DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the claims filed 9/17/2025.
Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/17/2025, 2/12/2026, and 3/31/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inomata in JP2014125912 (hereinafter “Inomata”).
Regarding claim 1, Inomata discloses a centrifugal compressor (Fig. 1) comprising: an open-type impeller 11 having a hub and blades provided on a periphery of the hub; a rotating shaft 9 connected to the impeller; a bearing 8 for supporting the rotating shaft; and a casing 7 for covering the impeller, wherein a movable range in a radial direction of the rotating shaft with respect to the bearing is larger than a movable range in an axial direction of the rotating shaft with respect to the bearing (because the gap is as small as allowed by the "deflection amount" to strike a balance between safety ("avoid contact") and efficiency ("compression efficiency"), see $0037 to $0040, and because the gap is radial at the impeller inlet and because the gap axial at the impeller outlet), and a first gap between an outer peripheral edge 11b of the blade on a gas inlet side and an inner wall 20 of the casing is larger than a second gap between an outer peripheral edge of the blade on a gas outlet side and the inner wall of the casing (see $0035, the gap decreases streamwise over the linear shroud portion 20a and is "roughly constant" downstream thereof, which is visually confirmed by fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Inomata discloses the centrifugal compressor according to claim 1, wherein a minimum point of a blade angle of the blade is located in a latter half of the blade (“a minimum point” and “a blade angle” and “latter half” are not defined by the claim and may be broadly interpreted and arbitrarily defined such that Inomata necessarily anticipates this language; Applicant might consider defining what “a minimum point” is to obviate this rejection).
Regarding claim 3, Inomata discloses the centrifugal compressor according to claim 2, wherein the minimum point of the blade angle is located at a position of 0.6 m or more and 1.0 m or less with respect to a meridional length m (“minimum point” and “blade angle” and “meridional length” are not defined by the claim and may be broadly interpreted and arbitrarily defined such that Inomata necessarily anticipates this language; for example, as the blade is curved, it could be said to have a minimum curve value at the end of the blade, which is at 100 percent of the axial length of the impeller, or “1.0 m”).
Regarding claim 4, Inomata discloses the centrifugal compressor according to claim 2, wherein a direction that is along the blade and that is in a direction perpendicular to a direction of the meridional length m, is given as a span direction (simply, the blades of Inomata have a span); and when a length from an outer peripheral surface of the hub to an outer peripheral edge of the blade in the span direction is given as a span length S, at a position of 0.5 S or more with respect to the span length S, the minimum point of the blade angle is located at the latter half of the blade (“the minimum point” is not defined by the claim and may be broadly interpreted and arbitrarily defined such that Inomata necessarily anticipates this language; further “latter half” could be interpreted as either “half” of the blade such that Inomata necessarily reads on this language as one could interpret either “half” of the blade as the “latter half”).
Regarding claim 5, Inomata discloses the centrifugal compressor according to claim 4, wherein at a position of 0.9 S or more with respect to the span length S, the minimum point of the blade angle is located at the latter half of the blade (based on the same rationale as claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, Inomata discloses the centrifugal compressor according to claim 1, wherein the bearing is an air bearing, a foil bearing, an active magnetic bearing, a rolling bearing, or a sliding bearing (bearing 8 may be called a rolling bearing as the shaft rolls inside the bearing; or electromagnetic mechanism 19 could be mapped to the claimed bearing such that claim 6 is anticipated).
Regarding claim 8, Inomata discloses the centrifugal compressor according to claim 1, wherein a distance of the first gap is twice or more than a distance of the second gap (Fig. 3; see the dotted line that starts at the casing on the inlet side then is in the middle of the gap on the outlet side).
Regarding claim 9, this language is considered intended use (operating the turbine at some speed) and is anticipated by Inomata.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inomata as applied above against claim 6 in view of Lin et al. in US Patent Application Publication 2020/0149540 (hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 7, Inomata as applied above is silent to the centrifugal compressor according to claim 6, wherein the bearing is the active magnetic bearing, and the active magnetic bearing controls a position of the rotating shaft such that a distance to a touchdown in the radial direction of the rotating shaft is greater than a distance to a touchdown in the axial direction of the rotating shaft. Lin teaches an analogous turbocharger including a shaft supported by a bearing. Specifically, Lin teaches that on such turbochargers it is desirable to employ active magnetic bearings with larger radial clearances than axial clearances because it helps protect the more costly to replace axial bearings (paragraph [0029]-[0031]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the turbocharger of Inomata with the active magnetic bearing assembly of Lin in order to provide a turbocharger with cheaper and easier bearing maintenance requirements and the result would have been predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Relevant Prior Art:
JP2009281213 discloses a turbocharger with a magnetically controlled bearing to control gap size between the impeller and the casing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDON T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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, Court 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.
/ELDON T BROCKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights