DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is Christopher.Legendre@uspto.gov.
Restriction
Applicant's election without traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 17 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07 August 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is hereby considered. However, it is noted that Item 1 of the FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS has not been considered since a copy has not been submitted.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following informalities:
-in Figure 6, the lead-line for reference character “110” does not appear to identify a bearing and/or does not point to the same element as in Figure 5.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 8, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 2, “there are a plurality of said first magnets” should be changed to --said first magnet is one a plurality of first magnets--.
In claim 4, lines 2-3, “a plurality of said second magnets” should be changed to --said second magnet is one of a plurality of second magnets--.
In claim 4, line 3, “an” should be changed to --the-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice - see claim 1 reciting “an outer surface of said motor shaft”).
In claim 8, line, “there are a plurality of said anti-rotation pins” should be changed to --said anti-rotation pin is one of a plurality of anti-rotation pins--.
In claim 12, line 2, “includes a first end and” should be changed to --is a first end and wherein the motor shaft further includes--.
In claim 12, line 3, “, said first end of said motor shaft is mounted with the impeller” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) except as otherwise indicated in this 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) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action.
There are no limitations deemed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 2, the limitation recited as “the shell” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 4-10.
In claim 12, the limitation recited as “the sealing system includes a first seal disposed between said first impeller and said motor cavity, for reducing the flow of fluid from said first impeller to said motor cavity” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to the antecedent limitation “a seal…” (claim 1) or introducing a new limitation. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing this to --wherein said seal is a first seal--. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 13.
In claim 12, the limitation recited as “said first magnet is fixed at an outer surface of said motor shaft” renders the claim indefinite since it is duplicative of an antecedent limitation in claim 1. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 13.
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 of this title, 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, 2, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royal et al. (US 8,925,197 - hereafter referred to as Royal) in view of Nagai et al. (JP S52129866 A - hereafter referred to as Nagai; see attached copy and translation).
In reference to claim 1
Royal discloses:
A magnetic levitating centrifugal compressor comprising a motor cavity (generally at motor 4), a motor shaft (16 - Figure 1) disposed within said motor cavity and a sealing system, wherein an end of said motor shaft extends out from said motor cavity and is mounted with an impeller (32 - Figure 1), wherein said sealing system comprises:
a seal (generally, the seal formed by sealing element 43 being in close proximity to shaft 16), said seal is sleeved (i.e., extends around) on an outer side of said motor shaft and is disposed between (see Figure 1) said impeller and said motor cavity, for reducing a flow of fluid from said impeller to said motor cavity.
Royal does not disclose:
a first magnet, said first magnet is fixed at an outer surface of said motor shaft; and
a second magnet, said second magnet is fixed at a side of said seal facing said motor shaft,
wherein said first magnet and said second magnet form a radial repulsive force in a radial direction of said motor shaft, so that said seal can be levitated relative to said motor shaft.
Nagai discloses:
a seal for a rotating shaft (1) comprising a first magnet (2) attached to the shaft, a floating sealing member (4) comprising a second magnet (3) that faces the first magnet in order to form a repulsive force therebetween so that the sealing member is levitated relative to the rotor shaft; the levitating seal avoids issues with contact seals, such as friction (see par. [0002] of translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compressor of Royal to include embodying the seal as a magnetic levitating seal, as disclosed by Nagai, for the purpose of avoiding friction. It is noted that the instant modification is envisaged as involving:
-attachment of the Nagai magnet 2 to the shaft at an axial location that radially opposes Royal element 43;
-incorporation of the Nagai elements 3, 4, 6, and 7 into the Royal seal holder 38 (since Royal seal holder 38 is analogous to Nagai element 6 & 8) so as to form part of and/or replace Royal seal 43.
Royal in view of Nagai therefore addresses:
a first magnet (Nagai - 2), said first magnet is fixed at an outer surface of said motor shaft (Nagai - 16); and
a second magnet (Nagai - 3), said second magnet is fixed at a side of said seal facing said motor shaft,
wherein said first magnet and said second magnet form a radial repulsive force in a radial direction of said motor shaft, so that said seal (Nagai - 3 & 4) can be levitated relative to said motor shaft.
In reference to claim 2 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Royal in view of Nagai addresses:
The magnetic levitating centrifugal compressor according to claim 1, wherein a tension spring (5 - Nagai Figure 1) is provided on top of said seal (Nagai - 3 & 4) for resisting the gravity of said seal (note: the term tension spring neither requires nor implies a particular structure, and it is noted that Nagai spring 5 can achieve resist the gravity of said seal given sufficient extension of the spring), one end (i.e., a bottom end) of said tension spring rests against said seal and the other end (i.e., a top end) of said tension spring rests against a housing (Nagai - 6; Royal - 38), said housing is fixedly connected to the shell of said motor cavity (note: Royal seal holder 38 is attached to the turbocharger housing, which includes a shell of said motor cavity).
In reference to claim 9
Royal in view of Nagai addresses:
The magnetic levitating centrifugal compressor according to claim 2.
Nagai further discloses:
a wear resistant coating (i.e., teflon 9) formed on surfaces of a seal holder (6 & 8), wherein the coating interfaces with axial sides of the movable seal members (3 & 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compressor of Royal in view of Nagai to include a wear resistant coating that interfaces with axial sides of the movable portions of the seal, as further disclosed by Nagai, for the purpose of preventing wear.
Royal in view of Nagai therefore also addresses:
a second side (i.e., at least one axial side) of said seal fits against said housing (Royal - 38; Nagai - 6 & 8), fitting surfaces between said seal and said housing are provided with a wear resistant coating (Nagai - 9).
In reference to claim 10
Royal in view of Nagai addresses:
The magnetic levitating centrifugal compressor according to claim 2, wherein said first magnet (Nagai - 2) and said second magnet (Nagai - 3) are radially magnetizing permanent magnets; or (note: strike-through text is ignored due to or establishing it as optional).
In reference to claim 11
Royal in view of Nagai addresses:
A refrigeration system (note: there is no structure imbued by A refrigeration system) including the magnetic levitating centrifugal compressor according to claim 1.
In reference to claim 12 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Royal in view of Nagai addresses:
The magnetic levitating centrifugal compressor according to claim 1,
wherein said end of the motor shaft (Royal - 16) includes a first end and a second end (note: Royal shaft 16 includes two axially opposite ends) extending out from said motor cavity, said first end of said motor shaft is mounted with the impeller (Royal - 32), said second end of said motor shaft is mounted with a second impeller (14 - Royal Figure 1):
wherein the sealing system includes a first seal (Royal - 38 & 43, as modified by Nagai in the above rejection of claim 1) disposed between said first impeller and said motor cavity, for reducing the flow of fluid from said first impeller to said motor cavity;
the sealing system further comprising:
a second seal (generally, the seal formed by Royal sealing element 26 being in close proximity to Royal shaft 16), disposed between said second impeller and said motor cavity, for reducing the flow of fluid from said second impeller to said motor cavity;
a first magnet assembly, said first magnet assembly comprises the first magnet and the second magnet, said first magnet is fixed at an outer surface of said motor shaft and said second magnet is fixed at a side of said first seal facing said motor shaft (note: the instant limitations directed towards first magnet assembly are addressed by the modification in the rejection of parent claim 1); and
wherein said first magnet and said second magnet form the repulsive force in a radial direction of said motor shaft to keep said first seal and said motor shaft in a concentric levitation (note: the instant limitations directed towards repulsive force and concentric levitation are addressed by the modification in the rejection of parent claim 1).
Royal in view of Nagai, as presented above, does not address:
a second magnet assembly, said second magnet assembly comprises a third magnet and a fourth magnet, said third magnet is fixed at an outer surface of said motor shaft and said fourth magnet is fixed at a side of said second seal facing said motor shaft,
said third magnet and said fourth magnet form a repulsive force in the radial direction of said motor shaft to keep said second seal and said motor shaft in a concentric levitation.
As stated above in the rejection of claim 1, Nagai discloses:
a seal for a rotating shaft (1) comprising a first magnet (2) attached to the shaft, a floating sealing member (4) comprising a second magnet (3) that faces the first magnet in order to form a repulsive force therebetween so that the sealing member is levitated relative to the rotor shaft; the levitating seal avoids issues with contact seals, such as friction (see par. [0002] of translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compressor of Royal to include embodying the second seal as a magnetic levitating seal, as disclosed by Nagai, for the purpose of avoiding friction. It is noted that instant modification is envisaged as involving:
-attachment of the Nagai magnet 2 to the shaft at an axial location that radially opposes Royal element 26;
-incorporation of the Nagai elements 3, 4, 6, and 7 into the Royal seal holder 22 (since Royal seal holder 22 is analogous to Nagai element 6 & 8) so as to form part of and/or replace Royal seal 26.
In reference to claim 13
Royal in view of Nagai addresses:
A refrigeration system (note: there is no structure imbued by A refrigeration system) including the magnetic levitating centrifugal compressor according to claim 12.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royal in view of Nagai and Menz et al. (US 7,952,247 - hereafter referred to as Menz; cited in an IDS), and wherein Mortzheim et al. (US 2007/0257445 - hereafter referred to as Mortzheim; cited in an IDS) is cited on an evidentiary basis.
In reference to claim 3
Royal in view of Nagai addresses:
The magnetic levitating centrifugal compressor according to claim 1, a housing (6 & 8 - Nagai Figure 1; 38 - Royal Figure 1), said housing is fixedly connected to the shell of said motor cavity (note: Royal seal holder 38 is attached to the turbocharger housing, which includes a shell of said motor cavity).
Royal in view of Nagai does not address:
a compression spring is provided at the bottom of said seal for resisting the gravity of said seal, one end of said compression spring rests against said seal and the other end of said compression spring rests against the housing, said housing is fixedly connected to the shell of said motor cavity.
Menz discloses:
a magnetic bearing comprising a housing (10), a floating ring (16), and a spring (18) located at the bottom of the floating ring and between the floating ring and the housing.
Mortzheim teaches (see par. [0029]) that it is known to use springs to counteract the weight of a seal ring (102).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compressor of Royal in view of Nagai to include a spring at the bottom of the seal between the seal and the housing, as disclosed by Menz, for the purpose of counteracting the weight of the seal.
Royal in view of Nagai and Menz addresses:
a compression spring (Menz - 18) is provided at the bottom of said seal (Nagai - 3 & 4) for resisting the gravity of said seal (note: the term tension spring neither requires nor implies a particular structure, and it is noted that Nagai spring 5 can achieve resist the gravity of said seal given sufficient extension of the spring), one end (i.e., a top end) of said compression spring rests against said seal and the other end (i.e., a bottom end) of said compression spring rests against the housing (Nagai - 6; Royal - 38), said housing is fixedly connected to the shell of said motor cavity (note: Royal seal holder 38 is attached to the turbocharger housing, which includes a shell of said motor cavity).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royal in view of Nagai and Zheng et al. (US 8,038,155 - hereafter referred to as Zheng).
In reference to claim 4
Royal in view of Nagai addresses:
The magnetic levitating centrifugal compressor according to claim 2.
Royal in view of Nagai does not address:
there are a plurality of said first magnets and a plurality of said second magnets, wherein the plurality of said first magnets are arranged at an outer surface of said motor shaft at equal intervals, and the plurality of said second magnets are arranged at equal intervals on the side of said seal facing said motor shaft.
Zheng discloses:
a magnetically-controlled rotary seal comprising a first magnet assembly (30) attached to a rotor shaft (100) and a second magnet assembly (20) attached to a stationary component, wherein the first magnet assembly and the second magnet assembly can be embodied as either a ring or a plurality of equidistantly circumferentially spaced magnets (see Figure 2b showing magnetic elements 80d and 80e).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compressor of Royal to embody the first magnet and the second magnet as a plurality of circumferentially spaced magnets, as disclosed by Zheng, for the purpose of limiting weight and/or cost of materials. In performing such a modification, it would have been further obvious to make such circumferential spacing to be equal in order to ensure concentricity of the seal relative to the shaft and/or avoid weight imbalances.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royal in view of Nagai, Zheng, and Tokunaga et al. (US 2020/0018400 - hereafter referred to as Tokunaga).
In reference to claim 5
Royal in view of Nagai and Zheng addresses:
The magnetic levitating centrifugal compressor according to claim 4.
Royal in view of Nagai and Zheng does not address:
said motor shaft is provided with a sleeve, and said first magnets are fixed to said sleeve in an inserted manner.
Zheng further discloses:
a sleeve (see Figure 2b) in which the magnets (80e) are inserted.
Tokunaga discloses:
a magnet seal comprising a plurality of magnets inserted into an annular sleeve such that the radially outer surfaces of the magnets are exposed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compressor of Royal in view of Nagai and Zheng to include a sleeve into which the first magnets are inserted, as disclosed by Zheng and Tokunaga, for the purpose of simplifying installation of the first magnets onto the shaft.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royal in view of Nagai, Zheng, and Eckert et al. (US 10,211,711 - hereafter referred to as Eckert).
In reference to claim 6
Royal in view of Nagai and Zheng addresses:
The magnetic levitating centrifugal compressor according to claim 4.
Royal in view of Nagai and Zheng does not address:
the plurality of said first magnets are fixed at the outer surface of said motor shaft by means of a carbon fiber tape in a winding manner.
Eckert discloses:
attaching (see col.3:ll.55-60) a plurality of magnets (13) to a rotor element (11) by a winding of carbon fiber tape (15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compressor of Royal in view of Nagai and Zheng to include a winding of carbon fiber tape for attaching the first magnets to the shaft, as similarly disclosed by Eckert, for the purpose of ensuring a secure attachment therebetween.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royal in view of Nagai and Addis (US 2004/0126226; cited in an IDS).
In reference to claim 7
Royal in view of Nagai addresses:
The magnetic levitating centrifugal compressor according to claim 2.
Royal in view of Nagai does not address:
said sealing system further comprises an anti-rotation pin, said anti-rotation pin is inserted between said seal and said housing for preventing said seal from rotating relative to said housing.
Addis discloses:
a magnetically-controlled rotary seal comprising a plurality of anti-rotation pins (see par. [0022]) between a seal element and a case.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compressor of Royal in view of Nagai to include anti-rotation pins between the seal and the housing, as disclosed by Addis, for the purpose of preventing rotation of the seal.
In reference to claim 8
Royal in view of Nagai and Addis addresses:
The magnetic levitating centrifugal compressor according to claim 7, wherein there are a plurality of said anti-rotation pins (Addis), and the plurality of said anti-rotation pins are arranged at equal intervals in a circumferential direction of said seal (note: in performing the modification over Addis, it would have been obvious to space the anti-rotation pins at equal circumferential intervals in order to avoid rotational imbalances).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone number is (571)270-3364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9-5 PM ET.
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 Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711