if the instance of “a leakage passage” in claim 39 is also referring to the “a leakage passage” in claim 1
Claim 39 recites the limitation "a tortuous geometry" in line 11; however, claim 1 also recites, “a tortuous geometry” in line 5. It is unknown from the language of the claims if there is intended to be a second set of tortuous geometry or if the instance of “a tortuous geometry” in claim 39 is also referring to the “a tortuous geometry” in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 12-14, 19, 27-28, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higashimori (US Patent 8,128,356 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Higashimori discloses a turbine housing (13) comprising:
a housing dividing wall (29) circumferentially extending around a central axis of the turbine housing (C), the housing dividing wall axially separating a first inlet volute (31) and a second inlet volute (33);
wherein the housing dividing wall comprising a circumferentially extending tip (see annotated Fig. 7 above) configured to receive a nozzle ring (51), the tip being shaped to impart a tortuous geometry (the Examiner respectfully notes that the change in direction of the sealing surface between the housing dividing wall and the nozzle ring constitutes at least one abrupt change in direction and therefore provides sealing) upon a leakage passage (see annotated Fig. 7 above) defined between the first inlet volute and the second inlet volute (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Higashimori discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the tip comprises at least one of:
a formation configured to impart a tortuous geometry upon the leakage passage (see annotated Fig. 7 above) and a tab (the extended portion of the housing dividing wall) extending in a radial direction towards the central axis.
Regarding claim 3, Higashimori discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the formation comprises a stepped portion (Fig. 7) circumferentially extending around the central axis, the stepped portion defining at least part of the leakage passage (Fig. 7), and wherein the stepped portion defines an outer edge, and the outer edge is sharp (Fig. 7 shows features with sharp edges).
Regarding claim 12, Higashimori discloses all of claim 1 as above; and
a nozzle ring (Fig. 7, 51) comprising a nozzle ring dividing wall (see annotated Fig. 7 above) and at least one vane (55, 57) extending from the nozzle ring dividing wall (Fig. 7);
wherein the nozzle ring dividing wall is aligned with the tip of the housing dividing wall such that the nozzle ring dividing wall and the tip of the housing dividing wall define the leaking passage therebetween (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, Higashimori discloses all of claim 12 as above, wherein:
the formation defines an outer radius (The housing dividing wall left side) and an inner radius (the housing dividing wall right side);
the nozzle ring dividing wall defines a nozzle ring radius (Fig. 7, which the Examiner considers to be any radius of the nozzle ring dividing wall); and
the outer radius is larger than the nozzle ring radius (Fig. 7; the nozzle ring sits abutting the housing dividing wall and therefore must be larger).
Regarding claim 14, Higashimori discloses all of claim 13 as above, wherein at least one of:
the outer radius of the formation is around 0.5% to around 1.5%, and preferably around 0.9% or around 1%, larger than the nozzle ring radius (the Examiner notes that even 0% is “around 0.5%” and therefore reads on the immediate claim, Fig. 7);
the inner radius is equal to or greater than the nozzle ring radius, the inner radius is further around 0.1% to around 0.5%, and preferably around 0.2% or 0.3%, larger than the nozzle ring radius (the Examiner notes that even 0% is around 0.1% and therefore reads on the immediate claim, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 19, Higashimori discloses all of claim 13 as above, wherein:
the inner radius is smaller than the nozzle ring radius (The Examiner notes that the right side of the housing dividing wall is stepper further inward than the left side and therefore has a smaller radius compared to the rest of the nozzle ring) and
the inner radius of the formation is around 0.3% to around 1.5% and preferably around 0.4%, around 0.7% or around 1.1%, smaller than the nozzle ring radius (the Examiner notes that even 0% is around 0.1% and therefore reads on the immediate claim, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 27, Higashimori discloses a nozzle ring (51) for a twin-entry turbine (Fig. 7) comprising a first inlet volute (31) and a second inlet volute (33), the nozzle ring comprising:
a nozzle ring dividing wall (see annotated Fig. 7 above) circumferentially extending around a central axis of the nozzle ring (C);
at least one nozzle vane (55, 59) extending from the nozzle ring dividing wall;
wherein the nozzle ring dividing wall comprises a circumferentially extending tip (Fig. 7, the left side where the nozzle ring extends further than the right side) configured to be received by the housing dividing wall (Fig. 7), the tip being shaped to impart a tortuous geometry upon a leakage passage (see annotated Fig. 7 above) defined between the first inlet volute and the second inlet volute (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 28, Higashimori discloses all of claim 27 as above, wherein the tip comprises a formation configured to impart a tortuous geometry upon the leakage passage (see annotated Fig. 7 above),
wherein the formation comprises a stepped portion (the Examiner notes the stepped portion of both the housing and nozzle dividing walls) circumferentially extending around the central axis, the stepped portion defining at least part of the leakage passage (Fig. 7), and
wherein the stepped portion defined an outer edge, and wherein the outer edge is sharp (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 38, Higashimori discloses all of claim 27 as above; and
a turbine housing (13) comprising a housing dividing wall (29) circumferentially extending around a central axis of the turbine housing (C), the house dividing wall axially separating a turbine inlet (31, 33) into a first inlet volute (31) and a second inlet volute (33), wherein the housing dividing wall comprises a circumferentially extending tip (annotated Fig. 7 above);
wherein the tip of the nozzle ring dividing wall is aligned with the tip of the housing dividing wall such that the tip of the nozzle ring dividing wall and the tip of the housing dividing wall define a leakage passage therebetween (annotated Fig. 7 above);
Regarding claim 39, Higashimori discloses all of claim 1 as above, and;
a nozzle ring (51) comprising:
a first inlet volute (31) a second inlet volute (33) separated by a housing dividing wall (29),
the nozzle ring comprising:
a nozzle ring dividing wall (annotated Fig. 7 above) circumferentially extending around a central axis of the nozzle ring (C);
at least one nozzle vane (55, 57);
wherein the nozzle ring dividing wall comprises a circumferentially extending tip (Fig. 7) configured to be received by the housing dividing wall, the tip being shaped to impart a tortuous geometry upon a leakage passage (annotated Fig. 7 above) defined between the first inlet volute and the second inlet volute;
wherein the tip of the nozzle ring dividing wall is aligned with the tip of the housing dividing wall such that the tip of the nozzle ring dividing wall and the tip of the housing dividing wall define the leakage passage therebetween (annotated Fig. 7 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 10, 32-33 and 36 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 6, Higashimori discloses all of claim 2 as above.
However, Higashimori nor any of the prior art of record; disclose, teach, or suggest,
“wherein: the formation is a first formation; and
the tip further comprises a second formation defining at least part of the leakage a passage, the second formation being configured to impart a tortuous geometry upon the leakage passage in combination with the first formation,
wherein the second formation is a second stepped portion circumferentially extending around the central axis, the stepped portion defining at least part of the leakage passage, and
wherein either:
the second stepped portion defines an inner edge, and wherein the inner edge is arcuate and
the second stepped portion defined an outer edge, and wherein the outer edge is sharp”.
Claim 10 would be allowable based on its dependency.
Regarding claim 32, Higashimori discloses all of claim 27 as above.
However, Higashimori nor any of the prior art of record; disclose, teach, or suggest,
“wherein:
the formation is a first formation; and
the tip further comprises a second formation defining at least part of the leakage passage, the second formation being configured to impart a tortuous geometry upon the leakage passage in combination with the first formation.”
Claims 33 and 36 would be allowable based on their dependencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image2.png
466
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2018/0328281 A1 discloses a turbocharger having a meridionally divided turbine housing and a variable turbine nozzle.
PNG
media_image3.png
430
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
US Patent 11,085,311 B2 discloses a turbocharge with twin-scroll turbine housing and twin vaned nozzle ring for directing exhaust gasses from each scroll onto turbine wheel in interleaved fashion.
PNG
media_image4.png
466
662
media_image4.png
Greyscale
US Patent 9,157,396 B2 discloses a nozzled turbine.
PNG
media_image5.png
258
526
media_image5.png
Greyscale
GB 2562501 A discloses an insert element for a turbine of a turbomachine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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 D 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights