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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/27/2026, with respect to the double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection of 1/27/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the proposed modification would change the principle of operation and that it would have been unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Applicant cites to Effenberger and how the impeller is designed to have a radially outward flow and the airfoils of Fuller would impair the flow since the airfoil cause life towards the central axis. Effenberger teaches the impeller can impart a radially outward flow direction and also a radially inward flow direction. Effenberger teaches that "the impeller may be non-driven with the fluid flow being directed radially inward, so that the device functions in the manner of turbine" (Col 1, line 11-17). The modification of Fuller would not break the principle of operation with the teachings of the structure being a turbine that produces radially inward flow.
Applicant argues that the Effenberger teaches away from introducing features between its disks. The examiner disagrees that Effenberger teaches away from these features. Effenberger teaches that the shims may be temporarily installed and also permanently installed (Col 5, line 52-57). With those teachings, it doesn't mean than Effenberger teaches away from the spacers, it just teaches that there are multiple configurations. The applicant also cited that the flow area between adjacent disk is taught to be nearly constant as possible - this means that the spacing should be as constant as possible; it does not forbid airfoil shaped spacers. The introduction of the foils of Fuller would still maintain the flow area between the disk and would still provide minimal impact of the flow area.
The rejection is updated below and made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-4, 6, 9-11, 13-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Effenberger US 4402647 in view of Fuller US 20080131273.
Interpretation 1
Regarding claim 1, Effenberger discloses: A turbine system (Fig 1 and 2, Col 1, line 11-17), comprising:
a first disk (34g) coaxial with a rotational axis (42) defined by a first disk radius (Outer radius of 34g from the axis 42 to the outer edge of 34g near the casing 12), a first disk thickness (Axial thickness of 34g), and a first through-hole (Hole of 34g around axis 42) coaxial with the rotational axis and having a first through-hole radius (Hole of 34g is coaxial with 42 and has a radius from 42 to the inner edge of 34g);
a last disk (40) coaxial with the rotational axis defined by a last disk radius (Outer radius of 40 from the axis 42 to the outer edge of 40 near the casing 12), a last disk thickness (Axial thickness of 40),and a last through-hole (44) coaxial with the rotational axis and having a last through-hole radius (44 is coaxial with 42 and has a radius from 42 to the outer edge of 44 and the inner edge of 40).
However, Effenberger is silent as to:
a plurality of first foils arranged in a first radial pattern about the rotational axis, each first foil of the plurality of first foils having a leading edge, a trailing edge, an upper surface, and a lower surface and defined by a first foil thickness.
From the same field of endeavor, Fuller teaches:
a disk (Fig 1: 1),
a plurality of first foils (3) arranged in a first radial pattern about the rotational axis (3 arranged in a radial pattern around 7), each first foil of the plurality of first foils having a leading edge, a trailing edge, an upper surface, and a lower surface (As seen in the clip below) and defined by a first foil thickness (Thickness of the foil is between the attachment of the airfoil to the disk to the tip in the axial direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Effenberger disk’s spacers around the blot fasteners to have spacers that are in the shape of airfoils as taught by Fuller to impart inward momentum to the fluid so that the incoming fluid more efficiently imparts motion to the disks (Par 32).
Regarding claim 2, Effenberger ad modified by Fuller in the rejection of claim 1 (Interpterion 1), where Fuller teaches:
wherein each first foil of the plurality of first foils defines a chord line external to an extent of the first foil (Fig 1: 3 has a chord line defined from the leading edge to the trailing edge and it is external to the extent of body of 3; seen top down in fig 2).
Regarding claim 3, Effenberger ad modified by Fuller in the rejection of claim 1 (Interpterion 1), where Effenberger discloses:
a housing (Fig 1 and 2; Col 8, line 65- Col 9, line 31: 12) including a fluid inlet (20), a fluid outlet (18), and a rotational mount (38);
the last disk is disposed on the rotational mount and configured to rotate about an axis of the rotational mount (40 is on 38 and rotates about 42).
where fuller teaches:
the plurality of first foils (Fig 1: 3).
The combination would result in:
wherein a turbine assembly comprising the first disk, the plurality of first foils, and the last disk is disposed on the rotational mount and configured to rotate about an axis of the rotational mount.
Regarding claim 4, Effenberger ad modified by Fuller in the rejection of claim 1 (Interpterion 1), where Effenberger discloses:
wherein a fluid path from the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet is defined by the first disk, the last disk (Fig 1 and 2; Col 8, line 65- Col 9, line 31: Fluid path is from 20 through the foils and spacers and out 18).
where fuller teaches:
the plurality of first foils (Fig 1: 3).
The combination would result in:
wherein a fluid path from the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet is defined by the first disk, the last disk, and the plurality of first foils.
Regarding claim 6, Effenberger as modified by Fuller in the rejection of claim 1 (Interpterion 1), where Effenberger discloses:
wherein the last disk radius equals the first disk radius (Fig 1: 40 and 34a have the same radius).
Regarding claim 11, Effenberger as modified by Fuller in the rejection of claim 1 (Interpterion 1), where Effenberger discloses:
wherein the last through-hole radius is smaller than the first through-hole radius (Fig 1: Radius of 44 is smaller than the radius of 34g).
Regarding claim 13, Effenberger as modified by Fuller in the rejection of claim 1 (Interpterion 1), where Effenberger discloses:
an intermediate disk (Fig 1: 34b) coaxial with the rotational axis defined by an intermediate disk radius (Outer radius of 34b from the axis 42 to the outer edge of 34b near the casing 12), an intermediate disk thickness (Axial thickness of 34b), and
an intermediate through-hole (Hole of 34b around axis 42) coaxial with the rotational axis and having an intermediate through-hole radius (Hole of 34b is coaxial with 42 and has a radius from 42 to the inner edge of 34b).
Where Fuller teaches:
a plurality of second foils (Fig 1: foils 3 extend on every disk; Therefore, there is a second plurality of foils) arranged in a last radial pattern (3 arranged in a radial pattern around 7) about the rotational axis and defined by a second foil thickness (Thickness of the foil is between the attachment of the airfoil to the disk to the tip in the axial direction).
Regarding claim 18, Effenberger as modified by Fuller in the rejection of claim 1 (Interpterion 1), where Effenberger discloses:
A spacer (Fig 1: 50 has a spacer around it between each disk (40, 34a-34g) with a spacer securing through-holes (Hole that 50 passes through),
wherein the first disk is further defined by a plurality of first disk securing through-holes (34g has a hole where 50 secures the disk),
the last disk is further defined by a plurality of last disk securing through-holes (40 has a hole where 50 secures the disk) and
the turbine system further comprises a plurality of fasteners (Fig 1 and 2: 50),
wherein each fastener of the plurality of fasteners is disposed within one of the first disk securing through-holes, one of the spacer securing through-holes, and one of the last disk securing through-holes (50 passes through the securing holes of 40, 34a-34g and the spacers between each disk).
where Fuller teaches:
each first foil of the plurality of first foils (Fig 1: 3) extending between each disk (1) that is a spacer.
The combination would result in: each first foil of the plurality of first foils is further defined by a first foil securing through-hole and wherein each fastener of the plurality of fasteners is disposed within one of the first disk securing through-holes, one of the first foil securing through-holes, and one of the last disk securing through-holes.
Interpretation 2
Regarding claim 1, Effenberger discloses: A turbine system (Fig 1 and 2), comprising:
a first disk (34a) coaxial with a rotational axis (42) defined by a first disk radius (Outer radius of 34a from the axis 42 to the outer edge of 34a near the casing 12), a first disk thickness (Axial thickness of 34a), and a first through-hole (44) coaxial with the rotational axis and having a first through-hole radius (44 is coaxial with 42 and has a radius from 42 to the outer edge of 44 and the inner edge of 34a);
a last disk (34g) coaxial with the rotational axis defined by a last disk radius (Outer radius of 34g from the axis 42 to the outer edge of 34g near the casing 12), a last disk thickness (Axial thickness of 34g),and a last through-hole (Hole of 34g around axis 42) coaxial with the rotational axis and having a last through-hole radius (Hole of 34g is coaxial with 42 and has a radius from 42 to the inner edge of 34g).
However, Effenberger is silent as to:
a plurality of first foils arranged in a first radial pattern about the rotational axis, each first foil of the plurality of first foils having a leading edge, a trailing edge, an upper surface, and a lower surface and defined by a first foil thickness.
From the same field of endeavor, Fuller teaches:
Disk (Fig 1: 1),
a plurality of first foils (3) arranged in a first radial pattern about the rotational axis (3 arranged in a radial pattern around 7), each first foil of the plurality of first foils having a leading edge, a trailing edge, an upper surface, and a lower surface (As seen in the clip below) and defined by a first foil thickness (Thickness of the foil is between the attachment of the airfoil to the disk to the tip in the axial direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Effenberger disk’s spacers around the blot fasteners to have spacers that are in the shape of airfoils as taught by Fuller to impart inward momentum to the fluid so that the incoming fluid more efficiently imparts motion to the disks (Par 32).
Regarding claim 2, Effenberger ad modified by Fuller in the rejection of claim 1 (Interpterion 2), where Fuller teaches:
wherein each first foil of the plurality of first foils defines a chord line external to an extent of the first foil (Fig 1: 3 has a chord line defined from the leading edge to the trailing edge and it is external to the extent of body of 3; seen top down in fig 2).
Regarding claim 3, Effenberger ad modified by Fuller in the rejection of claim 1 (Interpterion 2), where Effenberger discloses:
a housing (Fig 1 and 2; Col 8, line 65- Col 9, line 31: 12) including a fluid inlet (20), a fluid outlet (18), and a rotational mount (38);
the last disk is disposed on the rotational mount and configured to rotate about an axis of the rotational mount (40 is on 38 and rotates about 42).
where fuller teaches:
the plurality of first foils (Fig 1: 3).
The combination would result in:
wherein a turbine assembly comprising the first disk, the plurality of first foils, and the last disk is disposed on the rotational mount and configured to rotate about an axis of the rotational mount.
Regarding claim 4, Effenberger ad modified by Fuller in the rejection of claim 1 (Interpterion 2), where Effenberger discloses:
wherein a fluid path from the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet is defined by the first disk, the last disk (Fig 1 and 2; Col 8, line 65- Col 9, line 31: Fluid path is from 20 through the foils and spacers and out 18).
where fuller teaches:
the plurality of first foils (Fig 1: 3).
The combination would result in:
wherein a fluid path from the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet is defined by the first disk, the last disk, and the plurality of first foils.
Regarding claim 9, Effenberger as modified by Fuller in the rejection of claim 1 (Interpterion 2), where Effenberger discloses:
wherein the last disk thickness equals the first disk thickness (Fig 1: Thickness of 34a and 34g are the same).
Regarding claim 10, Effenberger as modified by Fuller in the rejection of claim 1 (Interpterion 2), where Effenberger discloses:
wherein the last through-hole radius equals the first through-hole radius (Fig 1: through hole radius of 34a is equal to the though hole radius of 34g).
Regarding claim 13, Effenberger as modified by Fuller in the rejection of claim 1 (Interpterion 2), where Effenberger discloses:
an intermediate disk (Fig 1: 34b) coaxial with the rotational axis defined by an intermediate disk radius (Outer radius of 34b from the axis 42 to the outer edge of 34b near the casing 12), an intermediate disk thickness (Axial thickness of 34b), and
an intermediate through-hole (Hole of 34b around axis 42) coaxial with the rotational axis and having an intermediate through-hole radius (Hole of 34b is coaxial with 42 and has a radius from 42 to the inner edge of 34b).
Where Fuller teaches:
a plurality of second foils (Fig 1: foils 3 extend on every disk; Therefore there is a second plurality of foils) arranged in a last radial pattern (3 arranged in a radial pattern around 7) about the rotational axis and defined by a second foil thickness (Thickness of the foil is between the attachment of the airfoil to the disk to the tip in the axial direction).
Regarding claim 14, Effenberger as modified by Fuller in the rejection of claim 1 (Interpterion 2), where Fuller teaches:
wherein the second foil thickness equals the first foil thickness (Fig 1: 3 all have the same thickness).
Regarding claim 15, Effenberger as modified by Fuller in the rejection of claim 1 (Interpterion 2), where Effenberger discloses:
wherein the intermediate through-hole radius equals the first through-hole radius and the last through-hole radius (Fig 1: Through hole of 34g, 34a, 34b are all the same radius).
Regarding claim 18, Effenberger as modified by Fuller in the rejection of claim 1 (Interpterion 2), where Effenberger discloses:
A spacer (Fig 1: 50 has a spacer around it between each disk (40, 34a-34g) with a spacer securing through-holes (Hole that 50 passes through),
wherein the first disk is further defined by a plurality of first disk securing through-holes (34a has a hole where 50 secures the disk),
the last disk is further defined by a plurality of last disk securing through-holes (34g has a hole where 50 secures the disk) and
the turbine system further comprises a plurality of fasteners (Fig 1 and 2: 50),
wherein each fastener of the plurality of fasteners is disposed within one of the first disk securing through-holes, one of the spacer securing through-holes, and one of the last disk securing through-holes (50 passes through the securing holes of 40, 34a-34g and the spacers between each disk).
where Fuller teaches:
each first foil of the plurality of first foils (Fig 1: 3) extending between each disk (1) that is a spacer.
The combination would result in: each first foil of the plurality of first foils is further defined by a first foil securing through-hole and wherein each fastener of the plurality of fasteners is disposed within one of the first disk securing through-holes, one of the first foil securing through-holes, and one of the last disk securing through-holes.
Regarding claim 20, Effenberger discloses: A turbine system (Fig 1 and 2), comprising:
a first disk (34a) coaxial with a rotational axis (42) defined by a first disk radius (Outer radius of 34a from the axis 42 to the outer edge of 34a near the casing 12), a first disk thickness (Axial thickness of 34a), and a first through-hole (hole of 34a) coaxial with the rotational axis and having a first through-hole radius (hole of 34a is coaxial with 42 and has a radius from 42 to the outer edge of hole of 34a and the inner edge of 34a);
a last disk (34g) coaxial with the rotational axis defined by a last disk radius (Outer radius of 34g from the axis 42 to the outer edge of 34g near the casing 12), a last disk thickness (Axial thickness of 34g),and a last through-hole (Hole of 34g around axis 42) coaxial with the rotational axis and having a last through-hole radius (Hole of 34g is coaxial with 42 and has a radius from 42 to the inner edge of 34g),
wherein the last disk thickness equals the first disk thickness (Fig 1: Thickness of 34a and 34g are the same).
However, Effenberger is silent as to:
a plurality of first foils arranged in a first radial pattern about the rotational axis, each first foil of the plurality of first foils having a leading edge, a trailing edge, an upper surface, and a lower surface and defined by a first foil thickness.
From the same field of endeavor, Fuller teaches:
Disk (Fig 1: 1),
a plurality of first foils (3) arranged in a first radial pattern about the rotational axis (3 arranged in a radial pattern around 7), each first foil of the plurality of first foils having a leading edge, a trailing edge, an upper surface, and a lower surface (As seen in the clip below) and defined by a first foil thickness (Thickness of the foil is between the attachment of the airfoil to the disk to the tip in the axial direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Effenberger disk’s spacers around the blot fasteners to have spacers that are in the shape of airfoils as taught by Fuller to impart inward momentum to the fluid so that the incoming fluid more efficiently imparts motion to the disks (Par 32).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Effenberger US 4402647 and Fuller US 20080131273 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Conrad et al. US 6328527.
Regarding claim 18, Effenberger as modified by Fuller and applied to in the rejection of claim 1 above (Both interpretations), however, they are silent as to:
wherein the intermediate through-hole radius is smaller than the first through-hole radius and larger than the last through-hole radius.
From the same field of endeavor, Conrad teaches:
a first through-hole radius of a first disc (Fig 9: 22 of 12),
a last through-hole radius of a last disc (22 of the furthest right 26 that has the largest opening),
an intermediate through-hole radius of an intermediate disc (22 of a middle 26),
wherein the intermediate through-hole radius (22 of a middle 26) is smaller than the first through-hole radius (22 of 12) and larger than the last through-hole radius (22 of furthest right 26 with the largest opening) (Col 10, line 27-38: The opening of the disc get larger consecutively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the disc openings of Effenberger to increase in diameter as taught by Conrad to allow for more fluid to be passed downstream to other spaced apart members where the fluid may be accelerated (Col 9, line 50-63).
This teaching would result in each interpretation of the claimed language above to have “the intermediate through-hole radius is smaller than the first through-hole radius and larger than the last through-hole radius.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-8, 12, 17, and 19 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Effenberger US 4402647 and Fuller US 20080131273 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ben- Yosef et al. US 20070081907.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the rotational mount includes an eccentric bearing, and wherein the turbine assembly is configured to rotate about an axis-of- rotation of the eccentric bearing” and is considered allowable subject matter. The rotation of the turbine assembly in an eccentric manner by the eccentric bearing was not found in the prior art from the search. The offset movement of the turbine assembly though the bearing is allowable.
Claim 7 recites “a first foil thickness equal to the first disk thickness” and is considered allowable subject matter. The closest prior art to teach these limitations is Fuller US 20080131273. Fuller teaches the foils (3) having a thickness and disc (1) having a thickness. However, Fuller and prior art found in the search does not teach the thicknesses being equal.
Claim 12 recites ““wherein a first foil incircle radius of a first foil incircle defined by the plurality of first foils is equal to the first through-hole radius” and is considered allowable subject matter. The closest prior art to teach these limitations is Fuller US 20080131273. The limitation of “a first foil incircle radius of a first foil incircle defined by the plurality of first foils is equal to the first through-hole radius” essentially teaches that the foils are located at the inner circle of the disk touching the through hole radius. The prior art of record, such as Fuller, only teaches that the airfoils are within the disc and not touching the through hole or inner opening.
Claim 17 recites” wherein a first foil incircle radius of a first foil incircle defined by the plurality of first foils is equal to the last through-hole radius and a second foil incircle radius of a second foil incircle defined by the plurality of second foils is equal to the last through-hole radius” ” and is considered allowable subject matter. The closest prior art to teach these limitations is Fuller US 20080131273. This limitation essentially teaches that the foils are located at the inner circle of the disk touching the through hole radius of each of the disc. The prior art of record, such as Fuller, only teaches that the airfoils are within the disc and not touching the through hole or inner opening.
Claims 8 depend off of a claim with allowable subject matter, therefore making them allowable.
Claim 19 distinguishes itself in the same manner as in claim 7, therefore allowable.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J Marien whose telephone number is (469)295-9159. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am- 6:00 pm CST, Monday through Friday.
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 on (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.
/Andrew J Marien/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights