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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of response was received on 04/23/2026. 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 not persuasive. The terms "high rigid” and “high strength" in claims 9 and 10 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms "high rigid” and “high strength" are 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. It is unclear of the extent of departure or degree from “rigid” and “strength” that can be considered as “high” with respect to the limitations “high rigid” and “high strength” since a definition of “high” pertaining to “rigid” and “strength” is not provided by the specification. Therein, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
Applicant’s arguments and remarks regarding the prior art rejections (see. 9-14) have been considered and are not persuasive. Applicant states that Giannozzi fails to disclose the claimed blade and discusses the anchoring systems 61/161 associated with the fabrication of the blades. However, in the fabrication of the blades, the structural features of the blades are disclosed since 30E (Fig. 8B) are shaped ends of the blades (30B). The two U-shaped profiles of the blades can be exemplary seen in Fig. 11C, wherein two U-shaped profile pieces have been omitted for clarity. Giovannetti et al. discloses of blades (30B exemplary shown in Fig. 8B) formed from two U-shaped profiles (“u1” and “u2”, as shown in Fig. 8B’) with respective central parts facing each other and having a double-T-shape in cross-section (as shown in Fig. 8B, the cross section of each blade 30B 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, therein resembling a double-T-shape in cross-section about their respective radial lengths (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 wherein free legs of the double -T-shaped impeller blades extend along the inner shroud and the outer shroud (as shown in Fig. 8B’, 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).
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 9-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The terms "high rigid” and “high strength" in claims 9 and 10 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms "high rigid” and “high strength" are 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. It is unclear of the extent of departure or degree from “rigid” and “strength” that can be considered as “high” with respect to the limitations “high rigid” and “high strength” since a definition of “high” pertaining to “rigid” and “strength” is not provided by the specification. Therein, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency of a rejected independent claim.
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, 9-12, 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 (30B exemplarily shown in Fig. 8B) formed from two U-shaped profiles (“u1” and “u2”, as shown in Fig. 8B’ below) with respective central parts facing each other and having a double-T-shape in cross-section along their respective radial lengths (as shown in Fig. 8B, the cross section of each blade 30B 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 8B 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 wherein free legs of the double -T-shaped impeller blades extend along the inner shroud and the outer shroud (as shown in Fig. 8B’, 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
438
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8B’
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 9, the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. further discloses wherein:
the fibre composite material of the inner shroud, in a connecting region to the rotor shaft, includes highly rigid fibres (the inner shroud 6/7 comprises of fabric elements throughout the inner shroud, Col. 8, lines 53-55), which serve to add more rigidity to the impeller assembly (Col. 4, lines 7-8), and therein comprises of “highly” rigid fibres (Col. 4, lines 37-45)), and
the fibre composite material of the inner shroud, outside the connecting region to the rotor shaft include high-strength fibres and the fibre composite material of the outer shroud and of the impeller blades includes high-strength fibres (as taught in Giannozzi, the fabric elements forming the inner shroud 6/7, the blades 15, and the outer shroud 4 comprise of fibres throughout (Col. 4, lines 37-45), which are oriented to have optimal strength (Col. 12, lines 58-60, Col. 13, lines 1-5), and therein the fabric elements comprise of “high-strength” fibres).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. further discloses wherein:
the fibre composite material of the inner shroud in the connecting region to the rotor shaft additionally includes high-strength fibres (the fabric elements forming the inner shroud 6/7, the blades 15, and the outer shroud 4 comprise of fibres throughout (Col. 4, lines 37-45), which are oriented to have optimal strength (Col. 12, lines 58-60, Col. 13, lines 1-5), and therein the fabric elements comprise of “high-strength” fibres), and/or
the fibre composite material of the inner shroud, outside the connecting region to the rotor shaft includes high rigid fibres, and the fibre composite material of the outer shroud and of the impeller blades additionally includes highly rigid fibres (the inner shroud 6/7 comprises of fabric elements throughout, Col. 8, lines 53-55), which serve to add more rigidity to the impeller assembly (Col. 4, lines 7-8), and therein comprises of “highly” rigid fibres (Col. 4, lines 37-45)).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Giovannetti et al. and Giannozzi et al. further discloses wherein:
the inner shroud (Giannozzi, 6/7), in the connecting region of the inner shroud towards the rotor shaft, comprises fibres extending in the axial direction and fibres extending in a tangential direction (i.e., Fig. 11A-11L discloses of various orientations of the fibres forming the fabric elements forming the inner shroud 6/7, (Col. 12, lines 52-55, wherein fibres extending in the axial direction can be arranged such as Figs. 11D, 11F, 11G, 11H, 11I, 11L; and fibres extending in a tangential circumferential direction such as shown in Fig. 11I, wherein the fibres can be variously oriented to have optimal strength distribution on the fabric components forming the inner shroud 6/7, Col. 13, lines 1-6), and
the inner shroud, outside the connecting region to the rotor shaft, comprises fibres extending in the radial direction and fibres extending in the tangential direction (i.e., Fig. 11A-11L discloses of various orientations of the fibres forming the fabric elements forming the inner shroud 6/7, (Col. 12, lines 52-55, wherein fibres extending in the radial direction can be arranged such as Figs. 11D, 11E, 11F, 11G, 11H, 11I, 11L; and fibres extending in a tangential circumferential direction such as shown in Fig. 11I, wherein the fibres can be variously oriented to have optimal strength distribution on the fabric components forming the inner shroud 6/7, Col. 13, lines 1-6).
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. 8B’, 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).
Conclusion
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 05/04/2026
Prosecution Insights