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 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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 13 August 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 8-10, and 16 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1 (and similar Claims 10 and 16), 8, and 9 under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over PG-Pub U.S. 2023/0265855 (hereinafter "Yang '855") in view of PG- Pub U.S. 2023/0250833 (hereinafter "Yang '833") have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Franz (US 20140233178) and O’Brien et al. (US 20230287897).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims above under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (hereafter Yang ‘855 - US 20230265855) in view of Yang et al. (hereafter Yang ‘833 - US 20230250833), and further in view of Franz (US 20140233178).
Claim 1 recites “a novel blade design.” Yang ‘855 teaches such a novel blade design, as will be shown.
Yang ‘855 teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) a novel blade design comprising:
A primary airfoil (111) having a root for connecting to a rotating hub (20), a tip (see Fig. 1) opposite the root, a leading edge (1115), and a trailing edge (1117), wherein the primary airfoil has an angle of incidence relative to the plane of rotation of the primary airfoil of between about 3° and 30° (see para. 0078 and Fig. 3, the entrance angle A1 of 80 degrees to 87 degrees is offset 90 degrees to the angle of incidence, so Yang ‘855 teaches an angle of incidence overlapping range of between 3° and 10°);
a secondary airfoil (112) generally parallel to the primary airfoil having a root generally proximate the root of the primary airfoil (see Fig. 1), a tip (see Fig. 1) opposite the root and generally proximate the tip or the primary airfoil (see Fig. 1), a leading edge (1125), and a trailing edge (1127), wherein the secondary airfoil is disposed below and connected proximate the trailing edge of the primary airfoil (see Fig. 3) through a vertical support fin (130) and wherein the secondary airfoil has an angle of incidence relative to the plane of rotation of the secondary airfoil of between about 5° and 40° (see para. 0080 and Fig. 3, the entrance angle A4 of 65 degrees to 80 degrees is offset 90 degrees to the angle of incidence, so Yang ‘855 teaches an angle of incidence overlapping range of between 10° and 25°);
the vertical support fin (15) is connected to the bottom of the primary airfoil at the top of the vertical support fin and connected to the top of the secondary airfoil at the bottom of the vertical support fin (see Fig. 10).
However, Yang ‘855 does not teach the vertical support fin is a plurality of vertical support fins and wherein said secondary airfoil has a width (chord) that is less than a width (chord) of the primary airfoil.
Yang ‘833 teaches (Figs. 1-5) a novel blade comprising a primary airfoil 111, a secondary airfoil 112 connected proximate the trailing edge of the primary airfoil through a plurality of vertical support fins (117), and the plurality of vertical support fins connecting the primary airfoil to the secondary airfoil (para. 0072), wherein the vertical support fins are connected to the bottom of the primary airfoil at the top of the support and connected to the top of the secondary airfoil at the bottom of the vertical support fins (see Fig. 3).
Yang ‘833 further teaches the vertical support fins 117 are spaced apart from each other in the radial direction, so that air can flow between adjacent connection arms 117 (para. 0072, i.e., they perform aerodynamic functions).
MPEP 2143 I. A. teaches Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious if there is (1) a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; (2) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In this case, Yang ‘855 includes each element claimed except for having a plurality of vertical support fins connecting the primary and secondary airfoils. Yang ‘833 teaches a similar novel blade having a plurality of vertical support fins. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the plurality of vertical support fins to Yang ‘855 as each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would be predictable as both references and Applicant’s inventions are directed to novel blades comprising primary and secondary airfoils connected together. Therefore, it would have been It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Yang ‘833 to the novel blade design of Yang ‘855 to have a plurality of vertical support fins.
Franz teaches (Fig. 1A) a novel blade design wherein said secondary airfoil 130 has a width (chord) that is less than a width (chord) of the primary airfoil 120.
Franz further teaches due to the shorter secondary airfoil chord, the flow separation is reduced resulting in a cooling fan capable of producing high pressure and improved efficiency (para. 0017).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Franz to the blade design of modified Yang ‘855 to have wherein said secondary airfoil has a width (chord) that is less than a width (chord) of the primary airfoil, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to blade designs. Doing so would result in improved air pressure and efficiency, as recognized by Franz.
Regarding Claim 7, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) the novel blade design of claim 1, wherein said primary airfoil and said secondary airfoil are each rigidly affixed to a rotating hub (see Fig. 1, rigid such that blades are held up to support rotation with hub).
Claim 10 recites “a novel blade design.” Yang ‘855 teaches such a novel blade design, as will be shown.
Yang ‘855 teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) a novel fan blade design comprising:
A primary airfoil (111) having a root for connecting to a rotating hub (20) connected to a fan motor (para. 0048), a tip (see Fig. 1) opposite the root, a leading edge (1115), and a trailing edge (1117), wherein the primary airfoil has an angle of incidence relative to the plane of rotation of the primary airfoil of between about 3° and 30° (see para. 0078 and Fig. 3, the entrance angle A1 of 80 degrees to 87 degrees is offset 90 degrees to the angle of incidence, so Yang ‘855 teaches an angle of incidence overlapping range of between 3° and 10°);
a secondary airfoil (112) generally parallel to the primary airfoil having a root generally proximate the root of the primary airfoil (see Fig. 1), a tip (see Fig. 1) opposite the root and generally proximate the tip or the primary airfoil (see Fig. 1), a leading edge (1125), and a trailing edge (1127), wherein the secondary airfoil is disposed below and connected proximate the trailing edge of the primary airfoil (see Fig. 3) through a vertical support fin (130) and wherein the secondary airfoil has an angle of incidence relative to the plane of rotation of the secondary airfoil of between about 5° and 40° (see para. 0080 and Fig. 3, the entrance angle A4 of 65 degrees to 80 degrees is offset 90 degrees to the angle of incidence, so Yang ‘855 teaches an angle of incidence overlapping range of between 10° and 25°); and
the vertical support fin (15) is connected to the bottom of the primary airfoil at the top of the vertical support fin and connected to the top of the secondary airfoil at the bottom of the vertical support fin (see Fig. 10).
However, Yang ‘855 does not teach the vertical support fin is a plurality of vertical support fins and wherein said secondary airfoil has a width (chord) that is less than a width (chord) of the primary airfoil.
Yang ‘833 teaches (Figs. 1-5) a novel blade comprising a primary airfoil 111, a secondary airfoil 112 connected proximate the trailing edge of the primary airfoil through a plurality of vertical support fins (117), and the plurality of vertical support fins connecting the primary airfoil to the secondary airfoil (para. 0072), wherein the vertical support fins are connected to the bottom of the primary airfoil at the top of the support and connected to the top of the secondary airfoil at the bottom of the vertical support fins (see Fig. 3).
Yang ‘833 further teaches the vertical support fins 117 are spaced apart from each other in the radial direction, so that air can flow between adjacent connection arms 117 (para. 0072, i.e., they perform aerodynamic functions).
MPEP 2143 I. A. teaches Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious if there is (1) a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; (2) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In this case, Yang ‘855 includes each element claimed except for having a plurality of vertical support fins connecting the primary and secondary airfoils. Yang ‘833 teaches a similar novel blade having a plurality of vertical support fins. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the plurality of vertical support fins to Yang ‘855 as each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would be predictable as both references and Applicant’s inventions are directed to novel blades comprising primary and secondary airfoils connected together. Therefore, it would have been It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Yang ‘833 to the novel blade design of Yang ‘855 to have a plurality of vertical support fins.
Franz teaches (Fig. 1A) a novel blade design wherein said secondary airfoil 130 has a width (chord) that is less than a width (chord) of the primary airfoil 120.
Franz further teaches due to the shorter secondary airfoil chord, the flow separation is reduced resulting in a cooling fan capable of producing high pressure and improved efficiency (para. 0017).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Franz to the blade design of modified Yang ‘855 to have wherein said secondary airfoil has a width (chord) that is less than a width (chord) of the primary airfoil, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to blade designs. Doing so would result in improved air pressure and efficiency, as recognized by Franz.
Claim 16 recites “a novel blade design.” Yang ‘855 teaches such a novel blade design, as will be shown.
Yang ‘855 teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) a novel fan blade design comprising:
A primary airfoil (111) having a root for connecting to a rotating hub (20) connected to a fan motor (para. 0048), a tip (see Fig. 1) opposite the root, a leading edge (1115), and a trailing edge (1117), wherein the primary airfoil has an angle of incidence relative to the plane of rotation of the primary airfoil of between about 3.5° and 15° (see para. 0078 and Fig. 3, the entrance angle A1 of 80 degrees to 87 degrees is offset 90 degrees to the angle of incidence, so Yang ‘855 teaches an angle of incidence overlapping range of between 3° and 10°);
a secondary airfoil (112) generally parallel to the primary airfoil having a root generally proximate the root of the primary airfoil (see Fig. 1), a tip (see Fig. 1) opposite the root and generally proximate the tip or the primary airfoil (see Fig. 1), a leading edge (1125), and a trailing edge (1127), wherein the secondary airfoil is disposed below and connected proximate the trailing edge of the primary airfoil (see Fig. 3) through a vertical support fin (130) and wherein the secondary airfoil has an angle of incidence relative to the plane of rotation of the secondary airfoil of between about 13° and 35° (see para. 0080 and Fig. 3, the entrance angle A4 of 65 degrees to 80 degrees is offset 90 degrees to the angle of incidence, so Yang ‘855 teaches an angle of incidence overlapping range of between 10° and 25°); and
the vertical support fin (15) is connected to the bottom of the primary airfoil at the top of the vertical support fin and connected to the top of the secondary airfoil at the bottom of the vertical support fin (see Fig. 10).
However, Yang ‘855 does not teach the vertical support fin is a plurality of vertical support fins and wherein said secondary airfoil has a width (chord) that is less than a width (chord) of the primary airfoil.
Yang ‘833 teaches (Figs. 1-5) a novel blade comprising a primary airfoil 111, a secondary airfoil 112 connected proximate the trailing edge of the primary airfoil through a plurality of vertical support fins (117), and the plurality of vertical support fins connecting the primary airfoil to the secondary airfoil (para. 0072), wherein the vertical support fins are connected to the bottom of the primary airfoil at the top of the support and connected to the top of the secondary airfoil at the bottom of the vertical support fins (see Fig. 3).
Yang ‘833 further teaches the vertical support fins 117 are spaced apart from each other in the radial direction, so that air can flow between adjacent connection arms 117 (para. 0072, i.e., they perform aerodynamic functions).
MPEP 2143 I. A. teaches Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious if there is (1) a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; (2) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In this case, Yang ‘855 includes each element claimed except for having a plurality of vertical support fins connecting the primary and secondary airfoils. Yang ‘833 teaches a similar novel blade having a plurality of vertical support fins. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the plurality of vertical support fins to Yang ‘855 as each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would be predictable as both references and Applicant’s inventions are directed to novel blades comprising primary and secondary airfoils connected together. Therefore, it would have been It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Yang ‘833 to the novel blade design of Yang ‘855 to have a plurality of vertical support fins.
Franz teaches a novel blade design wherein said secondary airfoil 130 has a width (chord) that is less than a width (chord) of the primary airfoil 120.
Franz further teaches due to the shorter secondary airfoil chord, the flow separation is reduced resulting in a cooling fan capable of producing high pressure and improved efficiency (para. 0017).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Franz to the blade design of modified Yang ‘855 to have wherein said secondary airfoil has a width (chord) that is less than a width (chord) of the primary airfoil, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to blade designs. Doing so would result in improved air pressure and efficiency, as recognized by Franz.
Regarding Claim 19, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) the novel blade design of claim 16, wherein the angle of incidence of the secondary airfoil proximate the root is between about 16° and 30° (see para. 0080 and Fig. 3, the entrance angle A4 of 65 degrees to 80 degrees is offset 90 degrees to the angle of incidence, so Yang ‘855 teaches an angle of incidence overlapping range of between 10° and 25°).
Regarding Claim 20, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) the novel blade design of claim 16, wherein the angle of incidence of the secondary airfoil proximate the tip is between about 15° and 18° (see para. 0080 and Fig. 3, the entrance angle A4 of 65 degrees to 80 degrees is offset 90 degrees to the angle of incidence, so Yang ‘855 teaches an angle of incidence overlapping range of between 10° and 25°).
Claims 2-6, 11-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang ‘855 in view of Yang ‘833, and further in view of Franz, and further in view of Parker et al. (hereafter Parker – US 6659721).
Regarding Claim 2, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) the novel blade design of claim 1.
However, modified Yang does not teach the primary airfoil includes a twist to provide a lower angle of incidence towards the tip.
Parker teaches (Figs. 1-4A) a novel blade design comprising a primary airfoil (110), wherein the primary airfoil includes a twist to provide a lower angle of incidence towards the tip, wherein the tip end 100TE has an angle of approximately 6.22 degrees from a horizontal plane and the root end 100RE would have an angle of twist of approximately 25.63 degrees (col. 4, ln. 42-47).
Parker further teaches the positive twist provides increased air flow over other ceiling fan blades (col. 2, ln. 55-56).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Parker to the novel blade design of modified Yang to have a twist to provide a lower angle of incidence towards the tip, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to novel blade designs. Doing so would result in increased air flow over other ceiling fan blades, as recognized by Parker.
Regarding Claim 3, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) the novel blade design of claim 2, wherein the angle of incidence of the primary airfoil proximate the root is between about 10° and 30° (Parker col. 4, ln. 42-47).
Regarding Claim 4, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) the novel blade design of claim 2, wherein the angle of incidence of the primary airfoil proximate the tip is between about 3° and 8° (Parker col. 4, ln. 42-47).
Regarding Claim 5, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) the novel blade design of claim 2, wherein the angle of incidence of the secondary airfoil proximate the root is between about 20° and 40° see para. 0080 and Fig. 3, the entrance angle A4 of 65 degrees to 80 degrees is offset 90 degrees to the angle of incidence, so Yang ‘855 teaches an angle of incidence overlapping range of between 10° and 25°).
Regarding Claim 6, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) the novel blade design of claim 2, wherein the angle of incidence of the secondary airfoil proximate the tip is between about 8° and 20° (see para. 0080 and Fig. 3, the entrance angle A4 of 65 degrees to 80 degrees is offset 90 degrees to the angle of incidence, so Yang ‘855 teaches an angle of incidence overlapping range of between 10° and 25°).
Regarding Claim 11, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) the novel blade design of claim 10.
However, modified Yang does not teach the primary airfoil includes a twist to provide a lower angle of incidence towards the tip.
Parker teaches (Figs. 1-4A) a novel blade design comprising a primary airfoil (110), wherein the primary airfoil includes a twist to provide a lower angle of incidence towards the tip, wherein the tip end 100TE has an angle of approximately 6.22 degrees from a horizontal plane and the root end 100RE would have an angle of twist of approximately 25.63 degrees (col. 4, ln. 42-47).
Parker further teaches the positive twist provides increased air flow over other ceiling fan blades (col. 2, ln. 55-56).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Parker to the novel blade design of modified Yang to have a twist to provide a lower angle of incidence towards the tip, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to novel blade designs. Doing so would result in increased air flow over other ceiling fan blades, as recognized by Parker.
Regarding Claim 12, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) the novel blade design of claim 11, wherein the angle of incidence of the primary airfoil proximate the root is between about 10° and 30° (Parker col. 4, ln. 42-47).
Regarding Claim 13, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) the novel blade design of claim 11, wherein the angle of incidence of the primary airfoil proximate the tip is between about 3° and 8° (Parker col. 4, ln. 42-47).
Regarding Claim 14, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) the novel blade design of claim 11, wherein the angle of incidence of the secondary airfoil proximate the root is between about 20° and 40° (see para. 0080 and Fig. 3, the entrance angle A4 of 65 degrees to 80 degrees is offset 90 degrees to the angle of incidence, so Yang ‘855 teaches an angle of incidence overlapping range of between 10° and 25°).
Regarding Claim 15, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) the novel blade design of claim 11, wherein the angle of incidence of the secondary airfoil proximate the tip is between about 8° and 20° (see para. 0080 and Fig. 3, the entrance angle A4 of 65 degrees to 80 degrees is offset 90 degrees to the angle of incidence, so Yang ‘855 teaches an angle of incidence overlapping range of between 10° and 25°).
Regarding Claim 17, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) the novel blade design of claim 16.
However, modified Yang does not teach the angle of incidence of the primary airfoil proximate the root is between about 10° and 12°.
Parker teaches (Figs. 1-4A) a novel blade design comprising a primary airfoil (110), wherein the primary airfoil includes a twist to provide a lower angle of incidence towards the tip.
Parker further teaches the amount of blade twist is based on improving air flow of the fan, and therefore the angle of incidence of the primary airfoil proximate the root imparted by the blade twist is a results effective variable dependent on desired air flow. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Parker to optimize the amount of airflow imparted by the blade twist of modified Yang through routine experimentation for a particular system to arrive at the angle of incidence of the primary airfoil proximate the root is between about 10° and 12° since the blade twist is a recognized results effective variable. Doing so would result in a desired air flow, as recognized by Parker.
Regarding Claim 18, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) the novel blade design of claim 16.
However, modified Yang does not teach the angle of incidence of the primary airfoil proximate the tip is between about 4° and 6°.
Parker teaches (Figs. 1-4A) a novel blade design comprising a primary airfoil (110), wherein the primary airfoil includes a twist to provide a lower angle of incidence towards the tip, wherein the tip end 100TE has an angle of approximately 4.71 degrees from a horizontal plane and the root end 100RE would have an angle of twist of approximately 30.76 degrees (col. 7, ln. 8-15).
Parker further teaches the positive twist provides increased air flow over other ceiling fan blades (col. 2, ln. 55-56).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Parker to the novel blade design of modified Yang to have the angle of incidence of the primary airfoil proximate the tip is between about 4° and 6°, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to novel blade designs. Doing so would result in increased air flow over other ceiling fan blades, as recognized by Parker.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang ‘855 in view of Yang ‘833, and further in view of Franz, and further in view of O’Brien et al. (hereafter O’Brien – US 20230287897).
Regarding Claim 8, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) the novel blade design of claim 1.
However, modified Yang ‘855 does not teach said primary airfoil and said secondary airfoil are each rotatably affixed to a variable geometry hub.
O’Brien teaches (Fig. 25) a novel blade design comprising airfoils 72 which are each rotatably affixed to a variable geometry hub 78 (see para. 0053-0054 and Fig. 25).
O’Brien further teaches having such rotatably affixed airfoils to a variable geometry hub enables the user to precisely control the volume, speed, and momentum of the air flow being pushed through the fan blades. Thus, a single fan kit purchased by the end user can be installed to cool a variety of room sizes from small to large merely by setting the proper blade sweep and/or pitch angle (para. 0041).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of O’Brien to the blade design of modified Yang ‘855 to have said primary airfoil and said secondary airfoil are each rotatably affixed to a variable geometry hub, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to blade designs. Doing so would result in precision control of the airflow, as recognized by O’Brien.
Regarding Claim 9, Yang ‘855, as modified with Yang ‘833 above, teaches (Figs. 1-5, 10-11) wherein the angle of incidence of each of said primary airfoil and said secondary airfoil are actively variable through control of the variable geometry hub (see O’Brien para. 0053-0054).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745