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 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Boeics fails to disclose that the vane 4 and vane 7 do not face each other in the circumferential direction. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 has been amended to recite that that “the first vane and the second vane at least partially face each other in the circumferential direction”. Boeics discloses in Fig. 1a that the blades (4 and 7) can partially overlap depending on how they are positioned and so would partially face each other in the circumferential direction. Further, when the blades (4 and 7) of Boeics are positioned in the configuration shown in Fig. 1b they can still be interpreted to read on the claimed limitation in that the direction they face each other includes a circumferential element. For these reasons Applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boeics (US 3,588,270).
Regarding claim 1, Boeics (Fig. 1a-3b) discloses a rotary machine (Col. 1, lines 5-8: Centrifugal Compressor) comprising: an impeller (3); and a plurality of vanes (4 and 7) arranged apart from each other in a circumferential direction of the impeller (3) on a radially outer side with respect to the impeller (3), each of the vanes (4 and 7) being provided in such a manner as to be turnable about a turning axis extending in a rotation axis direction of the impeller, the plurality of vanes (4 and 7) including a first vane (4) and a second vane (7), turning axes (12 and 9, respectively) of the first vane (4) and the second vane (7) in a radial direction of the impeller (3) have mutually different relative positions, wherein the first vane (4) and the second vane (7) at least partially face each other in the circumferential direction (Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 2, Boeics discloses the rotary machine according to claim 1, wherein Boeics (Fig. 1a-3b) further discloses that in the plurality of vanes (4 and 7), the first vane (4) and the second vane (7) are alternately arranged in the circumferential direction.
Regarding claim 3, Boeics discloses the rotary machine according to claim 1, wherein Boeics (Fig. 1a-3b) further discloses a first drive ring (24) extending in the circumferential direction, the first drive ring (24) being provided in such a manner as to be turnable in the circumferential direction; a first link (20) having a first end engaged with the first drive ring (24) and a second end provided in such a manner as to be turnable integrally with the first vane (4) about the turning axis of the first vane (4); a second drive ring (25) extending in the circumferential direction, the second drive ring (25) being provided in such a manner as to be turnable in the circumferential direction; and a second link (21) having a first end engaged with the second drive ring (25) and a second end provided in such a manner as to be turnable integrally with the second vane (7) about the turning axis of the second vane (7). Refer to Fig. I below.
PNG
media_image1.png
314
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. I. Boeics, Fig. 3b (Annotated)
Regarding claim 4, Boeics discloses the rotary machine according to claim 1, wherein Boeics (Fig. 1a-3b) further discloses that the plurality of vanes (4 and 7) can transition to a reference state (interpreted as Fig. 1b) in which an inclination with respect to the circumferential direction and a position in the radial direction of the first vane (4) coincide with an inclination with respect to the circumferential direction and a position in the radial direction of the second vane (7), respectively.
Regarding claim 5, Boeics discloses the rotary machine according to claim 4, wherein Boeics (Fig. 1a-3b) further discloses that the reference state (Fig. 1b), the inclinations of the first vane (4) and the second vane (7) with respect to the circumferential direction are minimized.
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) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boeics (US 3,588,270). in view of Iwakiri (US 11,105,336).
Regarding claims 6-10, Boeics fails to explicitly disclose a turbocharger comprising the rotary machine according to claims 1-5, respectively.
Iwakiri (Fig. 1) teaches that it is well known for a turbocharger to include a centrifugal compressor. Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to use Boeics centrifugal compressor in a turbocharger, since Iwakiri teaches that it is a well known environment for centrifugal compressors.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE M CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3275. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PM.
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.
/DMC/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights