Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 160, 180, 231 and 259 are amended. Claims 122, 127, and 146 remain cancelled. Claims 64-72 ,132-133,147-176,180,204,211-218, 231, and 259-261 are currently pending and are under examination. The newly added claim 262 still depends from ‘withdrawn’ claim 232, therefore it remained unexamined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim 180 and 211 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Dassen et al. (US 5,533,865).
Regarding Claim 180, broadly interpreted, Dassen discloses an apparatus comprising;
a wind turbine blade (Fig. 1) comprising a surface (rotor blades of wind win turbine of Fig. 1, Fig. 2-4), the surface comprising:
one or more repeating variations in chord length along span-wise direction of the surface (the chord length from the leading edge to the tip of the tooth shaped strip 7 and the chord length from the leading edge to bottom of the tooth shaped strip 7, Fig. 1-4, in a repeating manner along the span-wise direction), and
one or more serrated portions (Fig. 1-8, the serrated trailing edges are considered to be seated portions of the wind turbine surface ).
Regarding Claim 211, broadly interpreted, Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the surface (wind turbine blades Fig. 1) enables reduction of wake vortex structures at a tip region of the surface, thereby promoting chord-wise air flow(abstract, serrations reduce noise by mitigating the scattering of turbulence into sound, directly linked to a reduction in wake vortices. Serrations break up large, coherent eddies at the trailing edge, promoting faster dissipation of turbulent energy).
Claim(s) 212-218, 231 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by DE10000780 (see previously provided English Translation).
Regarding Claim 212, broadly interpreted, DE10000780 discloses an aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface(rotor blades of wind power plants of all types para. [0065]) comprising: a plurality of geometric features (shark skin surface features, Fig. 1-6); and a plurality of variations in shape(i.e., shark skin surface of the rotor blades of wind power plants of all types para. [0065], variation are “…shark skin teeth 7 can be made smaller and/or larger to form a shark skin surface profile 8., see para. [0100])), wherein at least one of the plurality of variations is located at a trailing edge of the surface(implicit, rotor blades of wind power plants of all types would have trailing edges, para. [0065]), wherein the aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface is on a turbine blade (i.e. ‘turbine blades…”, para. [0065] “…the partial or full-surface arrangement of solar cells and/or a sharkskin surface profile…”; see English translation pdf).
Regarding Claim 160, broadly interpreted, DE10000780 discloses an aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface (rotor blades of wind power plants of all types para. [0065]) wherein the turbine blade is on an article of manufacture selected from the group consisting of: an aircraft (helicopters, para. [0065]), a motorcycle, an automobile (Fig. 6), a truck, a train, a submarine (para. [0065]), a hydrofoil, an amphibious vehicle, a bow-plane, a ship (para. [0065]), a missile, a torpedo, a barge, a jet ski, a heat exchanger, and combinations thereof.
Regarding Claim 213, broadly interpreted, DE10000780 discloses an aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface wherein the plurality of geometric features is applied across the trailing edge of the surface(functional limitation, turbine rotor blades are among thrust-generating bodies and rotor blades of wind power plants of all types would have trailing edges; see para. [0065] of English translation pdf, ‘…partially or completely, with a sharkskin surface profile.’, see para. [0041] of the English translation pdf that implies all parts of the surface is covered ).
Regarding Claim 214, DE10000780 discloses an aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface wherein the plurality of geometric features is applied in a periodic manner ((i.e., shark skin surface of the rotor blades of wind power plants of all types para. [0065]), see Figs. 1-6) and promotes chord-wise fluid flow (functional, the structure of the shark skin surface perform the claimed function).
Regarding Claim 215, broadly interpreted, DE10000780 discloses an aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface wherein the plurality of variations variation are “…shark skin teeth 7 can be made smaller and/or larger to form a shark skin surface profile 8., see para. [0100],[0022]) Fig. 1-6) has a size selected from the group consisting of: macroscopic, microscopic(see Fig. 1-6, “…When viewed under the microscope, a scale-like arrangement of the individual dermal teeth becomes visible on the surface…”,implies the sharkskin features are microscopic, see para. [0013]).) ,nanoscopic, and combinations thereof (“…The dermal teeth in their overall arrangement on a surface can also be of different sizes and/or shapes, para. [0022]).
Regarding Claim 216, broadly interpreted, DE10000780 discloses an aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface wherein the plurality of geometric features(Fig. 1-6) is positioned on the aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface (para. [0065]) to induce or promote turbulent chord-wise fluid flow over the surface, thereby promoting chaotic fluid mixing of a fluid boundary layer(functional: i.e. turbulence par. [0006], [0007], and different areas of application [0065] see English translation pdf).
Regarding Claim 217, broadly interpreted, DE10000780 discloses an aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface wherein the plurality of geometric features (shark skin surface features, Fig. 1-6)results in mixing of a lower fluid stream and an upper fluid stream passing over the aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface such that a time and a position of the mixing is varied across the trailing edge of the aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface (functional, the geometric feature of the prior art as applied in different application as shown in para. [0065] would create the same result/function when applied; the sharkskin riblets applies on the lower and upper turbine blade surface clearly produces a mixing of lower fluid stream and upper fluid stream with varied time and position of mixing across the trailing edge of the blade surface).
Regarding Claim 218, broadly interpreted, DE10000780 discloses an aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface wherein a size and a duration of trailing wake vortex structures generated from a tip region (i.e. region near the tip) of the aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface is reduced, thereby reducing drag and noise when the aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface is traveling through a fluid (functional: i.e. that is how the turbulence mitigation and evening as indicated in par. [0006], [0007], and different areas of application [0065]created by the sharkskin riblets applied on a turbine blade surfaces attained, see English translation pdf).
Regarding Claim 231, broadly interpreted, DE10000780 discloses an apparatus comprising; a wind turbine (i.e., wind mill, rotor blades of wind power plants of all types para. [0065], see English translation pdf) blade comprising a surface(rotor blades of wind power plants of all types para. [0065]), the surface comprising: one or more geometric variations in length(i.e., the shark skin riblets of the wind turbine blades, para. [0065]; variation are “…shark skin teeth 7 can be made smaller and/or larger to form a shark skin surface profile 8., see para. [0100]); the surface clearly would have one or more geometric variation in length (interpreted to mean the geometric variations (sharkskin surface profiles) vary in length)), the one or more geometric variations occurring in a chordwise direction and repeated along a span-wise direction of the surface (Fig. 1-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 64-72, 147-156, 159-160, 176, 204,260 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dassen et al. (US 5,533,865) in view of Bechert (US 5,971,326).
Regarding Claim 64, broadly interpreted, Dassen discloses an apparatus comprising; a wind turbine (Fig. 1) comprising a lifting surface (rotor blades of wind win turbine of Fig. 1, Fig. 2-4), the surface comprising: geometrically regular trailing edges (7, Fig. 2). Dassen also discloses an aerodynamic surface (, Fig. 4a; 22, Fig. 4b) with one or more variations (at 6, Fig.1, Fig. 2-4) in chord length (Interpreted to mean variation in length chord to the tip of the tooth and the bottom of the tooth from the leading edge of the wind turbine blade) along a span-wise direction of the surface (Fig. 1-6).
Dassen do not explicitly disclose but Bechert teaches an aerodynamic surface (12, Fig. 4a; 22, Fig. 4b) with one or more variations (16, Fig. 4a; 26, Fig. 4b) in chord length (Interpreted to mean variation in chord direction) along a span-wise direction of the surface wherein the one or more variations are geometric in shape by comprising one or more straight lines (Fig. 4a, Fig. 4b) and/or one or more curved lines (Fig. 5).
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 wind turbine surface disclosed in Dassen with the one or more geometric variations as taught in Bechert with a reasonable expectation of success because it reduce surface friction and drag and ultimately improve aerodynamic performance.
Regarding Claim 65, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the surface reduces wake structures formed at the tip region of the surface thereby decreasing drag and noise (abstract Dassen, inherent reducing noise nuisance decrease wake/turbulence (similar structures produce similar results/have similar advantages)).
Regarding Claim 66, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the wind turbine comprises a wind turbine blade (3,4,5, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 67, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the one or more geometric variations produce multiple wake vortices (functional; the surface of the turbine blades of modified Dassen would produce wake vortices ) that are smaller in intensity at a tip region of the wind turbine blade than concentrated vortex structures generated when the one or more geometric variations are absent (i.e., functional, the turbine surface in the modified Dassen clearly function in similar fashion as a result of the improved aerodynamic efficiency /smoother air flow).
Regarding Claim 68, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the one or more geometric variations are situated across at least part of the span of the wind turbine blade (modified Dassen (Fig. 1) with 16, Fig. 4a; 26, Fig. 4b would clearly have that on the wind turbine surface).
Regarding Claim 69, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the one or more geometric variations reduce drag and noise (functional; the geometric variation on the surface of the turbine blades of modified Dassen would clearly reduce drag and noise, abstract, Bechert) by producing multiple wake vortices that are smaller in intensity than the concentrated vortex structures that would be generated at a tip region of the wind turbine blade if the one or more geometric variations were absent (i.e., functional, the turbine surface in the modified Dassen clearly function in similar fashion as a result of the improved aerodynamic efficiency /smoother air flow).
Regarding Claim 70, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the wind turbine wherein the wind turbine blade comprises one or more serrated surface geometry variations (see Fig. 4a, Bechert).
Regarding Claim 71, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the wind turbine wherein the wind turbine blade further comprises, on trailing edges of the wind turbine blade, one or more serrated edge geometry variations (see the serrated trailing edges in Dassen, Fig. 1-6)
Regarding Claim 72, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus comprising one or more geometric portions that reduce wake vortex perturbations along the span of the wind turbine blade ((i.e., functional, the geometric variations on the turbine surface in the modified Dassen clearly function in similar fashion by reducing wake vortex perturbations and as a result of that improve aerodynamic efficiency /smoother air flow).
Regarding Claim 147, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the surface promotes vortex-mixing of high and low flow fluids (i.e. functional, the surface in modified Dassen is subject to air flow turbulence during operation and clearly promotes vortex mixing).
Regarding Claim 148, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the one or more geometrically regular edges is on a trailing edge of one or more thrust-generating bodies (7, Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 149, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus comprising one or more geometric variations, wherein the surface is a surface of one or more thrust-generating bodies (Dassen, Fig. 1, turbine rotor blades are among thrust-generating bodies).
Regarding Claim 150, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the surface enables a mixing of a lower fluid stream and an upper fluid stream flowing across one or more (functional, i.e., wind turbine blades are among thrust-generating bodies and the blades of the modified Dassen operates in turbulence and have trailing edges that allow mixing of lower fluid stream and upper fluid stream over the blade surface; the position of mixing varies based where the geometric variations are located in modified Dassen).
Regarding Claim 151, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus comprising at least one riblet (16, Fig. 4a; 26, Fig. 4b).
Regarding Claim 152, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the at least one riblet is selected from the group consisting of: compound riblets, three-dimensional riblets, and geometrically-shaped riblets (Bechert, 16, Fig. 4a; 26, Fig. 4b).
Regarding Claim 153, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the geometrically-shaped riblets comprise a shape selected from the group consisting of: a pyramid (Bechert, 16, Fig. 4a), a rectangle (Bechert, 26, Fig. 4b), a compound rectangle, a tetrahedron, a compound tetrahedron, and combinations thereof.
Regarding Claim 154, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the at least one riblet (Bechert, 16, Fig. 4a; 26, Fig. 4b) is configured to excite short-wavelength vortex instabilities, thereby resulting in an accelerated delay of trailing vortices leading to wake breakup and a reduction in total kinetic energy of wake structures formed (Functional, the claimed structures are similar and operated in the same environment, the performance/function/behavior of the riblets would also be the same; the turbine surface in the modified Dassen clearly function in similar fashion and would result of the improved aerodynamic efficiency /smoother air flow).
Regarding Claim 155, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the surface is configured to suppress transiently growing forms of boundary layer disturbances, thereby resulting in improved performance and control dynamics of the surface (Functional limitation, since the claimed structures are similar and operated in the same environment, the performance/function/behavior of the riblets would also be the same; the turbine surface in the modified Dassen clearly function in similar fashion and would result of the improved aerodynamic efficiency /smoother air flow).
Regarding Claim 156, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the surface is a surface of one or more structural shells or volumes (Dassen, Fig. 2-Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 159, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the surface is further implemented on a structure selected from the group consisting of: rotors, rotating devices, rotary devices (Dassen, Fig. 1-Fig. 6), stabilators, flaps, micro-flaps, slats, elevons, flaperons, ailerons, elevators, rudders, trailing edge tabs, miniature trailing edge effectors, micro flaps, field generators, slits, body rakes, wings, sails, trailing edge tabs, miniature trailing edge effectors, helicopter blades, tilt- rotor blades, waterjet impellers, propellers, mixers, turbines (Dassen, Fig. 1-Fig. 6), blades, and combinations thereof.
Regarding Claim 176, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein a surface comprising one or more serrated portions (Dassen, see the serrated trailing edges. Fig.1-Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 204, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the surface enables reduction of wake vortex structures at a tip region of the surface, thereby promoting chord-wise air flow (see the airfoil in Dassen, Fig. 1 - Fig.6, since the claimed structures in modified Dassen are similar and operated in the same environment, the performance/function/behavior of the structures/riblets would also be the same).
Regarding Claim 260, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the one or more geometric variations comprise contour (i.e. curved) surface geometry (see Bechert, Fig. 5).
Claims 167 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Dassen et al. (US 5,533,865) in view of Clites (US 4,726,548).
Regarding Claim 167, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen is silent, but Clites teaches an aerodynamic apparatus wherein the surface comprises a compliant wall (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 6) that is configured to allow fluid flow to enter (via 29 30, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 6, passive compliant surfaces), thereby [resulting in reduced localized pressure ](i.e. functional, the same structures would have the same performance characteristics and advantages).
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 surface of modified Dassen with the passive compliant wall with perforations as taught in Clites with a reasonable expectation of success because it enables improvements in the efficiency of airfoils over which air flows; and more particularly to control of boundary layer air flow (Clites, Col. 1, lines 6-10).
Claim 261 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DE10000780 in view of Bechert (US 5,971,326).
Regarding Claim 261, broadly interpreted, DE10000780 do not explicitly disclose but, Bechert teaches an aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface wherein the plurality of geometric features comprises contour (i.e. curved) surface geometry (see the curved surface in Fig. 5).
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 aerodynamic/hydrodynamic surface of DE10000780 with the one or more contour surface geometric features as taught in Bechert with a reasonable expectation of success because it reduce surface friction and drag and ultimately improve aerodynamic performance.
Claims 132-133 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Dassen et al. (US 5,533,865) in view of Liu et al.(doc. “Avian Wings”).
Regarding Claim 132, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus with geometrically regular trailing edges (see Fig. 1-Fig. 6).
Modified Dassen is silent, but Liu teaches geometrically regular edges comprise one or more portions of a trailing edge shaped like an owl feather (page 4, section 4.4, Fig. 27).
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 features of modified Dassen to be shaped like owl feather as taught in Liu with a reasonable expectation of success because it improves the bio-inspired aerodynamic characteristics of the wind turbine surface such as reduce drag/turbulence.
Regarding Claim 133, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the surface comprises one or more corrugated, serrated, convoluted, geometrically regular, and/or geometrically irregular edges(see Fig. 1-Fig. 6), and wherein the one or more corrugated, serrated, convoluted, geometrically regular, and/or geometrically irregular edges comprise one or more portions of a trailing edge ((see Fig. 1-Fig. 6)).
Modified Dassen is silent, but Liu teaches an apparatus wherein the one or more corrugated, serrated, convoluted, geometrically regular, and/or geometrically irregular edges comprise one or more portions of a trailing edge shaped like an owl feather (page 4, section 4.4, Fig. 27).
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 features of modified Dassen to be shaped like owl feather as taught in Liu with a reasonable expectation of success because it improves the bio-inspired aerodynamic characteristics of the wind turbine surface such as reduce drag/turbulence.
Claims 158 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Dassen et al. (US 5,533,865) in view of Presz, Jr. et al. (US 4,830,315).
Regarding Claim 158, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen is silent, but Presz jr. teaches an apparatus wherein the one or more structural shells or volumes comprise mesh curves (col. 3, lines 23-24, wave like surface undulations that terminate at trailing edge, Fig. 2) and wherein the mesh curves are spiral-shaped (Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 1-4, the crest or depressions oriented generally normal to the flow of the boundary layer to create vortices that transfer energy into the boundary layer to prevent separation, i.e., spiral : the up and downs).
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 surface of modified Dassen with spiraling mesh curves as taught in Presz Jr. with a reasonable expectation of success because it enables reduces drag (Presz Jr, col. 3, lines 5-18) by controlling boundary layer separation and vortex formation (Presz Jr. col. 2, lines 50-55).
Claims 161-166 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Dassen et al. (US 5,533,865) in view of Ho et al. (doc. “REVIEW: MEMS and Its Applications for Flow Control”).
Regarding Claim 161, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen is silent, but Ho teaches an apparatus wherein a surface further comprises one or more MEMS devices (Fig. 1-Fig. 8, MEMS devices page 437-439). 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 surface of modified Dassen with MEMS devices as taught in Ho with a reasonable expectation of success because it enables the sensing and actuation in aerodynamic flow control.
Regarding Claim 162, broadly interpreted, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the surface is on one or more lifting and/or thrust-generating bodies (implicit: the wind turbine blades of modified Dassen are thrust-generating bodies, Dassen Fig. 1) .
Modified Dassen is silent, but Ho teaches an apparatus wherein the one or more MEMS devices are configured to change at least a portion of the surface during operation (i.e. MEMS perform sensing and actuation in variety of engineering application, page 437-439, “The microelectromechanical-systems (MEMS), with its integrated micron-size mechanical parts and IC, will be able to sense the physical world, to process the information, and to then manipulate the physical phenomena through actuators.”, col. 2 page 437 under “introduction’).
Regarding Claim 163, broadly interpreted, the modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the changed at least a portion of the surface results in formation of counter-rotating vortices and allows for vortex-mixing of low and high fluid velocity fields to generate smaller wake vortex structures along a span of the one or more thrust-generating bodies, thereby reducing drag caused by wake turbulence (i.e. functional limitation, page 444, col. 2, “For a phenomenon with a wide spread of length scales, e.g., turbulence, a large scale integrated transducer system can facilitate communication of the local information measured by individual sensors as well as identify the global characteristics through a collection of the sensors. The actuators then can, based on the local and global information, execute the proper control strategy” i.e. drag reduction) .
Regarding Claim 164, broadly interpreted, the modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the one or more MEMS devices (Fig. 1-Fig. 8, MEMS devices page 437-439) are configured to control fluid flow in order to reduce vortex-induced drag via vortex mixing ((i.e. functional limitation, page 444, col. 2, “For a phenomenon with a wide spread of length scales, e.g., turbulence, a large scale integrated transducer system can facilitate communication of the local information measured by individual sensors as well as identify the global characteristics through a collection of the sensors. The actuators then can, based on the local and global information, execute the proper control strategy” inherent: i.e. reduce vortex-induced drag via vortex mixing).
Regarding Claim 165, broadly interpreted, the modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the surface is configured to allow the one or more MEMS(Fig. 1-Fig. 8, MEMS devices page 437-439) devices to be activated (implicit: since MEMS are working and functioning).
Regarding Claim 166, broadly interpreted, the modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the activation of the one or more MEMS devices results in mitigation of concentrated trailing wake vortex structures generated by one or more thrust-generating bodies (functional limitation and implicit as per the MEMS application, page 444, col. 2, “For a phenomenon with a wide spread of length scales, e.g., turbulence, a large scale integrated transducer system can facilitate communication of the local information measured by individual sensors as well as identify the global characteristics through a collection of the sensors. The actuators then can, based on the local and global information, execute the proper control strategy” inherent: mitigation of concentrated trailing wake vortex structures).
In alternative,
Claim 153 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Dassen et al. (US 5,533,865) in view of Schenk et al. (US 4,354,648).
Regarding Claim 153, modified Dassen do not explicitly disclose, but Schenk teaches an apparatus wherein the geometrically-shaped riblets comprise a shape selected from the group consisting of: a pyramid (Fig. 4), a rectangle (Fig. 6), a compound rectangle, a tetrahedron, a compound tetrahedron, and combinations thereof. 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 geometrically-shaped riblets of modified Dassen with shapes as taught in Schenk with a reasonable expectation of success because induce an effective turbulence which postpones the onset of airstream separation from the airfoil (col. 1, lines 56-60).
Additionally, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the riblet of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claims 171 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DE10000780 in view of Wortman (US 5,069,402).
Regarding Claim 171, broadly interpreted, DE10000780 is silent, but Wortman teaches an aerodynamic/hydrodynamic surface wherein a component (14s, Vortex generators, Fig. 1-3) present in an aircraft maneuvering and/or control system and whose angle, relative to the surface, can be adjusted (col. 4, lines 66-68 and col. 5, lines 1-2). 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 aerodynamic/hydrodynamic surface of DE10000780 with angle adjustable vortex generator component as taught in Wortman with a reasonable expectation of success alleviate aerodynamic/hydrodynamic surface from drag.
Claims 171 and 259 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DE10000780 in view of Sakurai et al. (US 2005/0011994).
Regarding Claim 171, broadly interpreted, DE10000780 is silent, but Sakurai teaches an aerodynamic/hydrodynamic surface wherein a component (530, Fig. 6A-6G) present in an aircraft maneuvering and/or control system and whose angle, relative to the surface, can be adjusted (para. [0044]). 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 aerodynamic/hydrodynamic surface of DE10000780 with angle adjustable component as taught in Sakurai with a reasonable expectation of success to control the aerodynamic/hydrodynamic surface drag.
Regarding Claim 259, broadly interpreted, modified DE10000780 discloses an aerodynamic/hydrodynamic surface wherein the component comprises one or more flaps (530, Fig. 6A-6G, para. [0044]), one or more flaperons, one or more microflaps, and/or one or more ailerons.
Claims 157, 168, and 172-175 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Dassen et al. (US 5,533,865) in view of Bak et al. (US 2007/0036653).
Regarding Claim 157, modified Dassen discloses an apparatus wherein the one or more structural shells or volumes are combined with rigid (para. [0065], the surfaces in the applications described in para. [0065] are of rigid structural shells and volumes) and/or compliant material in one or more parametric dimensions.
Modified Dassen is silent, but Bak teaches a wind turbine apparatus with the rigid and/or compliant material surface with MEMS devices (abstract, para. [0014]). 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 apparatus/wind turbine of modified Dassen with MEMS device as taught in Bak with a reasonable expectation of success because it controls the wind turbine by fast variation of the geometry of the blades using active geometry control and aerodynamic performance (Bak, abstract).
Regarding Claim 168, modified Dassen is silent, but Bak teaches a wind turbine apparatus wherein the surface further comprises one or more electric and/or magnetic fields and/or one or more smart materials (para. [0014]), wherein the one or more smart materials is selected from the group consisting of: shape memory polymers, shape memory composites, dynamic composites, dynamic syntactic foams, shape memory alloys (para. [0014]), piezoelectric actuators, magneto-rheological fluids and solids, self-healing polymers and coatings for creating morphing flexible contour shape surfaces and/or structures, adaptive materials for creating adaptive and/or morphing composite structures, and combinations thereof(Smart materials, MEMS, para. [0014]).
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 apparatus/wind turbine of modified Dassen with one or more smart materials as taught in Bak with a reasonable expectation of success because it controls the wind turbine by fast variation of the geometry of the blades using active geometry control (Bak, abstract).
Regarding Claim 172, modified Dassen is silent, but Bak teaches a wind turbine apparatus wherein the surface is configured to be altered by dynamically changing one or more physical properties, the one or more physical properties selected from the group consisting of: geometric curvature, rate of change of curvature, deformation, and combinations thereof (para. [0014]).
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 apparatus/wind turbine of modified Dassen with dynamically changing one or more physical properties of a surface as taught in Bak with a reasonable expectation of success because it controls the wind turbine by fast variation of the geometry of the blades using active geometry control (Bak, abstract).
Regarding Claim 173, modified Dassen, but Bak teaches a wind turbine apparatus wherein the dynamic altering is achieved via one or more compliant walls, one or more shape memory alloys, and/or one or more MEMS actuators (para. [0014]).
Regarding Claim 174, modified Dassen is silent, but Bak teaches a wind turbine apparatus wherein geometry of the surface is varied across a parameter selected from the group consisting of: degree of curvature, rate of curvature, contour shape, degree of twist (para. [0015]), and combinations thereof. 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 apparatus/wind turbine of modified Dassen with a varying geometry surface as taught in Bak with a reasonable expectation of success because it controls the wind turbine aerodynamics by fast variation of the geometry of the blades using active geometry control (Bak, abstract).
Regarding Claim 175, modified Dassen is silent, but Bak teaches a wind turbine apparatus wherein the surface further comprises one or more (MEMS, para. [0014], as per the definition of compliant device, para. [0088]). 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 apparatus/wind turbine of modified Dassen with a compliant surface as taught in Bak with a reasonable expectation of success because it controls the wind turbine aerodynamics by fast variation of the geometry of the blades using active geometry control (Bak, abstract).
Claims 169-170 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Dassen et al. (US 5,533,865) in view of Lesieutre et al. (US 6,193,032).
Regarding Claim 169, modified Dassen is silent, but Lesieutre teaches an apparatus wherein a surface comprises one or more vibrating piezoceramic elements (24, Fig. 5-6).
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 surface of modified Dassen with vibrating piezoceramic element as taught in Lesieutre with a reasonable expectation of success because it for controlling vibration and noise and ultimately improve aerodynamic performance.
Regarding Claim 170, modified Dassen disclose an apparatus wherein the one or more vibrating piezoceramic elements ( 24, Fig. 5-6, Lesieutre) are configured to mitigate concentrated trailing wake vortex structures generated by one or more lifting and/or thrust-generating bodies (i.e., functional limitation vibration and noise control ultimately mitigate concentrated trailing wake vortices and improve aerodynamic performance) .
Response to Arguments
In light of the claim amendments to claims 160 and 259, the previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 180 on page 5 of the remarks have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In regards to independent claim 212, DE10000780 discloses an aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface (rotor blades of wind power plants of all types para. [0065]) comprising: a plurality of geometric features (shark skin surface features, Fig. 1-6); and a plurality of variations in shape(i.e., shark skin surface of the rotor blades of wind power plants of all types para. [0065], variation are “…shark skin teeth 7 can be made smaller and/or larger to form a shark skin surface profile 8., see para. [0100])), wherein at least one of the plurality of variations is located at a trailing edge of the surface(implicit, rotor blades of wind power plants of all types would have trailing edges, para. [0065]. “…the partial or full-surface arrangement of solar cells and/or a sharkskin surface profile…”), wherein the aerodynamic or hydrodynamic surface is on a turbine blade (i.e. ‘turbine blades…”, para. [0065]; see English translation pdf).
Contrary to the applicant’s argument on page 6 of the remarks section, it is implicit from DE10000780 the least one of the plurality of variations is located at a trailing edge of the surface since para. [0065] of DE10000780 discloses the full surface of the turbine be covered by the sharkskin surface profile, one can reasonably determine that the inherent trailing edge of the turbine would also be covered by the a plurality of shape variations (shark skin surface features, see para. [0065]).
In regards to the claims 213-214 and 216-218; the wind turbine surface with the sharkskin surface profile applied in its full surface would reasonably create the advantages recited in the claim. Since the claimed structures are the same with the structures in the prior art, the structure would generate the same advantage and would also behave the same.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim 231 on page 9 of the remarks have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument (see rejection above).
On page 10-11 of the remarks regarding the rejection of claim 64, the applicant argued, Dassen and Bechert lacks to disclose "one or more variations in chord length along a span-wise direction of the surface.", the examiner respectfully disagrees. Dassen clearly discloses an aerodynamic surface (, Fig. 4a; 22, Fig. 4b) with one or more variations (at 6, Fig.1, Fig. 2-4) in chord length (Interpreted to mean variation in length chord to the tip of the tooth and the bottom of the tooth from the leading edge of the wind turbine blade) along a span-wise direction of the surface (Fig. 1-6) (see rejection above). What Dassen lacks or does not clearly discloses is the one or more variations in chord length wherein the one or more variations are geometric in shape by comprising one or more straight lines (Fig. 4a, Fig. 4b) and/or one or more curved lines (Fig. 5). The Bechert reference is applied to teach the one or more curved line geometric variations.
In regards to the claims 65, 68, and 204; the wind turbine surface with the one or more variations in chord length and geometrically regular trailing edge in the modified Dassen reference would reasonably create the same advantages recited in the claims. Since the claimed structures are the same with the structures in the prior art, the structure would generate the same advantage and would also behave the same.
In regards to the claims 67,69,72,147,150, and 154-155; the wind turbine surface with the sharkskin surface profile applied in its full surface would reasonably create the advantages recited in the claim. Since the claimed structures are the same with the structures in the prior art, the structure would generate the same advantage and would also behave the same.
Re claim 167, in regards to the applicant’s argument on pages 14-15 of the remarks that the office has provided no evidence that the teaching of Dassen in view of Clites are capable of “resulting reduced localized pressure”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Clites teaches an aerodynamic apparatus wherein the surface comprises a compliant wall (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 6) that is configured to allow fluid flow to enter (via 29 30, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 6), thereby [resulting in reduced localized pressure ](i.e. the same structures would have the same performance characteristics and advantages). As per para. [0078] of the specification as filed ‘Holes and/or porous surfaces are passive compliant surfaces that are highly effective in delaying boundary layer separation’ that means a reduced localized pressure. The slots 29 30, in Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 6 are considered compliant surfaces that delay boundary layer separation and ultimately resulting in reduced localized pressure. Therefore, 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 surface of modified Dassen with the passive compliant wall with perforations as taught in Clites with a reasonable expectation of success because it enables improvements in the efficiency of airfoils over which air flows; and more particularly to control of boundary layer air flow (Clites, Col. 1, lines 6-10) as well as reduced localized pressure.
In regards to the applicant’s argument on page 16 concerning claims 261,171, and 259, see the rejection and examiner’s response of claim 212 above.
In regards to the applicant’s argument on page 16-17 concerning claims 232-133, 158 and 153, see the rejection and examiner’s response of claim 64 above.
On page 17-18 of the remarks regarding the rejection of claims 161-166, the applicant argued that one of skill in the art would not combine the teachings of Ho with those of Dassen alleging there is no reason to combine the references, the examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Ho reference teaches a MEMS devices for flow control in aerodynamic surfaces (see second column of page 443 of the Ho reference). On wind turbine blades of Dassen in the same filed of endeavor to improve aerodynamic performance and flow control is necessary, it clearly have a motivation to teach the flow control via MEMS disclosed in the Ho reference. The MEMS device can be used to change at least a portion of the surface of Dassen during operation (i.e. MEMS perform sensing and actuation in variety of engineering application, page 437-439, “The microelectromechanical-systems (MEMS), with its integrated micron-size mechanical parts and IC, will be able to sense the physical world, to process the information, and to then manipulate the physical phenomena through actuators.”, col. 2 page 437 under “introduction’).Additionally, claim 161 does not claim how the MEMS are used on the wind turbine surface; and it only requires a MEMS device.
On page 20-21 of the remarks regarding the rejection of claims 157,168, and 172-175, the applicant argued that one of skill in the art would not combine the teachings of Bak with those of Dassen alleging there is no reason to combine the references, the examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Bak reference teaches a MEMS devices for flow control in aerodynamic surfaces (para. [0014]). On wind turbine blades of Dassen in the same filed of endeavor to improve aerodynamic performance and flow control is necessary, it clearly have a motivation to teach active geometric control via MEMS disclosed in the Bak reference. The MEMS device can be used to change at least a geometry of the surface of Dassen during operation ((abstract, para. [0014], abstract). Additionally, the structures/features claimed in claim 168 and 172-176 are also taught in the Bak reference and are used to affect the aerodynamic performance of the aerodynamic surface of the Dassen reference consistent with the trend and knowledge in the field of the art. Therefore, there is a clear motivation to combine the Bak reference and the Dassen reference to obtain the sought after advantage of improved aerodynamic performance in the wind turbine in the Dassen reference.
On page 23 of the remarks regarding the rejection of claims 169-170 the applicant argued that one of skill in the art would not combine the teachings of Lesieutre with those of Dassen alleging there is no reason to combine the references, the examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Lesieutre teaches an apparatus wherein a surface comprises one or more vibrating piezoceramic elements (24, Fig. 5-6). On wind turbine blades of Dassen in the same filed of endeavor to improve aerodynamic performance vibration and noise control is necessary, it clearly have a motivation to teach vibration and noise control via one or more vibrating piezoceramic elements disclosed in the Lesieutre reference. The one or more vibrating piezoceramic elements used to control the vibration and noise on the surface of Dassen during operation as taught in the Lesieutre ((abstract, col. 1, lines 9-66)). Controlling the vibration and the noise in the surface of the wind turbine of Dassen would improve aerodynamic performance of the turbine my minimizing turbulence and drag. Therefore, in the field of improving aerodynamic performance and reducing drag, controlling vibration and noise is vital.
Therefore, there is a clear motivation to combine the Lesieutre reference and the Dassen reference to obtain the sought after advantage of improved aerodynamic performance in the wind turbine of the Dassen reference.
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 ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights