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, see Remarks, filed 21 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the currently amended claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC 112 for claims 3 and 9-11, see details below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 21 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive, note applicant points to an apparent annotated Fig.5 of Serres, however said annotated Fig.5 is not part of the Office Action of 21 October 2025; furthermore, applicant argues differences between a motorized compressor vs engine-driven turbo, however, these arguments are not relevant with respect to the claims rejected in view of Serres since said claims do not include any limitations related to the driving means of the turbomachine. The previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the currently amended claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Serres (WO 2012/087907 A2). Note that the new grounds of rejections are necessitated by the newly presented claims amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 21 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wu (CN 105422479 A). Note that the new grounds of rejections are necessitated by the newly presented claims amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sealing member” in claims 9-10 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the compressor shroud surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner recommends amending the compressor shroud surface claim limitation to include a format similar to the recitation of “the wheel is a compressor wheel” limitation to resolve the issue.
Claim 9 recites “an outer radial edge flange” and depends from claims 8, 4 and 1; claim recites “an outer radial edge flange”. It is not clear if an outer radial edge flange in claim 9 refers to the same outer radial edge flange recited in claim 1 or to an additional and different outer radial edge flange.
Claims 10-11 depend from claim 9 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 10 recites “a sealing member” and depends from claim 9 which recites “a sealing member”. It is not clear if a sealing member in claim 10 refers to the same sealing member recited in claim 9 or to an additional and different sealing member.
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and fails to remedy its deficiencies.
Clarification and/or amendment is respectfully requested.
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) 1-3 and 12 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Serres (WO 2012/087907 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Serres teaches a method of manufacturing a turbomachine (Fig.3 & Annotated Fig.3) comprising:
attaching (“secured”, page 7, lines 9-11) a first housing member (Annotated Fig.3) with a shroud surface (Annotated Fig.3, surrounding 42) to a second housing member (Annotated Fig.3) with a rotating group (32/42) disposed therein, the rotating group having a wheel (42) that opposes the shroud surface to define a fluid gap therebetween (inherent feature, otherwise wheel would not rotate efficiently);
attaching (“connected”, page 2, lines 11-12) a bearing housing (Annotated Fig.3) to the second housing member, a bearing (34) being at least partly housed by the bearing housing (Annotated Fig.3), the bearing supporting rotation of the rotating group about an axis of rotation (AT);
the first housing member having a first axial surface and the bearing housing having a second axial surface that is flush with the first axial surface (Annotated Fig.3);
the second housing member having a third axial surface facing in an axial direction opposite that of the first and second axial surfaces (Annotated Fig.3);
the first housing member having a first radial surface and the bearing housing having a second radial surface (Annotated Fig.3), the first and second radial surfaces facing in opposing radial directions relative to the axis of rotation (Annotated Fig.3); and
wherein the bearing housing includes an outer radial edge flange that includes the second axial surface and the second radial surface (Annotated Fig.3), the outer radial edge flange disposed axially between the first housing member and the second housing member (Annotated Fig.3); and
the first housing member and the bearing housing attached to the second housing member with the fluid gap defined between the wheel and the shroud surface (Annotated Fig.3), the first and second axial surfaces abutting against the third axial surface, and the first radial surface abutting against the second radial surface (Annotated Fig.3).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Serres further teaches facing the first radial surface inward radially and facing the second radial surface outward radially (Annotated Fig.3).
Regarding claim 3, Serres further teaches the first housing member is a compressor housing with the compressor shroud surface (Annotated Fig.3); and
wherein the wheel is a compressor wheel (42).
Regarding claim 12, Serres further teaches a turbomachine (Fig.3 & Annotated Fig.3) comprising:
a housing assembly including a first housing member (Annotated Fig.3) having a shroud surface (Annotated Fig.3, surrounding 42), a second housing member (Annotated Fig.3), and a bearing housing (Annotated Fig.3);
a rotating group (32/42) disposed at least partly within the second housing member (Annotated Fig.3), the rotating group having a wheel (42) that opposes the shroud surface to define a fluid gap therebetween (inherent feature, otherwise wheel would not rotate efficiently);
a bearing (34) at least partly housed by the bearing housing (Annotated Fig.3), the bearing supporting rotation of the rotating group about an axis of rotation (AT);
wherein the first housing member has a first axial surface and the bearing housing has a second axial surface that is flush with the first axial surface (Annotated Fig.3);
wherein the second housing member has a third axial surface facing in an axial direction opposite that of the first and second axial surfaces (Annotated Fig.3);
wherein the first housing member has a first radial surface and the bearing housing has a second radial surface (Annotated Fig.3), the first and second radial surfaces facing in opposing radial directions relative to the axis of rotation (Annotated Fig.3);
wherein the bearing housing includes an outer radial edge flange that includes the second axial surface and the second radial surface (Annotated Fig.3), the outer radial edge flange disposed axially between the first housing member and the second housing member (Annotated Fig.3); and
wherein the first housing member and the bearing housing are attached to the second housing member with the fluid gap defined between the wheel and the shroud surface (Annotated Fig.3), the first and second axial surfaces abutting against the third axial surface, and the first radial surface abutting against the second radial surface (Annotated Fig.3).
Claim(s) 1-5 and 12-13 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (CN 105422479 A).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a method of manufacturing a turbomachine (Fig.1 & Annotated Fig.1) comprising:
attaching (“31 and … 33 respectively mounted at the back end of the motor 1”, page 8, line 7-8) a first housing member (housing defining 31) with a shroud surface (surrounding 32) to a second housing member (11) with a rotating group (12/32) disposed therein, the rotating group having a wheel (32) that opposes the shroud surface to define a fluid gap therebetween (inherent feature, otherwise wheel would not rotate efficiently);
attaching (“31 and … 33 respectively mounted at the back end of the motor 1”, page 8, line 7-8) a bearing housing (33) to the second housing member, a bearing (5) being at least partly housed by the bearing housing (Fig.1), the bearing supporting rotation of the rotating group about an axis of rotation (Fig.1, dashed line passing through center of 12);
the first housing member having a first axial surface and the bearing housing having a second axial surface that is flush with the first axial surface (Annotated Fig.1);
the second housing member having a third axial surface facing in an axial direction opposite that of the first and second axial surfaces (Annotated Fig.1);
the first housing member having a first radial surface and the bearing housing having a second radial surface (Annotated Fig.1), the first and second radial surfaces facing in opposing radial directions relative to the axis of rotation (Annotated Fig.1); and
wherein the bearing housing includes an outer radial edge flange that includes the second axial surface and the second radial surface (Annotated Fig.1), the outer radial edge flange disposed axially between the first housing member and the second housing member (Annotated Fig.1); and
the first housing member and the bearing housing attached to the second housing member with the fluid gap defined between the wheel and the shroud surface (Annotated Fig.1), the first and second axial surfaces abutting against the third axial surface, and the first radial surface abutting against the second radial surface (Annotated Fig.1).
PNG
media_image2.png
612
862
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wu further teaches facing the first radial surface inward radially and facing the second radial surface outward radially (Annotated Fig.1).
Regarding claim 3, Wu further teaches the first housing member is a compressor housing with the compressor shroud surface (Annotated Fig.3); and
wherein the wheel is a compressor wheel (42).
Regarding claim 4, Wu further teaches the second housing member defines an interior space and an end opening that provides access to the interior space (Fig.1);
further comprising extending the axis of rotation through the end opening (Fig.1);
further comprising disposing a motor (Fig.1, 1) within the interior space, the motor configured to drivingly rotate the rotating group about the axis of rotation (page 7, second to last paragraph); and
wherein the bearing housing at least partly covers over the end opening of the second housing member (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 5, Wu further teaches the bearing housing includes a diffuser portion that cooperates with the first housing member to define a diffuser area that is disposed in a downstream direction from the wheel (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 12, Wu further teaches a turbomachine (Fig.1 & Annotated Fig.1) comprising:
a housing assembly including a first housing member (housing defining 31) having a shroud surface (surrounding 32), a second housing member (11), and a bearing housing (33);
a rotating group (12/32) disposed at least partly within the second housing member (Fig.1), the rotating group having a wheel (32) that opposes the shroud surface to define a fluid gap therebetween (inherent feature, otherwise wheel would not rotate efficiently);
a bearing (5) at least partly housed by the bearing housing (Fig.1), the bearing supporting rotation of the rotating group about an axis of rotation (Fig.1, dashed line passing through center of 12);
wherein the first housing member has a first axial surface and the bearing housing has a second axial surface that is flush with the first axial surface (Annotated Fig.1);
wherein the second housing member has a third axial surface facing in an axial direction opposite that of the first and second axial surfaces (Annotated Fig.1);
wherein the first housing member has a first radial surface and the bearing housing has a second radial surface (Annotated Fig.1), the first and second radial surfaces facing in opposing radial directions relative to the axis of rotation (Annotated Fig.1);
wherein the bearing housing includes an outer radial edge flange that includes the second axial surface and the second radial surface (Annotated Fig.1), the outer radial edge flange disposed axially between the first housing member and the second housing member (Annotated Fig.1); and
wherein the first housing member and the bearing housing are attached to the second housing member with the fluid gap defined between the wheel and the shroud surface (Annotated Fig.1), the first and second axial surfaces abutting against the third axial surface, and the first radial surface abutting against the second radial surface (Annotated Fig.1).
Regarding claim 13, Wu further teaches the second housing member defines an interior space and an end opening that provides access to the interior space (Fig.1), a motor (Fig.1, 1) is disposed within the interior space and configured to drivingly rotate the rotating group about the axis of rotation (page 7, second to last paragraph), and the bearing housing at least partly covers over the end opening of the second housing member (Fig.1).
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nejedly (US 20180306209 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Wu teaches all the limitations of claim 12, see above, however, does not explicitly teach a sealing member is sealed against the first housing member, the second housing member and the outer radial edge flange of the bearing housing.
Nejedly discloses a sealing member (O-rings, Figs. 3-4) seals between different housing members including a first housing member (172), the second housing member (198) and an outer radial edge flange of the bearing housing (186, also see par. 44) which prevents leakage of the coolant, intrusion of foreign materials, and/or provides a seal between different members. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to further modify the turbomachine of Wu by providing the sealing member seals against the first housing member/the compressor housing, the second housing member/the motor housing and the outer radial edge flange of the bearing housing, as taught by Nejedly, to prevent leakage of the coolant, intrusion of foreign materials, and/or provide a seal between different members of the charger (par. 44).
Note that Nejedly O-rings 242 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a sealing member that seals against the first housing member, the second housing member and an outer radial edge flange of the bearing housing to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. (Nejedly discloses O-ring(s) which are positioned between different housing members to seal the housing members, Nejedly par. 44, Nejedly Figs. 3-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The following claim limitations were not found in the prior art.
the bearing is an air bearing with a thrust disc and a journal housing; wherein the bearing housing supports the thrust disc and the journal housing (as in the context of claims 6, 8 and 14).
The closest prior art reference (Wu) discloses oil free rolling bearings optimized specifically for the disclosed invention. A potential modification of said bearing configuration could teach away and/or destroy the intended operation of Wu’s turbomachine.
Another relevant prior art reference (Serres) does not disclose other required limitations of claims 6, 8 and 14; i.e., a motor configuration within an interior space of the second housing member.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
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 NATHANIEL EDWARD WIEHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8648. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 7-4:30 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, Alford Kindred can be reached at (571) 272-4037. 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.
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745