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 16 is objected to because claim 16 is missing a punctuation at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claims 1, 5 and 10 recite “wherein the tip of the at least one blade is substantially coplanar with a plane of rotation”. However, the specification is silent about the tip of the blade being coplanar with the plane of rotation.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 8 recites wherein the tip of at least one propeller blade is oval-shaped. However, figure 3 only shows a tip shaped in a parabola and not an oval-shape. Therefore, an oval-shaped tip must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 17 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, claim 1 requires wherein the tip of the at least one blade is substantially coplanar with a plane of rotation of the at least one blade. A tip perfectly coplanar with the plane of rotation would have a beta angle of zero. However, figure 8B of the application shows that the beta angle at the tip (r/R=1.0) is not zero but a value near 5 degrees. There is no teaching to ascertain whether that 5 degrees is the tolerance limit or the tolerance can be greater for the claimed invention.
Similarly, the term “approximately” in claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 11 is also a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seeley (U.S. Patent No. 10,415,581).
As per claim 1, Seeley discloses a low-noise propeller, comprising: at least one blade attached to a hub (as shown; figure 1), wherein the at least one blade has a blade length defined from the center of the low-noise propeller (100) to a tip of the at least one blade (196); wherein the lift coefficient of the at least one blade decreases beyond approximately 40% of the blade length of the at least one blade (lift coefficient CL decreases from reference number 821 (at 35% of the blade length); table 2); and wherein the tip of the at least one blade is substantially coplanar with a plane of rotation of the at least one blade (the blade angle β at the tip 860 is only 6.7 degrees, i.e., substantially coplanar with the plane of rotation; table 2).
As per claim 2, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the lift coefficient decreases with an increasingly negative slope beyond 40% of the blade length until an inflection point along the blade length, at which point the lift coefficient decreases with a decreasingly negative slope (the lift coefficient is unchanged from reference number 831 (52% of the span) to reference number 846 (76% of the span), i.e., there is an inflection point between reference numbers 831 and 846; table 2).
As per claim 3, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the tip of the at least one blade has substantially zero lift coefficient (lift coefficient CL is -0.4, i.e., substantially zero; table 2).
As per claim 4, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the low-noise propeller operates at a thrust of at least 2.5 pounds force (delivering 509 pounds thrust; column 10, line 54-58).
As per claim 6, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 1, and further discloses the lift coefficient continually reduces between approximately 40% of the blade length and a point along the at least one blade at least 95% of the length of the at least one blade (lift coefficient continually decreases from 1.6 at reference number 821 (35% of the blade length) to -0.4 at reference number 860 at the tip; table 2).
As per claim 7, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 1, and further discloses wherein for a length from a base of the at least one blade to approximately 40% of the blade length, the at least one blade had a substantially constant lift coefficient (from reference numbers 821-847 (43% of the blade length), the lift coefficient only varies from 1.6 to 1.42, i.e., substantially constant; table 2).
As per claim 8, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the tip of at least one propeller blade is oval-shaped (as shown in reference number 860; figure 8).
As per claim 9, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the lift coefficient of the at least one blade decreases beyond approximately 50% of the blade length of the at least one blade (from reference numbers 831 (at about 52% of the blade length) to 860 (at the tip); table 2).
As per claim 10, Seeley discloses a low-noise propeller, comprising: at least one blade attached to a hub, wherein the at least one blade has a blade length defined from the center of the low-noise propeller to a tip of the at least one blade (as shown; figure 1); wherein the lift coefficient decreases at a hub break location along the blade length of the at least one blade (lift coefficient decreases between reference number 21 and 29; table 2); wherein the between approximately 95% of the blade length and the tip of the at least one blade has a substantially constant lift coefficient (for thrust distribution profile 240, the relative thrust at about 95% of the blade length and tip is substantially constant, i.e., having a substantially constant lift coefficient; figure 2); and wherein the tip of the at least one blade is substantially coplanar with a plane of rotation of the at least one blade (the blade angle β at the tip 860 is only 6.7 degrees, i.e., substantially coplanar with the plane of rotation; table 2).
As per claim 11, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the hub break location along the blade length where the lift coefficient begins decreasing is equal to or greater than approximately 40% of the blade length (the decrease in the lift coefficient occurs between 21 inches (r/R=0.35 or if rounded up, r/R=0.4) and 29 inches (r/R=0.48); table 2).
As per claim 12, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the lift coefficient decreases with an increasingly negative slope beyond the hub break location until an inflection point along the blade length, at which point the lift coefficient decreases with a decreasingly negative slope (the lift coefficient is unchanged from reference number 831 (52% of the span) to reference number 846 (76% of the span), i.e., there is an inflection point between reference numbers 831 and 846; table 2).
As per claim 13, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the tip of the at least one blade has substantially zero lift coefficient (lift coefficient CL is -0.4, i.e., substantially zero; table 2).
As per claim 14, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the tip of the at least one propeller blade is oval-shaped (as shown in reference number 860; figure 8).
As per claim 15, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the low-noise propeller operates at a thrust of at least 2.5 pounds force (delivering 509 pounds thrust; column 10, line 54-58).
As per claim 16, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 10, and further discloses wherein for a length from a base of the at least one blade to the hub break location, the at least one blade had a substantially constant lift coefficient (from reference numbers 821-847 (43% of the blade length), the lift coefficient only varies from 1.6 to 1.42, i.e., substantially constant; table 2).
As per claim 17, Seeley discloses a low-noise propeller, comprising: at least one blade attached to a hub, wherein the at least one blade has a blade length defined from the center of the low-noise propeller to a tip of the at least one blade (as shown; figure 1); wherein the lift coefficient of the at least one blade decreases beyond approximately 40% of the blade length of the at least one blade (lift coefficient CL decreases from reference number 821 (at 35% of the blade length); table 2); and wherein the between approximately 95% of the blade length and the tip of the at least one blade has a substantially constant lift coefficient (for thrust distribution profile 240, the relative thrust at about 95% of the blade length and tip is substantially constant, i.e., having a substantially constant lift coefficient; figure 2).
As per claim 18, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the lift coefficient decreases with an increasingly negative slope beyond 40% of the blade length (as shown; table 2).
As per claim 19, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the tip of the at least one blade has substantially zero lift coefficient (lift coefficient CL is -0.4, i.e., substantially zero; table 2).
As per claim 20, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the tip of the at least one propeller blade is oval-shaped (as shown in reference number 860; figure 8).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeley.
As per claim 5, Seeley discloses the low-noise propeller of claim 1. Seeley does not explicitly teach wherein a section at the tip of the at least one blade that is substantially coplanar with the plane of rotation has a length at least 5% of the blade length. However, Seeley teaches an exemplary thrust distribution where the thrust at about 5% of blade length from the tip is negative (shown in line 240, figure 2). Seeley also teaches a key element in propeller design is the selection of the blade angle for each span-wise location along the blade driven by the requirement for local thrust (column 12, lines 27-32) and further teaches the negative thrust can be achieved by using smaller blade angle in the region outboard of 0.93R blade station near the tip (column 14, line 38-41). The smaller the blade angle β gets means substantially coplanar with the plane of rotation. Therefore, in order to obtain the thrust profile having negative thrust at the tip region such as the thrust distribution shown in line 240 of figure 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Seeley’s blade angle profile at the tip at about 5% of the blade length to have a very small blade angle such as near-zero blade angle (substantially coplanar with the plane of rotation), because as Seeley teaches, the negative thrust can be achieved by using smaller blade angle in the tip region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bowers (U.S. Patent No. 10,414,485) teaches a propeller having a reduced load in the tip area by having low twist angle.
Gray (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2025/0223025) teaches a propeller having near zero coefficient of lift at the tip region.
Ansell (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0242002) teaches a wing design having a low angle of attack near the tip region.
Ali (U.S. Patent No. 10,315,757) teaches a propeller blade beta twist angle profile having a low beta angle near the tip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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.
/SANG K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745