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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 2nd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the obvious double patenting rejections should be withdrawn because the claimed invention is distinct from the claimed invention of US 12,297,844. However, the claims are directed to the same inventive concept of a controlled area progression diffuser with a width decreasing from inlet toward a transition point and width increasing beyond the transition point toward the outlet. The differences in claim wording represent variation in scope, not distinct inventions. A terminal disclaimer is required to overcome the double patenting rejection.
Applicant argues Morita discloses a parallel part where width is constant, and Lee allegedly shows width decreasing at the radially outer outlet end. These arguments are not persuasive. Lee explicitly teaches a divergent portion of the diffuser extending from the pinch point to the outlet (Col. 1, Lines 39-56), and provides specific width measurements demonstrating that width increases from the pinch point to the outlet (Col. 3, Line 65 to Col. 4, Line 28). The claim language requires width increasing as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially beyond the transition point toward the diffuser outlet, not necessarily at the outlet itself. Lee then teaches a divergent section where width increases, explicitly characterizing the section as “divergent”; any minimal variation at the extreme outlet does not negate the teaching.
Applicant argues Morita and Higashimori each have parallel portions where width is constant, not a variable rate throughout. This argument is not persuasive. The claim requires “the diffuser width decreases at a variable rate”; it does not require the rate to vary continuously throughout the entire diffuser length. Morita teaches a two section diffuser: a throttling portion and a parallel portion. The combination of a decreasing width section followed by a constant width section inherently produces a variable rate just by rate of changes from one section to the next, but Morita throttling section is variable in itself as well. Higashimori teaches that the wall with continuously changing curvature produces a continuously varying rate width of change (Col. 7, Line 50 to Col. 8, Line 3).
Applicant argues Higashimori teaches a circular arc or parabolic wall shape, but not the rate of change of annulus area. This argument is not persuasive. Higashimori teaches the hub-side convex portion is formed in the shape of a smooth curve that has a curvature continuously changing (Col. 7, Lines 50-67). The curve with continuously changing curvature is mathematically distinct from a parabolic curve. A curve with a continuously changing curvature has a varying second derivative which would produce the non-parabolic area. The area function depends on the width of the diffuser, the width depends on the wall profiles, and with walls continuously changing curvature produce a width with varying second derivative. Thus, the dA/dr has a varying rate of change that is neither linear nor parabolic.
The rejections are maintained.
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 5, 9, 11, 13, and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,297,844. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the same subject matter is being claimed with different wording. Claim 5 substantially overlaps with claim 1, except the instant claim 5 recites that “at a transition point the diffuser width is equal to a minimum diffuser width and the diffuser width increases as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially beyond the transition point towards the diffuser outlet”. However, claim 1 of ‘844 recites the same limitations just in a more narrow form (“a second transition point is equal to a minimum diffuser width” and “the third face portion extending radially outward from the second transition point and axially diverging from the bearing diffuser face as the third face portion extends radially outward”). The same thing applies to claim 9 of the instant application in that the diffuser width “decreases at a variable rate” which overlaps (first and second face portions approaching the bearing diffuser face at respective first/second constant rates overlaps with “variable rate” of decreasing diffuser width). Claim 11 recites the same limitations as in ‘844 (claim 6 of ‘844) and claim 13 is recited in the same way with different wording (minimum diffuser width at the transition point is the same as in ‘844, and then diffuser width increases beyond the transition point since the direction away/toward the bearing face establishes increasing/decreasing. The same arguments apply to claims 18-19 (minimum diffuser width and diffuser width increases as the controlled area extends beyond the transition point with a variable rate decreasing).
Claim 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,297,844 in view of Higashimori (US 11408439).
Claim 25 and claim 13 substantially overlap in scope except that claim 25 defines the first rate of change of the annular area is non-parabolic.
Higashimori defines a controlled area progression diffuser for a compressor that has multiple rates of change in the wall with a concave/convex shapes and can include “circular arc” shapes – such rates of change are non-parabolic and non-linear.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffuser of ‘844 such that the first rate of change of the annular area is non-parabolic as taught by Higashimori for the purposes of stabilized and the efficiency of the diffuser can be improved.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morita (US 9874224).
Morita discloses a turbocharger comprising: a bearing housing (3) in which a shaft (9) is supported by a bearing (5, 7) to rotate about a rotational axis; a compressor wheel (35) disposed on the shaft; a compressor housing (29) connected to the bearing housing and defining a chamber within which the compressor wheel rotates; a volute (45) for receiving airflow generated by the compressor wheel; and a controlled area progression diffuser (43) defined by a bearing diffuser face (43h) of the bearing housing and a compressor diffuser face (43s) of the compressor housing having annular shapes and extending from the chamber to the volute, the controlled area progression diffuser having a diffuser inlet proximate the chamber and a diffuser outlet proximate the volute so that the airflow from the compressor wheel enters through the diffuser inlet and exits through the diffuser outlet to the volute (see Figures 3-4, diffuser inlet/outlet shown but unlabeled), and wherein the bearing diffuser face and the compressor diffuser face are shaped so that a diffuser width between the bearing diffuser face and the compressor diffuser face decreases as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially away from the chamber toward the volute so that an annulus area of the controlled area progression diffuser does not increase linearly for at least a portion of a radial length of the controlled area progression diffuser (see Figure 5B), and wherein the controlled area progression diffuser is shaped so that the diffuser width decreases at a variable rate as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially away from the chamber (see Figures showing the decreasing width which is at a “variable” rate since it includes the substantial bump and shift along the way to the minimum width).
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.
Claims 5, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (US 9874224) in view of Lee (US 6382912).
Regarding claim 5;
Morita discloses a turbocharger comprising: a bearing housing (3) in which a shaft (9) is supported by a bearing (5, 7) to rotate about a rotational axis; a compressor wheel (35) disposed on the shaft; a compressor housing (29) connected to the bearing housing and defining a chamber within which the compressor wheel rotates; a volute (45) for receiving airflow generated by the compressor wheel; and a controlled area progression diffuser (43) defined by a bearing diffuser face (43h) of the bearing housing and a compressor diffuser face (43s) of the compressor housing having annular shapes and extending from the chamber to the volute, the controlled area progression diffuser having a diffuser inlet proximate the chamber and a diffuser outlet proximate the volute so that the airflow from the compressor wheel enters through the diffuser inlet and exits through the diffuser outlet to the volute (see Figures 3-4, diffuser inlet/outlet shown but unlabeled), and wherein the bearing diffuser face and the compressor diffuser face are shaped so that a diffuser width between the bearing diffuser face and the compressor diffuser face decreases as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially away from the chamber toward the volute so that an annulus area of the controlled area progression diffuser does not increase linearly for at least a portion of a radial length of the controlled area progression diffuser (see Figure 5B), and wherein the controlled area progression diffuser is shaped so that the diffuser width decreases at a variable rate as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially away from the chamber (see Figures showing the decreasing width which is at a “variable” rate since it includes the substantial bump and shift along the way to the minimum width). Morita further discloses at a first transition point the diffuser width is equal to a minimum diffuser width (51so is the transition point of minimum width).
Morita fails to teach the diffuser width increases as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially beyond the transition point to the diffuser outlet.
Lee teaches a controlled area progression diffuser, the diffuser comprises a compressor diffuser face which comprises: a first face portion (52) extending from the diffuser inlet and axially approaching the bearing diffuser face and approaches the minimum width (50). The diffuser then increases in area (Figure 5) and the width increases as the controlled area progression diffuser extends beyond the transition point toward the diffuser outlet (Figure 3).
Because Morita teaches a pinching portion of a minimum width of a diffuser and the area then increasing to the volute, and because Lee teaches the area of the diffuser increasing in addition to the width increasing, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffuser of Morita such that the diffuser width increases as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially beyond the transition point to the diffuser outlet as taught by Lee for the purposes of improves operational stability and efficiency, provides for more efficient energy transfer, and achieves higher pressure recovery and lower non-recovery losses.
Regarding claim 13;
Morita discloses the compressor according to claim 9 above. Morita further discloses at a first transition point the diffuser width is equal to a minimum diffuser width (51so is the transition point of minimum width).
Morita fails to teach the diffuser width increases as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially beyond the transition point to the diffuser outlet.
Lee teaches a controlled area progression diffuser, the diffuser comprises a compressor diffuser face which comprises: a first face portion (52) extending from the diffuser inlet and axially approaching the bearing diffuser face and approaches the minimum width (50). The diffuser then increases in area (Figure 5) and the width increases as the controlled area progression diffuser extends beyond the transition point toward the diffuser outlet (Figure 3).
Because Morita teaches a pinching portion of a minimum width of a diffuser and the area then increasing to the volute, and because Lee teaches the area of the diffuser increasing in addition to the width increasing, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffuser of Morita such that the diffuser width increases as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially beyond the transition point to the diffuser outlet as taught by Lee for the purposes of improves operational stability and efficiency, provides for more efficient energy transfer, and achieves higher pressure recovery and lower non-recovery losses.
Regarding claims 18-19;
Morita discloses a bearing housing (3) in which a shaft (9) is supported by a bearing (5, 7) to rotate about a rotational axis; a compressor wheel (35) disposed on the shaft; a compressor housing (29) connected to the bearing housing and defining a chamber within which the compressor wheel rotates; a volute (45) for receiving airflow generated by the compressor wheel; and a controlled area progression diffuser (43) defined by a bearing diffuser face (43h) of the bearing housing and a compressor diffuser face (43s) of the compressor housing having annular shapes and extending from the chamber to the volute, the controlled area progression diffuser having a diffuser inlet proximate the chamber and a diffuser outlet proximate the volute so that the airflow from the compressor wheel enters through the diffuser inlet and exits through the diffuser outlet to the volute (see Figures 3-4, diffuser inlet/outlet shown but unlabeled), and wherein the bearing diffuser face and the compressor diffuser face are shaped so that a diffuser width between the bearing diffuser face and the compressor diffuser face decreases as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially away from the chamber toward the volute so that an annulus area of the controlled area progression diffuser does not increase linearly for at least a portion of a radial length of the controlled area progression diffuser (see Figure 5B), and wherein the controlled area progression diffuser is shaped so that the diffuser width decreases at a variable rate as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially away from the chamber (see Figures showing the decreasing width which is at a “variable” rate since it includes the substantial bump and shift along the way to the minimum width). Morita further discloses at a first transition point the diffuser width is equal to a minimum diffuser width (51so is the transition point of minimum width).
Morita fails to teach the diffuser width increases as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially beyond the transition point to the diffuser outlet.
Lee teaches a controlled area progression diffuser, the diffuser comprises a compressor diffuser face which comprises: a first face portion (52) extending from the diffuser inlet and axially approaching the bearing diffuser face and approaches the minimum width (50). The diffuser then increases in area (Figure 5) and the width increases as the controlled area progression diffuser extends beyond the transition point toward the diffuser outlet (Figure 3).
Because Morita teaches a pinching portion of a minimum width of a diffuser and the area then increasing to the volute, and because Lee teaches the area of the diffuser increasing in addition to the width increasing, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffuser of Morita such that the diffuser width increases as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially beyond the transition point to the diffuser outlet as taught by Lee for the purposes of improves operational stability and efficiency, provides for more efficient energy transfer, and achieves higher pressure recovery and lower non-recovery losses.
Claims 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashimori (US 11408439) in view of Morita (US 9874224).
Higashimori discloses a compressor comprising a compressor wheel (12a, 12b) disposed on a shaft (3) configuring to rotate about a rotational axis (3A), a compressor housing (11) defining a chamber within which the compressor wheel rotates, and a controlled area progression diffuser defined by respective housing diffuser face(s), wherein the “bearing” diffuser face and compressor diffuser face have annular shapes and extend around the chamber to the outlet/exit, wherein the controlled area progression diffuser includes a diffuser inlet proximate the chamber and a diffuser outlet (implicit) at the other end. The controlled progression diffuser is shaped so that a diffuser width between the respective faces decreases as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially away from the chamber toward the outlet so that an annular area of the controlled area progression diffuser does not increase linearly for at least a portion of a radial length of the controlled area progression diffuser (see 132t which extends towards the compressor housing part of the diffuser and this establishes the minimum width of the diffuser; the decrease occurs to the point 132t in a non-linear fashion; see the respective figures detailing the shape). Additionally, the diffuser width decreases at a variable rate as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially away from the chamber (see the Figures whereby the diffuser width decrease happens at a non-linear way and thereby in a “variable” way since the rate of change is not constant). The compressor diffuser face can be planar (portion 131b is linear) while the “bearing” diffuser face axially approaches the compressor diffuser face as the bearing diffuser face extends radially outward from the chamber (see the Figures whereby the opposing wall extends towards the compressor diffuser face to the minimum width 132t). The diffuser width is at a minimum at the transition point (132t) and increases as the diffuser extends beyond the transition point (see Figures whereby the width increases).
Higashimori fails to explicitly teach the opposing diffuser face is a “bearing” housing since no bearings are explicitly disclosed, nor is there an explicit mention of a volute at the exit/outlet of the diffuser.
Morita teaches a bearing housing (3) in which a shaft (9) is supported by a bearing (5, 7) to rotate about a rotational axis; a compressor wheel (35) disposed on the shaft; a compressor housing (29) connected to the bearing housing and defining a chamber within which the compressor wheel rotates; a volute (45) for receiving airflow generated by the compressor wheel; and a controlled area progression diffuser (43) defined by a bearing diffuser face (43h) of the bearing housing and a compressor diffuser face (43s) of the compressor housing having annular shapes and extending from the chamber to the volute, the controlled area progression diffuser having a diffuser inlet proximate the chamber and a diffuser outlet proximate the volute so that the airflow from the compressor wheel enters through the diffuser inlet and exits through the diffuser outlet to the volute (see Figures 3-4, diffuser inlet/outlet shown but unlabeled), and wherein the bearing diffuser face and the compressor diffuser face are shaped so that a diffuser width between the bearing diffuser face and the compressor diffuser face decreases as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially away from the chamber toward the volute so that an annulus area of the controlled area progression diffuser does not increase linearly for at least a portion of a radial length of the controlled area progression diffuser (see Figure 5B), and wherein the controlled area progression diffuser is shaped so that the diffuser width decreases at a variable rate as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially away from the chamber and towards the transition point (see Figures showing the decreasing width which is at a “variable” rate since it includes the substantial bump and shift along the way to the minimum width; the throttling part has a curved tapered shroud surface profile that produces a variable rate of width decrease as the diffuser extends toward the transition point; Col. 6, Lines 21-32). Morita further discloses at a first transition point the diffuser width is equal to a minimum diffuser width (51so is the transition point of minimum width).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compressor of Higashimori such that the opposing diffuser wall is the “bearing” housing and a volute for receiving airflow generated by the compressor wheel as taught by Morita as the bearings support the shaft and reduce friction and the volute for recovering the kinetic energy of the compressor and converting it into static pressure.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (US 9874224) in view of Higashimori (US 11408439).
Morita discloses a turbocharger comprising: a bearing housing (3) in which a shaft (9) is supported by a bearing (5, 7) to rotate about a rotational axis; a compressor wheel (35) disposed on the shaft; a compressor housing (29) connected to the bearing housing and defining a chamber within which the compressor wheel rotates; a volute (45) for receiving airflow generated by the compressor wheel; and a controlled area progression diffuser (43) defined by a bearing diffuser face (43h) of the bearing housing and a compressor diffuser face (43s) of the compressor housing having annular shapes and extending from the chamber to the volute, the controlled area progression diffuser having a diffuser inlet proximate the chamber and a diffuser outlet proximate the volute so that the airflow from the compressor wheel enters through the diffuser inlet and exits through the diffuser outlet to the volute (see Figures 3-4, diffuser inlet/outlet shown but unlabeled), and wherein the bearing diffuser face and the compressor diffuser face are shaped so that a diffuser width between the bearing diffuser face and the compressor diffuser face decreases as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially away from the chamber toward the volute so that an annulus area of the controlled area progression diffuser does not increase linearly for at least a portion of a radial length of the controlled area progression diffuser (see Figure 5B), and wherein the controlled area progression diffuser is shaped so that the diffuser width decreases at a variable rate as the controlled area progression diffuser extends radially away from the chamber (see Figures showing the decreasing width which is at a “variable” rate since it includes the substantial bump and shift along the way to the minimum width). Morita further discloses at a first transition point the diffuser width is equal to a minimum diffuser width (51so is the transition point of minimum width). Morita further discloses the first rate of change of the annulus area is non-linear.
Morita fails to teach the first rate of change of annulus area is explicitly non-parabolic.
Higashimori defines a controlled area progression diffuser for a compressor that has multiple rates of change in the wall with a concave/convex shapes and can include “circular arc” shapes – such rates of change are non-parabolic and non-linear.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffuser of Morita such that the first rate of change of annulus area is explicitly non-parabolic as taught by Higashimori for the purposes of stabilized and the efficiency of the diffuser can be improved.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, Nathaniel 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights