DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment of 4 September 2025 has been entered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-9 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 recites the term “a blade thickness of the leading edge” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a blade thickness of the leading edge” 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. Note that a leading edge in an airfoil could be interpreted as: (i) the foremost edge of an airfoil, e.g., a line extending from to a hub to tip; and (ii) a part/portion of an airfoil that first contacts a fluid, e.g., a surface area. The instant application specification does not define what leading edge means, however, considering that a blade thickness of the leading edge is part of the disclosed/claimed invention, one of ordinary skills in the art could reach a conclusion that the leading edge in the current application context is a surface area. The term “a blade thickness of the leading edge” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite because there is no guidance as to where the leading edge surface area starts and ends in order to measure the respective blade thickness of the leading edge along the hub to tip direction. Bartholomew et al (US 20240141792 A1) discloses, according to aspects of a blade, a leading edge thickness (Fig.6, TLE) that is defined as a thickness of a cross-section at a given radius at a location along a camber line that is 9% of the total length of the camber line from the leading edge (¶28). The instant application fails to define how the blade thickness of the leading edge is measured. The definition disclosed by Bartholomew et al was not found to be a standard definition widely known and/or used in the blade art.
For these reasons, claim 1 is rendered indefinite.
For purposes of prior art examination, the “blade thickness of the leading edge” is being interpreted as a thickness defined at a leading edge surface area where the thickness increase rate slows considerably when moving along the camber line from the leading edge.
Claims 2-9 depend and/or include all the limitations of claim 1 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the other end portion of the rotary shaft” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Clarification and/or amendment is respectfully requested.
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 and 7-9 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi (JP 2008151063 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches a radial turbine wheel (Fig.1-2 & 9-10)comprising:
a hub (HUB) configured to be fixed to a rotary shaft (13); and
a plurality of turbine blades (B) disposed on a hub surface of the hub at intervals in a circumferential direction (Fig.2),
wherein each of the plurality of turbine blades includes a leading edge (LE), a hub-side edge (Fig.10, edge between blades and hub), and a shroud-side edge (TIP),
the leading edge has a leading edge hub-side end (Fig.10, adjacent where “LE” is located) connected to the hub-side edge and a leading edge shroud-side end connected to the shroud-side edge (Fig.10, where TIP and LE intersect), and
in a case where a total length of the leading edge in a span direction is defined as La and a span direction distance between a position displaced in the span direction from the leading edge hub-side end toward the leading edge shroud-side end and the leading edge hub-side end is defined as Ls (Fig.10; not labeled),
at least one leading edge of the plurality of turbine blades is configured such that a blade thickness of the leading edge is continuously decreased as Ls/La is increased from 0 2 to 1.0 (Fig.9(a), profile on right side; note LE blade thickness continuously decreasing towards the TIP, i.e., Ls/La = 1.0).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi further teaches a radial turbine (Fig.1/3) comprising:
a rotary shaft (13);
the radial turbine wheel according to Claim 1 (see above), which is fixed to one end portion of the rotary shaft (Fig.1),
a turbine housing (21) that accommodates the radial turbine wheel and that defines an annular nozzle flow path on an outer peripheral side of the radial turbine wheel (Fig.1); and
a plurality of nozzle vanes (50/51/52) disposed at the nozzle flow path at intervals in a circumferential direction (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi further teaches each of the plurality of nozzle vanes is mounted to the turbine housing to be non-rotatable (Fig.3; note the plurality of nozzle vanes do not rotate with the turbine wheel and instead remain at their respective circumferential locations on the turbine housing).
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi further teaches a turbocharger (Fig.1) comprising:
the radial turbine according to Claim 7 (see above); and
a compressor (C) including a compressor wheel (12) fixed to the other end portion of the rotary shaft and a compressor housing (24) that accommodates the compressor wheel (Fig.1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-6 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi.
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 0.5 is 1.3 times or more and 2.2 times or less the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 1.0.
However, applicant disclosure states that the claimed relative dimensions between Ls/La at 0.5 and 1.0 is not an essential component of the present disclosure (¶25).
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 claim 2 and the disclosed radial turbine wheel of Hayashi is the relative dimensions of the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 0.5 is 1.3 times or more and 2.2 times or less the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 1.0. Since Hayashi has disclosed a radial turbine wheel with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 0.5 is 1.3 times or more and 2.2 times or less the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 1.0 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 3, Hayashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 0.3 is 1.7 times or more and 3.1 times or less the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 1.0.
However, applicant disclosure states that the claimed relative dimensions between Ls/La at 0.3 and 1.0 is not an essential component of the present disclosure (¶29).
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 claim 3 and the disclosed radial turbine wheel of Hayashi is the relative dimensions of the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 0.3 is 1.7 times or more and 3.1 times or less the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 1.0. Since Hayashi has disclosed a radial turbine wheel with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 0.3 is 1.7 times or more and 3.1 times or less the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 1.0 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 4, Hayashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach a maximum blade thickness of the turbine blade in a blade cross-section at an intermediate position in the span direction between the hub-side edge and the shroud-side edge is equal to or less than 2.0 times the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 0.5.
However, applicant disclosure states that the claimed relative dimensions between Ls/La at 0.5 and maximum blade thickness at an intermediate position is not an essential component of the present disclosure (¶34).
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 claim 4 and the disclosed radial turbine wheel of Hayashi is the relative dimensions of a maximum blade thickness of the turbine blade in a blade cross-section at an intermediate position in the span direction between the hub-side edge and the shroud-side edge is equal to or less than 2.0 times the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 0.5. Since Hayashi has disclosed a radial turbine wheel with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between a maximum blade thickness of the turbine blade in a blade cross-section at an intermediate position in the span direction between the hub-side edge and the shroud-side edge is equal to or less than 2.0 times the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 0.5 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 5, Hayashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, and further teaches each of the plurality of turbine blades includes a trailing edge (Fig.10, TE), the trailing edge has a trailing edge hub-side end (Fig.10, where TE intersects HUB) connected to the hub-side edge and a trailing edge shroud-side end (Fig.10, where TIP and TE intersect) connected to the shroud-side edge, and in a case where a total length of the trailing edge in the span direction is defined as Ma and a span direction distance between a position displaced in the span direction from the trailing edge hub-side end toward the trailing edge shroud-side end and the trailing edge hub-side end is defined as Ms (Fig.10; unlabeled), however, does not explicitly teach the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 0.5 is 1.3 times or more and 2.2 times or less a blade thickness of the trailing edge at a position in the span direction at which Ms/Ma is 0.5.
However, applicant disclosure states that the claimed relative dimensions between Ls/La at 0.5 and Ms/Ma at 0.5 is not an essential component of the present disclosure (¶40).
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 claim 6 and the disclosed radial turbine wheel of Hayashi is the relative dimensions of the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 0.5 is 1.3 times or more and 2.2 times or less a blade thickness of the trailing edge at a position in the span direction at which Ms/Ma is 0.5. Since Hayashi has disclosed a radial turbine wheel with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 0.5 is 1.3 times or more and 2.2 times or less a blade thickness of the trailing edge at a position in the span direction at which Ms/Ma is 0.5 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 6, Hayashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, and further teaches each of the plurality of turbine blades includes a trailing edge (Fig.10, TE), the trailing edge has a trailing edge hub-side end (Fig.10, where TE intersects HUB) connected to the hub-side edge and a trailing edge shroud-side end (Fig.10, where TIP and TE intersect) connected to the shroud-side edge, and in a case where a total length of the trailing edge in the span direction is defined as Ma and a span direction distance between a position displaced in the span direction from the trailing edge hub-side end toward the trailing edge shroud-side end and the trailing edge hub-side end is defined as Ms (Fig.10; unlabeled), however, does not explicitly teach the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 0.3 is 1.7 times or more and 3. 1 times or less a blade thickness of the trailing edge at a position in the span direction at which Ms/Ma is 0.3.
However, applicant disclosure states that the claimed relative dimensions between Ls/La at 0.3 and Ms/Ma at 0.3 is not an essential component of the present disclosure (¶44).
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 claim 6 and the disclosed radial turbine wheel of Hayashi is the relative dimensions of the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 0.3 is 1.7 times or more and 3. 1 times or less a blade thickness of the trailing edge at a position in the span direction at which Ms/Ma is 0.3. Since Hayashi has disclosed a radial turbine wheel with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between the blade thickness of the leading edge at a position in the span direction at which Ls/La is 0.3 is 1.7 times or more and 3. 1 times or less a blade thickness of the trailing edge at a position in the span direction at which Ms/Ma is 0.3 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.
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