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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/30/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument with respect to Davis is persuasive therefore the 102-rejection based on Davis is withdrawn.
Applicant argument that Loringer does not disclose the amended limitation of claim is not persuasive. Loringer in fact discloses a shroud (70) that faces blade surfaces of the compressor impeller (Fig. 5) and the first surface (surface of shroud 70 forming the diffuser) that is continuous with the shroud (Fig. 5); and the leading edge of the vane is contact with the second surface (surface of plate 68 forming the diffuser) (Fig. 5; Col. 3, lines 28-52).
Applicant has not presented arguments regarding the 103 rejection of claim based on the combination of Skoch and Soeguet. Examiner notes that the combination of references read on amended claims 1, 7-9.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loringer (US 7,101,151 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Loringer teaches a centrifugal compressor comprising:
a compressor impeller (62) (Fig. 5, Col. 3, lines 28-52);
a diffuser flow path (formed between shroud 70 and diffuser plate 68: Fig. 5) that is located outside the compressor impeller in a radial direction and into which fluid from the compressor impeller flows (Fig. 5, Col. 3, lines 28-52);
a plurality of vanes (32) that is provided in the diffuser flow path and that is arranged along a circumferential direction (Fig. 5, Col. 3, lines 28-52);
a shroud (70) that faces blade surface of the compressor impeller (62) (note that in Fig. 5, shroud 70 faces the blade surfaces across from the impeller)
a first surface (surface of shroud 70 that forming the diffuser; Fig. 5) that is continuous with the shroud and that defines the diffuser flow path; and
a second surface (surface of diffuser plate 68 forming the diffuser; Fig. 5) that defines the diffuser flow path and that faces the first surface across the plurality of vanes (Fig. 5, Col. 3, lines 28-52),
wherein a clearance (34) is formed between each of the plurality of vanes and the first surface and the second surface, the clearance extending radially outward from a leading edge of each of the plurality of vanes and being closed at a position between the leading edge and a trailing edge (Fig. 5, Col. 3, lines 28-52),
the leading edge in contact with the second surface (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Loringer teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Loringer further teaches a height of each of the plurality of vanes in an axial direction is lower at the clearance than at other positions (Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 1, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al. (US 5,178,516) hereinafter Nakagawa.
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawa teaches a centrifugal compressor comprising:
a compressor impeller (1) (Figs.1- 2, Col. 4, line 60-Col. 5, line 25);
a diffuser flow path (formed by surfaces of shrouds 9 and 10) that is located outside the compressor impeller in a radial direction and into which fluid from the compressor impeller flows (Figs. 1-2, Col. 4, line 60-Col. 5, line 25);
a plurality of vanes (4) that is provided in the diffuser flow path and that is arranged along a circumferential direction (Figs.1- 2, Col. 4, line 60-Col. 5, line 25);
a shroud (10) that faces blade surfaces of the compressor impeller (1) (note that in Fig. 2, shroud 10 faces the blade surfaces across from the impeller)
a first surface (surface of shroud 10 that forming the diffuser; Fig. 2) that is continuous with the shroud and that defines the diffuser flow path; and
a second surface (surface of shroud 9 forming the diffuser; Fig. 5) that defines the diffuser flow path and that faces the first surface across the plurality of vanes (Figs.1- 2, Col. 4, line 60-Col. 5, line 25),
wherein a clearance (see Fig. 2) is formed between each of the plurality of vanes and the first surface and the second surface, the clearance extending radially outward from a leading edge of each of the plurality of vanes and being closed at a position between the leading edge and a trailing edge (Figs.1- 2, Col. 4, line 60-Col. 5, line 25),
the leading edge in contact with the second surface (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Nakagawa teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Nakagawa further teaches the clearance continuously decreases as moving radially outward from the leading edge to the position between the leading edge and the trailing edge (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Nakagawa teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Nakagawa further teaches a height of each of the plurality of vanes in an axial direction is lower at the clearance than at other positions (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Nakagawa teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 4. Nakagawa further teaches an end face of each of the plurality of vanes in an axial direction includes an area that defines the clearance and that intersects the radial direction (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1, 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Terasaki et al. (US 5,529,457) hereinafter Terasaki.
Regarding claim 1, Terasaki teaches a centrifugal compressor comprising:
a compressor impeller (1) (Figs.1, 6-7, Col. 3, line 40-Col. 4, line 5 and Col. 4, line 64-Col. 5, line 3);
a diffuser flow path (formed by surfaces of shrouds 9 and 10) that is located outside the compressor impeller in a radial direction and into which fluid from the compressor impeller flows (Figs.1, 6-7, Col. 3, line 40-Col. 4, line 5 and Col. 4, line 64-Col. 5, line 3);
a plurality of vanes (4) that is provided in the diffuser flow path and that is arranged along a circumferential direction (Figs.1, 6-7, Col. 3, line 40-Col. 4, line 5 and Col. 4, line 64-Col. 5, line 3);
a shroud (10) that faces blade surfaces of the compressor impeller (1) (note that in Fig. 7, shroud 10 faces the blade surfaces across from the impeller)
a first surface (surface of shroud 10 that forming the diffuser; Fig. 6) that is continuous with the shroud and that defines the diffuser flow path; and
a second surface (surface of shroud 9 forming the diffuser; Fig. 6) that defines the diffuser flow path and that faces the first surface across the plurality of vanes (Figs.1, 6-7, Col. 3, line 40-Col. 4, line 5 and Col. 4, line 64-Col. 5, line 3),
wherein a clearance (see Fig. 6) is formed between each of the plurality of vanes and the first surface and the second surface, the clearance extending radially outward from a leading edge of each of the plurality of vanes and being narrowed at a position between the leading edge and a trailing edge (Figs.1, 6-7, Col. 3, line 40-Col. 4, line 5 and Col. 4, line 64-Col. 5, line 3),
the leading edge in contact with the second surface (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Terasaki teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Terasaki further teaches the clearance continuously decreases as moving radially outward from the leading edge to the position between the leading edge and the trailing edge (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Terasaki teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Terasaki further teaches a height of each of the plurality of vanes in an axial direction is lower at the clearance than at other positions (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Terasaki teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 4. Terasaki further teaches an end face of each of the plurality of vanes in an axial direction includes an area that defines the clearance and that intersects the radial direction (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Terasaki teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Terasaki further teaches the first surface includes an area that defines the clearance and that intersects the radial direction (note that a portion of the first surface has a portion that is inclined and thus perpendicular to the radial direction).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skoch (US 6,200,094 B1) in view of Soeguet (US 2018/0073520 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Skoch teaches a centrifugal compressor comprising:
a compressor impeller (12) (Fig. 4B, Col. 5, line 38-Col. 6, line 24);
a diffuser flow path (22) that is located outside the compressor impeller in a radial direction and into which fluid from the compressor impeller flows (Fig. 4B, Col. 5, line 38-Col. 6, line 24);
a plurality of vanes (24) that is provided in the diffuser flow path and that is arranged along a circumferential direction (Fig. 4B, Col. 5, line 38-Col. 6, line 24);
a shroud (20) that faces blade surfaces of the compressor impeller (note that shroud 20 faces the compressor blades (26) as shown in Fig. 4B);
a first surface (surface on the shroud 20 forming the diffuser and facing vanes 24) that is continuous with the shroud and that defines the diffuser flow path; and
a second surface (surface opposite the first surface connected to vanes 22 and forming the diffuser; Fig. 4B) that defines the diffuser flow path and that faces the first surface across the plurality of vanes (Fig. 4B, Col. 5, line 38-Col. 6, line 24),
wherein a clearance (Fig. 4B) is formed between each of the plurality of vanes the first surface, the clearance extending radially outward from a leading edge of each of the plurality of vanes (Fig. 4B); and
the leading edge is in contact with second surface (FIG. 4B).
Skoch does not specifically teach the clearance being closed or narrowed at position between the leading edge and a trailing edge.
However, Soeguet in the same field discloses a centrifugal compressor comprising a diffuser flow path comprising a first surface (11) and a second surface (12) facing each other, the diffuser being radially outward from a compressor impeller (6) (Figure, para. 0016). Soeguet teaches a portion of the second surface radially outward from the compressor impeller is inclined or tapered towards the second surface (Figure) so that a portion of the diffuser flow path has tapered cross section which causes “increase of the flow velocity” (paras. 0007-0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Skoch such that a portion of the diffuser flow path is tapered as taught by Soeguet in order to increase flow velocity in the diffuser. By virtue of the combination that is making the second surface tapered or inclined towards the first surface, the clearance in Skoch would extends radially outward from the leading of each of the plurality of vanes and being closed or narrowed at a position between the leading edge and the trailing edge.
Regarding claim 7, Skoch as modified by Soeguet teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Skoch as modified by Soeguet further teaches the first surface includes an area (inclination surface) that defines the clearance and that intersects the radial direction (Soeguet, Figure).
Regarding claim 8, Skoch as modified by Soeguet teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 7. Skoch as modified by Soeguet further teaches both end faces of each of the plurality of vanes in an axial direction are parallel to the radial direction, and each of the plurality of vanes is rotatable around a central axis that is parallel to the axial direction (Skoch, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Skoch as modified by Soeguet teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 7. Skoch as modified by Soeguet further teaches the clearance disappears in a position where a throat width between two adjacent vanes among the plurality of vanes is narrowest (Skoch, Fig. 5 and Soeguet, Figure).
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 MAXIME M ADJAGBE whose telephone number is (571)272-4920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-6.
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, NATHANIEL E WIEHE can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/MAXIME M ADJAGBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745