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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of response was received on 07/15/2026. Presently claims 1-12 and 14-19 are pending. Claim 13 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks regarding the 112 rejections (see p. 7-8) have been considered and are persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn, but introduces new matter issues because support for “highly rigid fibres having a higher elastic modulus than high-strength fibres” and “high-strength fibres having a higher tensile strength and/or strain-to-failure than the highly rigid fibres”, as recited in each of amended claims 9 and 10, is not found in the specification.
Applicant’s arguments and remarks regarding the prior art rejections (see. 9-11) have been considered and are persuasive. However, in the embodiment of Fig. 8A or 9A, Giovannetti et al. discloses blades (3B) that are continuous with portions (3D) and (3A) and therein have a double-T-shape in cross section that extends continuously along the respective entire radial length of the blade.
Applicant's amendments necessitated a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 103 and this action has therefore been made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, each claim recites the following limitations: “highly rigid fibres having a higher elastic modulus than high-strength fibres” and “high-strength fibres having a higher tensile strength and/or strain-to-failure than the highly rigid fibres”, From the specification, there is no written description regarding the elastic modulus of the fibers, the relative tensile strength of the fibers, and the strain-to-failure of the fibers. Therein, there is a lack of written description suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art of the newly amended limitations for claims 9 and 10. Therein, the amended claims of 9 and 10 have introduced new matter.
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 1-5, 12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giovannetti et al. (U.S. 9,810,230) in view of Giannozzi et al. (U.S. 9,816,518).
Regarding claim 1, Giovannetti et al. discloses a multi-stage compressor (Col. 1, lines 33-35), comprising:
a compressor rotor (1), wherein the compressor rotor comprises:
a rotor shaft (Col. 5, lines 30-33); and
multiple impellers fastened to the rotor shaft (i.e., multi-stage compressors each comprises an impeller, Col. 1, lines 33-41), which are subjected to inflow in an axial direction (i.e., inflow direction through axial inlet 3I, Fig. 3B) and outflow in a radial direction (outlet in a radial direction through outlet portion 3U, Fig. 3B) or a diagonal direction.
Giovannetti et al. further discloses wherein each impeller comprises: an inner shroud (30A, Fig. 4B) that is curved (as shown in Fig. 4B); an outer shroud that is curved (outer shroud 50 is curved, as shown in Fig. 4B); and multiple impeller blades that are curved and arranged between the inner shroud and the outer shroud (i.e., multiple curved blades 30B that are arranged between the inner shroud 30A and the outer shroud 50, as shown in Fig. 4B),
Giovannetti et al. further discloses of blades (3B exemplarily shown in Fig. 8A) formed from two U-shaped profiles (“u1” and “u2”, as shown in Fig. 8A’ below) with respective central parts facing each other and having a double-T-shape in cross-section that extends continuously along their respective entire radial lengths (as shown in Fig. 8A’, the cross section of each blade 3B exhibits central parts of the u-shaped profile facing each other wherein at the top and bottom surfaces of each cross section, a T-shape profile is formed about the radial length of the cross section, therein resembling a double-T-shape in cross-section, as in the surface at the bottom of the figure 8A there is an inverted T shape and there is a T shape at the top of the cross section; i.e., mirrored T-shape about an imaginary horizontal centerline about the center of the blade, as in the surface at the bottom of the figure 8B there is an inverted T shape and there is a T shape at the top of the cross section and the blade extends continuously to form the T-shape at the inner end with 3A and continuously at the outer end with 3D, and therein a double T-shape profile is continuously formed along the entire radial length of the blade 3B), and wherein free legs of the double -T-shaped impeller blades extend along the inner shroud and the outer shroud (as shown in Fig. 8A’, free legs “l1” extend along the outer shroud 50 (outer shroud is shown in Fig. 4B), while free legs “l2” extend along the inner shroud 30A (inner shroud is shown in Fig. 4B).
PNG
media_image1.png
501
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8A’
Giovannetti et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the impeller blades each consists of a fibre composite material.
Giannozzi et al. teaches of a composite impeller, which is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Specifically, Giannozzi et al. teaches of an analogous radial impeller (Fig. 1A or 1C), comparable to the impeller disclosed in Giovannetti et al., wherein axial flow (A) enters an inlet of the impeller (10A or 10C) and exits radially at an outlet (B). Further, the impeller in Giannozzi et al. can be used in a compressor (Col. 5, lines 15-20).
Giannozzi et al. specifically teaches wherein each impeller (10A or 10C) comprises impeller blades that each consists of a fibre composite material (the inner shroud 6/7 comprises of a fabric element, the outer shroud 4 comprises of a fabric element, and blades 15 are formed from fabric elements (1C, Col. 9, lines 10-17), wherein the fabric elements comprise of fiber, composite material, Col. 4, lines 37-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giovannetti et al. in view of Giannozzi et al. by using the composite impeller material taught in Giannozzi et al. for the impeller (1) disclosed in Giovannetti et al. because the impeller taught in Giannozzi et al. is extremely lightweight and has a comparable resistance to an impeller made of metal (Giannozzi et al., Col. 4, lines 53-63).
The combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. further discloses wherein the rotor shaft (Giovannetti, Col. 5, lines 30-33) extends through a recess (i.e., recess 3C disclosed in Giovannetti, Fig. 3B) in the inner shroud (inner shroud 30A, Giovannetti) of a respective impeller (impeller shown in Fig. 3B or Fig. 4B of Giovannetti).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. further discloses wherein the impeller blades (Giannozzi further teaches of blades 15), the inner shroud (Giannozzi further teaches of inner shroud 6/7) and the outer shroud (Giannozzi further teaches of outer shroud 4) are integral with a respective impeller (i.e., unitary, single structure; impeller can be made with a single injection without subsequent assembly and bonding, as taught in Giannozzi, Col. 7, lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. further discloses wherein the impeller blades, the inner shroud, and the outer shroud are separate components with a respective impeller (Giannozzi, Col. 7, lines 18-21, the veins which are formed between blades 15 can be combined in a subsequent step with the hub and shroud, therein having a separate, differential design).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. further discloses wherein the impeller blades are connected to the inner shroud and the outer shroud at least via an adhesive connection (Giannozzi, Col. 7, lines 18-21, the veins which are formed between blades 15 can be combined in a subsequent step with the hub and shroud, therein having a separate, differential design; Giannozzi additionally discloses of the use of adhesive to bond and join segments forming the impeller, Col. 1, lines 47-48, Col. 2, lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. further discloses wherein the impeller blades are additionally connected to the inner shroud and the outer shroud via mechanical connecting elements (Giannozzi, Col. 7, lines 18-21, the veins which are formed between blades 15 can be combined in a subsequent step with the hub and shroud, therein having a separate, differential design; Giannozzi additionally teaches of the use of bolts (i.e., mechanical connecting elements) to join segments forming the impeller, Col. 1, lines 54-59).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. further discloses wherein the inner shroud (6/7) comprises fibres (Col. 4, lines 37-52) extending in at least one main stress direction of the inner shroud (the fibres can be variously oriented in any direction to have optimal strength distribution on the fabric components forming the inner shroud 6/7, Col. 13, lines 1-6, Col. 12, lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. further discloses wherein each impeller blade (30B), in transition regions from the free legs (Fig. 8B’, L1, L2) comprises a core in at least one central part connecting the legs (i.e., in the at least one central part connecting the legs at portions “u1” and “u2”, there is a “core” in between the legs in the transition region wherein the legs curve onto the inner shroud and the outer shroud).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. further discloses wherein the mechanical connecting elements are bolts, rivets, or screws (Giannozzi additionally teaches of the use of bolts (i.e., mechanical connecting elements) to join segments forming the impeller, Col. 1, lines 54-59)).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. further discloses wherein the inner shroud (Giannozzi, 6/7) comprises fibres (Giannozzi teaches of, i.e., fabric element 6/7 comprising of fibres, Col. 4, lines 37-53) extending in a tensile stress direction (fabric elements provide high resistance to the tensions/tensile stress during the work of the impeller, Col. 7, lines 34-39) and/or fibres extending in a compressive stress direction (the fibres can be variously oriented in any direction to have optimal strength distribution on the fabric components forming the inner shroud 6/7, Col. 13, lines 1-6, Col. 12, lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. further discloses of a multi-stage compressor (Giovannetti, Col. 1, lines 33-36). Further, the phrase “configured as a multi-stage radial compressor or a multi-stage diagonal compressor” merely represents an intended use or a manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus disclosed in the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. See MPEP 2114. MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. further discloses wherein the central parts of each U-shaped profile are integrally formed (as shown in Fig. 8A’, the central parts (“u1” or “u2”) of each U-shaped profile are unitarily connected to the legs (L1 or L2) and therein, the central parts are integrally formed as one piece).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giovannetti et al. (U.S. 9,810,230) in view of Giannozzi et al. (U.S. 9,816,518) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Dunk et al. (U.S. 4,645,593).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the rotor shaft, consists of a metallic material or a fibre composite material, and each impeller are at least connected via a frictional connection to the rotor shaft.
Dunk et al. teaches of an impeller and a shaft, which is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Specifically, Dunk et al. teaches of an impeller (32) mounted on a metal shaft (33), via a press-fit connection, which is a frictional connection as the inner surface of the impeller and the outer surface of the shaft mate in connection (Col. 4, lines 9-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. in view of Dunk et al. by using a press-fit connection (as taught in Dunk et al.) between the metal shaft (i.e., material as taught by Dunk) and the impeller as it is widely known in the impeller art that such connection effectively allows for the transmission of torque and power between the shaft and the impeller.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Giovannetti et al., Giannozzi et al., and Dunk et al. further discloses wherein the rotor shaft and each impeller are connected via a press-fit connection (Dunk et al., Col. 4, lines 9-13).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Giovannetti et al. (U.S. 9,810,230), Giannozzi et al. (U.S. 9,816,518), and Dunk et al. (U.S. 4,645,593) as applied in claim 6 above, and further in view of Sieghartner (U.S. 3,734,697).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Giovannetti, Giannozzi, and Dunk does not specifically disclose wherein the rotor shaft and each impeller are connected via an integral connection and/or positive connection.
Sieghartner teaches of attaching an impeller to a shaft, which is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Specifically, Sieghartner teaches of using press-fit operations (Col. 2, lines 18-25) to assembly the impeller onto the rotor shaft and in addition, using a spline or key (42, Col. 2, lines 29-33), which is interpreted as a positive connection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Giovannetti et al., Giannozzi and Dunk et al. by using an additional positive connection (key connection between shaft and impeller as taught in Sieghartner) in order to establish a secure connection between the shaft and impeller and avoid any displacement therebetween due to vibrations or stresses endured by the connection.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giovannetti et al. (U.S. 9,810,230) in view of Giannozzi et al. (U.S. 9,816,518) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Hornschuch (U.S. 3,861,820).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the multi-stage compressor disclosed in Giovannetti et al. is configured to compress and/or transport hydrogen gas, helium gas, natural gas, ammonia, neon, or a mixture of at least two of said gases.
Hornschuch teaches of a multi-stage compressor unit, which is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Specifically, Hornschuch teaches of the multi-stage compressor being configured for the compressing of natural gas (Col. 1, lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Giovannetti et al., Giannozzi in view of Hornschuch by using the compressor disclosed in Giovannetti et al. to compress natural gas as taught by Hornschuch as it is widely known in the art for multi-stage compressor units to compress hydrogen gas (Hornschuch, Col. 1, lines 5-30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 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 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest highly rigid fibres having a higher elastic modulus than high-strength fibres and high-strength fibres having a higher tensile strength and/or strain-to-failure than the highly rigid fibres.
Claim 10 would be allowable for the same reasons set forth in claim 9.
Claim 11 would be allowable due to its dependency on claim 9.
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 ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 5:00 pm EST alternating Fridays off.
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.
/ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 08/10/2026
Prosecution Insights