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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites “include” in line 1. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “includes”.
Claim 10 recites “the leading edge” in line 2. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a leading edge” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 10 recites “the trailing edge” in line 3. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a trailing edge” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-2, 4-5, 11-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Powers US 9914515.
Regarding claim 1, Powers discloses: A propeller (Fig 4-7) comprising:
a propeller hub (Fig 7: 120);
two or more blades (126) connected with the propeller hub (126 connected to 120); and
an insert (Fig 6: 101) having a tubular shape (101 is tubular) with an inner (Inner face of 103) and outer face (Outer face of 103),
the insert having a raised ridge (110) on the inner face (110 on the inner face of 103),
the insert being connected to at least a portion of the propeller hub (Fig 7: 101 is attached to 120).
Regarding claim 2, Powers discloses:
wherein the raised ridge is more than one raised ridge (Fig 4: 4 vanes 110).
Regarding claim 4, Powers discloses:
wherein the raised ridge extends at an angle to an edge of an opening of the insert (Fig 4 and 5: 110 are at an angle compared to the edge of the opening of 102b).
Regarding claim 5, Powers discloses:
wherein sequential raised ridges are arranged in a non-overlapping manner around the inner face (Fig 4: 110 are non-overlapping).
Regarding claim 11, Powers discloses:
wherein the raised ridge extends helically on the inner face (Fig 4 and 5: 110 are arranged helically on the inner face of 103).
Regarding claim 12, Powers discloses: An insert (Fig 6: 101) for a propeller (Fig 4-7), the insert having a tubular shape (101 is tubular) and comprising:
a raised ridge (110) on an inner face (Inner face of 103) of the insert.
Regarding claim 13, Powers discloses:
wherein the raised ridge extends helically on the inner face (Fig 4 and 5: 110 are arranged helically on the inner face of 103).
Regarding claim 14, Powers discloses:
wherein the raised ridge is more than one raised ridge (Fig 4: 4 vanes 110).
Regarding claim 16, Powers discloses:
wherein the raised ridge extends at an angle to an edge of an opening of the insert (Fig 4 and 5: 110 are at an angle compared to the edge of the opening of 102b).
Regarding claim 17, Powers discloses:
wherein sequential raised ridges are arranged in a sequential, non-overlapping manner around the inner face (Fig 4: 110 are sequential and non-overlapping).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers US 9914515 in view of Dakhil US 20220119132.
Regarding claim 7, Powers discloses all of the above limitations. However, is silent as to:
wherein each blade of the two or more blades comprises graphene or a graphene composite.
From the same field of endeavor, Dakhil teaches:
wherein each blade of the two or more blades comprises graphene or a graphene composite (Par 49: Propellers are manufactured from a graphene oxide).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the propeller blades of Powers to be made of graphene oxide as taught by Dakhil to have a 200 times stronger than steel material that is extremely resilient and lightweight that can withstand the sea (Par 49).
Regarding claim 18, Powers discloses all of the above limitations. However, is silent as to:
wherein each blade of the two or more blades comprises graphene or a graphene composite.
From the same field of endeavor, Dakhil teaches:
wherein each blade of the two or more blades comprises graphene or a graphene composite (Par 49: Propellers are manufactured from a graphene oxide).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the propeller blades of Powers to be made of graphene oxide as taught by Dakhil to have a stronger than steel material that is extremely resilient and lightweight that can withstand the sea (Par 49).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers US 9914515 in view of Brandt US 4619584.
Regarding claim 9, Powers discloses all of the above limitations. However, is silent as to:
wherein the propeller has a color corresponding to one or more parameters of the propeller.
From the same field of endeavor, Brandt teaches:
wherein the propeller has a color corresponding to one or more parameters of the propeller (Col 2, line 61- Col 3, line 11: Propellers are matched the same color with a band around the hub based on pitch and the same).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Powers propeller to be a two propeller system with hubs that have a color on the hub to match suitable replacement propellers as taught by Brandt to eliminate the risk of replacing a propeller with a wrong one (Col 3, line 4-11).
Regarding claim 10, Powers as modified by Brandt in the rejection of claim 9, where Brandt teaches:
wherein the one or more parameters include pitch of the two or more blades, thickness of the leading edge of the two or more blades, thickness of the trailing edge of the two or more blades (Col 2, line 61- Col 3, line 11: Propellers are matched the same color with a band around the hub based on pitch and the same).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 8, 15, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3 and 15, the claim recites “wherein the raised ridge is five raised ridges” and is considered allowable subject matter. Applicant recites that five ridges is based on acoustic and performance testing and could change. During the prior art search, the examiner only found 4 or less ridges in the same area and not a teaching for changing the amount of ridges due to routine optimization. Therefore, this is considered allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the insert is connected to the propeller hub using an adhesive” and is considered allowable subject matter. Powers US 9914515 discloses that the insert and hub are connected through a screw. Other prior art such as Patterson US 20070065282 discloses a screwing method to attach the insert to the hub. However, prior art was not found that an adhesive was used to mount the insert to the hub. Prior art such as McKinny JR US 20190127035 teaches away from using an adhesive to combine the hub and insert too.
Regarding claim 8 and 19, the claims recite “wherein each blade of the two or more blades comprises pristine graphene.” While graphene is taught Dakhil US 20220119132 to be the material of the propeller, pristine graphene is not taught by the prior art. Pristine graphene is similar to graphene but without defects, impurities or modifications. This is not taught by the prior art found in the search and is considered allowable subject matter.
Claim 20 is allowed.
Regarding claim 20, Powers discloses: A propeller (Fig 1-3) comprising:
a propeller hub (Fig 1: 20);
three blades (26) connected with the propeller hub (26 connected to 20); and
and an insert (2) in at least a portion of the propeller hub (2 is attached to 12),
wherein the insert has a tubular shape (2 is tubular) having inner (Inner face of 3) and outer face (Outer face of 3).
However, Powers does not teach the below limitations.
The claim recites “the insert having five helical raised ridges on the inner face” and is considered allowable subject matter. Applicant recites that five ridges is based on acoustic and performance testing and could change. During the prior art search, the examiner only found 4 or less ridges in the same area and not a teaching for changing the amount of ridges due to routine optimization. Therefore, this is considered allowable subject matter.
The claim recites “each of the blades comprising pristine graphene.” While graphene is taught Dakhil US 20220119132 to be the material of the propeller, pristine graphene is not taught by the prior art. Pristine graphene is similar to graphene but without defects, impurities or modifications. This is not taught by the prior art found in the search and is considered allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aguiar US 4212586 discloses a similar insert with ridges as present application. Ewald et al. US 6267634 discloses an insert that could read onto the ridges being on an inner face similar to applicants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J Marien whose telephone number is (469)295-9159. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am- 6:00 pm CST, Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Andrew J Marien/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745