DETAILED ACTION
Status
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application papers filed on 18 April 2024. Claim(s) 1-19 is/are presently pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4 March 2024 was/were filed prior to the mailing of a first action on the merits. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(A) At lines 2-4,
“wherein
the mold comprises a mold surface that contacts the material,
on the mold surface, a plurality of convex structures”
is suggested to be:
wherein the mold comprises:
a mold surface that contacts the material,
a plurality of convex structures on the mold surface…
Appropriate correction is required.
(B) At the last lines, the quotation marks around the ranges for radius of curvature (R), pitch (P), and height (H) are suggested to be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 2-18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(A) At lines 1-2, the spacing between “wherein” and the remainder of the claim is suggested to be removed (i.e. it is suggested that the term “wherein” and the remainder of the claim proceed on the same line of text). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(A) At line 2, the quotation marks around the range are suggested to be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(A) At the last lines, “the plurality of other convex structures becomes lower as at least one of the plurality of the convex structures is closer to the second area” is suggested to be: the plurality of other convex structures becomes lower as it is closer to the second area. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(A) At line 3, “a pitch” is suggested to be: the pitch. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 14 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(A) At line 3, “a pitch” is suggested to be: the pitch. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(A) At the last lines, the quotation marks around the ranges for pitch (P) and height (H) are suggested to be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(A) Regarding claim(s) 1:
(i) The claim(s) 1 recite(s): “in a case where…a first condition…is satisfied…a second condition…is satisfied…a third condition…is satisfied.” Therefore, the claim(s) is/are rendered indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (i.e. the phrase “in a case where” includes at least one other case with other conditions that are not disclosed by the claim), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
(ii) Furthermore, the phrase “in a case where” is/are rendered indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase is/are merely exemplary. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
It is suggested to remove the phrase “in a case where” and replace with language that positively recites the range conditions: (e.g. wherein, a radius of curvature…such that a first condition…is satisfied…a second condition…is satisfied, and a third condition…is satisfied)
(B) Claim(s) 2-18 is/are rejected due to inheriting the deficiency(ies) raised with regard to claim 1.
(C) Regarding Claim(s) 2:
Claim(s) 2 recite(s): the injection molded product. Thus, claim(s) 2 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the claims are directed to the mold (i.e. claim 1 is directed to a mold), or the product made by the mold. The most relevant portion of the specification, found by the Office, at claim 1 discloses a mold. However, claim 2 provides limitations directed to the product made by the mold. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting the mold to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(D) Regarding Claim(s) 3:
Claim(s) 3 recite(s) a fourth condition. Thus, claim(s) 3 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, claim 1 recites a first condition for the radius of curvature. The most relevant portion of the specification, found by the Office, at paragraph 103 of the specification discloses a first curvature condition and a, preferable, second curvature condition. However, claim 3 recites both a first condition and a fourth condition for the same radius of curvature. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting a radius of curvature within the range to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(E) Regarding Claim(s) 10:
Claim(s) 10 recite(s) the radius of curvature of the curved surface at a first part of the mold surface is different…at a second part of the mold surface. Thus, claim(s) 10 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the first and second part of the mold surface form a single curved surface or if the first and second part of the mold surface are separated so as to form two different curved surfaces. The most relevant portion of the specification, found by the Office, at paragraph 0043 of the specification discloses at least two convex structures at a second part of the mold surface are different from at least two convex structures at a first part of the mold surface. However, claim 10 recites a single convex structure curved surface. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting at least one convex structure to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(F) Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected due to inheriting the deficiency(ies) raised with regard to claim 10.
(G) Regarding Claim(s) 11:
(i) Claim(s) 11 recite(s) the radius of curvature of the curved surface at a first part of the mold surface is different…at a second part of the mold surface. Thus, claim(s) 11 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the first and second part of the mold surface form a single curved surface or if the first and second part of the mold surface are separated so as to form two different curved surfaces. The most relevant portion of the specification, found by the Office, at paragraph 0043 of the specification discloses at least two convex structures at a second part of the mold surface are different from at least two convex structures at a first part of the mold surface. However, claim 11 recites a single convex structure curved surface. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting at least one convex structure to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(ii) The claim(s) 11 recite(s): “in a case where a density…at the first part is higher...” Therefore, the claim(s) is/are rendered indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (i.e. the phrase “in a case where” includes at least one other case with other conditions that are not disclosed by the claim), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
(iii) Furthermore, the phrase “in a case where” is/are rendered indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase is/are merely exemplary. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
It is suggested to remove the phrase “in a case where” and replace with language that positively recites the range conditions: (e.g. and a density of the convex structures…)
(H) Regarding claim(s) 12:
(i) Claim(s) 12 recite(s) the radius of curvature of the curved surface at a first part of the mold surface is different…at a second part of the mold surface. Thus, claim(s) 12 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the first and second part of the mold surface form a single curved surface or if the first and second part of the mold surface are separated so as to form two different curved surfaces. The most relevant portion of the specification, found by the Office, at paragraph 0043 of the specification discloses at least two convex structures at a second part of the mold surface are different from at least two convex structures at a first part of the mold surface. However, claim 12 recites a single convex structure curved surface. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting at least one convex structure to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(ii) The claim(s) 12 recite(s): “in a case where a temperature of the first part is lower...” Therefore, the claim(s) is/are rendered indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (i.e. the phrase “in a case where” includes at least one other case with other conditions that are not disclosed by the claim), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
(iii) Furthermore, the phrase “in a case where” is/are rendered indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase is/are merely exemplary. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
It is suggested to remove the phrase “in a case where” and replace with language that positively recites the range conditions: (e.g. and a temperature of the first part…)
(I) Regarding Claim(s) 15:
Claim(s) 15 recite(s): the plurality of convex structures are arranged…with regularity. The term “regularity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, a plurality of convex structures will be considered relevant to the claimed limitation.
(J) Regarding Claim(s) 16:
(i) Claim(s) 16 recite(s) a plurality of fourth convex structures. Thus, claim(s) 16 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how many convex structures are arranged on the mold surface. The most relevant portion of the specification, found by the Office, at the figures discloses a plurality of convex structures. However, claim 16 recites fourth convex structures without indicating first, second, or third convex structures. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting a plurality of convex structures to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(ii) Claim 16 recites the limitation "the structure surface" in 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the claim is unclear as to whether or not applicant(s) is/are further limiting a claim limitation or introducing a new claim limitation.
(iii) Claim(s) 16 recite(s): the injection molded product. Thus, claim(s) 16 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the claims are directed to the mold (i.e. claim 1 is directed to a mold), or the product made by the mold. The most relevant portion of the specification, found by the Office, at claim 1 discloses a mold. However, claim 16 provides limitations directed to the product made by the mold. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting the mold to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(K) Regarding Claim(s) 17:
Claim(s) 17 recite(s): the blade. Thus, claim(s) 17 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the claims are directed to the mold (i.e. claim 1 is directed to a mold), or the product made by the mold. The most relevant portion of the specification, found by the Office, at claim 1 discloses a mold. However, claim 17 provides limitations directed to the product made by the mold. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting the mold to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(L) Regarding Claim(s) 18:
Claim(s) 18 recite(s): the blade. Thus, claim(s) 18 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the claims are directed to the mold (i.e. claim 1 is directed to a mold), or the product made by the mold. The most relevant portion of the specification, found by the Office, at claim 1 discloses a mold. However, claim 18 provides limitations directed to the product made by the mold. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting the mold to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(M) Regarding claim(s) 19:
(i) The claim(s) 19 recite(s): “in a case where…a first condition…is satisfied…a second condition…is satisfied.” Therefore, the claim(s) is/are rendered indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (i.e. the phrase “in a case where” includes at least one other case with other conditions that are not disclosed by the claim), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
(ii) Furthermore, the phrase “in a case where” is/are rendered indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase is/are merely exemplary. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
It is suggested to remove the phrase “in a case where” and replace with language that positively recites the range conditions: (e.g. wherein a pitch of the plurality of convex structures is P…, such that at least one of a first condition…)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 4, 7-12 and 16-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
(A) Regarding Claim 2:
Specifically, claim 2 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 because claim 2 contains no additional structure. Specifically, claim 2 recites limitations directed to the injection molded product while claim 1 recites a mold. Thus, claim 2 fails to set forth any additional limitations to the subject matter found in claim 1. Please note, the phrase “an injection molded product having a blade that is placed in fluid” is within the preamble of the claim and is considered a recitation of intended use.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
(B) Regarding Claim 4:
Specifically, claim 4 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 because claim 4 contains no additional structure. Specifically, claim 4 recites limitations directed to the injection molded product while claim 1 recites a mold. Thus, claim 4 fails to set forth any additional limitations to the subject matter found in claim 1. Please note, the phrase “an injection molded product having a blade that is placed in fluid” is within the preamble of the claim and is considered a recitation of intended use.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
(C) Regarding Claim 7:
Specifically, claim 7 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 because claim 7 contains no additional structure. Specifically, claim 1 recites the limitations of claim 7 at lines 4-6 (i.e. “on a mold surface, a plurality of convex structures…are formed to be arranged along a third direction…). Thus, claim 7 fails to set forth any additional limitations to the subject matter found in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
(D) Claims 8-12 are rejected due to dependence from claim 7.
(E) Regarding Claim 16:
Specifically, claim 16 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 because claim 16 contains no additional structure. Specifically, claim 16 recites limitations directed to the injection molded product while claim 1 recites a mold. Thus, claim 16 fails to set forth any additional limitations to the subject matter found in claim 1. Please note, the phrase “an injection molded product having a blade that is placed in fluid” is within the preamble of the claim and is considered a recitation of intended use.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
(F) Regarding Claim 17:
Specifically, claim 17 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 because claim 17 contains no additional structure. Specifically, claim 17 recites limitations directed to the blade while claim 1 recites a mold. Thus, claim 17 fails to set forth any additional limitations to the subject matter found in claim 1. Please note, the phrase “an injection molded product having a blade that is placed in fluid” is within the preamble of the claim and is considered a recitation of intended use.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
(G) Regarding Claim 18:
Specifically, claim 18 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 because claim 18 contains no additional structure. Specifically, claim 18 recites limitations directed to the blade while claim 1 recites a mold. Thus, claim 18 fails to set forth any additional limitations to the subject matter found in claim 1. Please note, the phrase “an injection molded product having a blade that is placed in fluid” is within the preamble of the claim and is considered a recitation of intended use.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,612,514 to Pricone et al. (hereinafter “PRICONE”).
(A) Regarding Claim 1:
PRICONE discloses:
A mold (Fig. 4) that is used to mold, by an injection molding using a meltable material, an injection molded product having a blade that is placed in fluid, wherein the mold comprises
a mold surface (65 and/or 67) that contacts the material,
on the mold surface, a plurality of convex structures (Fig. 2), each of which extends along a first direction and each of which protrudes toward a second direction that intersects with the first direction, are formed to be arranged along a third direction that intersects with the first direction and the second direction (e.g. a width direction, a height direction, and a length direction),
at least one of a corner part of a first convex structure among the plurality of convex structures and a boundary part between the first convex structure and a second convex structure, which are adjacent to each other along the third direction, among the plurality of convex structures includes a curved surface (col. 3, ll. 17-19: corner radius of curvature),
in a case where a radius of curvature of the curved surface included in at least one of the corner part and the boundary part is R, a pitch of the plurality of convex structures is P, and a height from the boundary part of the plurality of convex structures protruding toward the second direction is H, a first condition 1 micrometer < R < 4 micrometers is satisfied (col. 3, ll. 17-19: e.g. less than 25 microns), and at least one of a second condition 5 micrometers < P < 200 micrometers (col. 3, ll. 33-35: e.g. 50 to 90 microns) and a third condition 2.5 micrometers < H < 100 micrometers is satisfied (col. 1, ll. 25-27: e.g. maximum of 200 microns).
(B) Regarding Claim 2:
PRICONE further discloses:
The injection molded product (Fig. 1) includes a riblet structure surface molded by the plurality of convex structures (col. 1, ln. 30), a resistance relative to the fluid is reducible by the riblet structure surface (i.e. the claimed structure is disclosed by PRICONE and so the claimed result is necessarily also disclosed).
(C) Regarding Claim 3:
PRICONE further discloses:
A fourth condition 2 micrometers < R < 3 micrometers is satisfied (col. 3, ll. 17-19: e.g. less than 25 microns).
(D) Regarding Claim 4:
PRICONE further discloses:
The injection molded product is a member that is used in a fan, an impeller, a propeller, a turbine, or a pump (Fig. 1, i.e. turbine blade).
(E) Regarding Claim 5:
PRICONE further discloses:
The first convex structure includes a pair of first side surfaces that face opposite directions, the corner part connects the pair of first side surfaces through edge parts of the pair of first side surfaces (Fig. 2).
(F) Regarding Claim 6:
PRICONE further discloses:
The first convex structure includes a second side surface that faces the second convex structure, the second convex structure includes a third side surface that faces the first convex structure, the boundary part connects the second side surface and the third side surface through an edge part of the second side surface and an edge part of the third side surface (Fig. 2).
(G) Regarding Claim 7:
PRICONE further discloses:
The plurality of convex structures are formed to be arranged along the mold surface (Fig. 4, col. 1, lines 25-27).
(H) Regarding Claim 15:
PRICONE further discloses:
The plurality of convex structures are arranged along the third direction with regularity (col. 3, ll. 43-44).
(I) Regarding Claim 16:
PRICONE further discloses:
The plurality of convex structures (Fig. 2) are a plurality of fourth convex structures,
a riblet structure (i.e. after the imprint of the convex structures shown in Fig. 2), in which a plurality of fifth convex structures each of which extends along a fifth direction and each of which protrudes from the structure surface (of the blade, Fig. 1) are formed to be arranged along a six direction that is along the structure surface and that intersects with the fifth direction, is formed on a structure surface that is a surface of the injection molded product,
a plurality of grooves each of which extends along the first direction are formed between the plurality of fourth convex structures to be arranged along the third direction (imprint of the convex structures shown in Fig. 2),
the plurality of fifth convex structures are formed by the molten material flowing into the plurality of grooves, respectively (col. 4, lines 64-66).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PRICONE, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,386,955 to Savill (hereinafter “SAVILL”).
(A) Regarding Claim 8:
PRICONE teaches:
A first area in which the plurality of convex structures are formed (col. 3, ll. 50-55);
a second area in which the plurality of convex structures are not formed (col. 3, ll. 50-55), and
a third area which is located between the first area and the second area along the first direction (col. 3, ll. 50-55).
However, the difference(s) between PRICONE and the claimed invention is that PRICONE does not explicitly teach the third area has a plurality of other convex structures respectively connected to the plurality of convex structures, the plurality of other convex structures extend from the first area toward the second area, and a height of at least one of the plurality of other convex structures becomes lower closer to the second area.
SAVILL teaches:
A first area in which the plurality of convex structures are formed (“r,” Fig. 16a);
a second area in which the plurality of convex structures are not formed (i.e. to the left of convex structures “r,” Fig. 16a), and
a third area which is located between the first area and the second area along the first direction, in which a plurality of other convex structures (i.e. the structure that is formed at the faired location “f,” which is designated by outline, Fig. 16a) respectively connected to the plurality of convex structures, the plurality of other convex structures extend from the first area toward the second area, and a height of at least one of the plurality of other convex structures becomes lower closer to the second area (i.e the height of the other convex structures gradually decreases from the height of the convex portion “f” to the height of the second area as shown by the faired outline “f” of Fig. 16a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the riblet array of PRICONE to have a third area with decreasing height into the non-riblet area by fairing the edges of the riblet, as taught by SAVILL, in order to avoid drag and thereby achieve the predictable result of improving performance (SAVILL col. 15, ll. 3-6).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PRICONE, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,188,287 to Krautschick et al. (hereinafter “KRAUTSCHICK”).
(A) Regarding Claim 9:
PRICONE teaches:
A first area in which the plurality of convex structures are formed (col. 3, ll. 50-55);
a fourth area in which the plurality of convex structures are not formed (col. 3, ll. 50-55);
a fifth area which is located between the first area and the fourth area along the third direction (col. 3, ll. 50-55).
However, the difference(s) between PRICONE and the claimed invention is that PRICONE does not explicitly teach an inclination angle between a surface of the fifth area and an axis along the second direction is larger than an inclination angle between side surfaces of the plurality of convex structures and an axis along the second direction.
KRAUTSCHICK teaches:
A first area in which the plurality of convex structures are formed (Fig. 4c);
a fourth area in which the plurality of convex structures are not formed (Fig. 4c);
a fifth area which is located between the first area and the fourth area along the third direction (Fig. 4c),
an inclination angle (see “larger inclination angle” in annotated Fig. 4c below) between a surface of the fifth area and an axis along the second direction is larger than an inclination angle (see “smaller inclination angle” below in annotated Fig. 4c below) between side surfaces of the plurality of convex structures and an axis along the second direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the riblet array of PRICONE to have a third area with stepped height such that the inclination angle between a surface of the fifth area and an axis along the second direction is larger than an inclination angle between side surfaces of the plurality of convex structures and an axis along the second direction, as taught by KRAUTSCHICK, in order to form the riblet array with different heights and thereby achieve the predictable result of increase suppression of turbulence close to the surface (KRAUTSCHICK col. 5, ll. 3-7).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PRICONE, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,857,597 to Anjuri et al. (hereinafter “ANJURI”).
(A) Regarding Claim 10:
PRICONE teaches:
A radius of curvature of the curved surface (col. 3, ll. 17-19: corner radius of curvature) at a first part of the mold surface and a second part of the mold surface different from the first part (col. 3, ll. 50-55).
However, the difference(s) between PRICONE and the claimed invention is that PRICONE does not explicitly teach the radius of curvature at the first part is different from the radius of curvature at the second part.
ANJURI teaches:
An array of boundary layer fins on the surface of the blade, wherein the radius of curvature of a fin at the first part is different from the radius of curvature of another fin at the second part (col. 3, ll. 38-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the riblet array of PRICONE to vary the radius of curvature of the curved surface at a first and second part, as taught by ANJURI, in order to tailor the shape of the curved surface to the local boundary layer conditions (ANJURI, col. 2, ll. 58-63) and achieve the predictable result of reduced drag (ANJURI col. 1, ll. 57-60).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified PRICONE, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of an engineering expedient as evidenced by United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0146217 to Kray et al. (hereinafter “KRAY”).
(A) Regarding Claim 11:
Modified PRICONE teaches:
A radius of curvature of the curved surface (col. 3, ll. 17-19: corner radius of curvature) at a first part of the mold surface and a second part of the mold surface different from the first part (col. 3, ll. 50-55), wherein the radius of curvature at the first part is different from a radius of curvature at the second part (ANJURI col. 3, ll. 38-40).
However, the difference(s) between modified PRICONE and the claimed invention is that modified PRICONE does not explicitly teach the radius of curvature of the curved surface at the first part is larger than the radius of curvature at the second part in a case where a density of the convex structures formed at the first part is higher than a density of the convex structures formed at the second part.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention there had been a recognized problem, or need in the art to solve the problem, of tailoring the riblet pattern to the local operating conditions (ANJURI, col. 2, ll. 58-63). As evidenced by KRAY, density of the riblet pattern is determined by a combination of local operating characteristics and the processes for forming the pattern such that density may vary from one part to another (KRAY paras. 0020-0021). Thus, the cited art provides a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized problem, or need, since the riblets at the first part of modified PRICONE must have either a higher or lower radius of curvature than at the second part (ANJURI col. 3, ll. 38-40) and be arranged with a density that is either the same as, higher than, or lower than the second part. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a mold surface having a radius of curvature of the curved surface at the first part being larger than at the second part in a case where the density of the riblets at the first part is higher than at the second in order to tailor the riblet pattern to the local operating conditions (ANJURI, col. 2, ll. 58-63) and, thereby achieve the predictable result of a riblet array that is accurately formed (KRAY para. 0021) to reduce drag (ANJURI col. 1, ll. 57-60 and KRAY para. 0002).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified PRICONE, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of an engineering expedient as evidenced by United States Patent No. 9,271,395 to Hongo et al. (hereinafter “HONGO”).
(A) Regarding Claim 12:
Modified PRICONE teaches:
A radius of curvature of the curved surface (col. 3, ll. 17-19: corner radius of curvature) at a first part of the mold surface and a second part of the mold surface different from the first part (col. 3, ll. 50-55), wherein the radius of curvature at the first part is different from a radius of curvature at the second part (ANJURI col. 3, ll. 38-40).
However, the difference(s) between modified PRICONE and the claimed invention is that modified PRICONE does not explicitly teach the radius of curvature of the curved surface at the first part is larger than the radius of curvature at the second part in a case where a temperature of the first part is lower than a temperature of the second part in a period during which the injection molding is performed.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention there had been a recognized problem, or need in the art to solve the problem, of tailoring the riblet pattern to the local operating conditions (ANJURI, col. 2, ll. 58-63). As evidenced by HONGO, during injection molding, fluidity decreases at curved locations due to a temperature difference (HONGO col. 1, ll. 32-36), wherein a change to the radius of curvature results in reduced temperature difference and higher fluidity (HONG col. 5, ll. 19-24). Thus, the cited art provides a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized problem, or need, since the riblets at the first part of modified PRICONE must have either a higher or lower radius of curvature than at the second part (ANJURI col. 3, ll. 38-40) and be at a temperature of either the same, lower than or higher than the second part. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a mold surface having a radius of curvature of the curved surface at the first part being larger than at the second part in a case where the temperature of the first part is lower than a temperature of the second part in a period during which the injection molding is performed in order to tailor the riblet pattern to the local operating conditions (ANJURI, col. 2, ll. 58-63) and, thereby achieve the predictable result of a riblet array that is accurately formed (HONG col. 5, ll. 19-24) to reduce drag (ANJURI col. 1, ll. 57-60).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified PRICONE, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent No. 4,706,910 to Walsh et al. (hereinafter “WALSH”).
(A) Regarding Claim 13:
PRICONE teaches:
A height of at least one of the plurality of convex structures and a pitch of the plurality of convex structures (Fig. 2)
However, the difference(s) between PRICONE and the claimed invention is that PRICONE does not explicitly teach the height is equal to or smaller than the pitch.
WALSH teaches:
A height (22, Fig. 2) of at least one of the plurality of convex structures (10) is equal to the pitch (22, col. 4, ll. 19-23), wherein the riblet structures are dimensioned based on boundary layer flow conditions (e.g. vortices) so that the riblet structure results in reduced drag (col. 4, ll. 26-36).
Since applicant has not disclosed any unexpected results to suggest that having the height equal to or smaller than the pitch provides an advantage, solves a stated problem, or is for a particular purpose above the fact that the riblet structure is appropriately dimensioned to address the boundary layer conditions that lead to drag, and it appears that the convex riblet structures of PRICONE would perform equally well at reducing drag with the dimensions of height and pitch being approximately equal, as taught by WALSH, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the height of the convex structures equal to or smaller than a pitch, as claimed, for the purpose of reducing drag.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified PRICONE, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent No. 8,444,092 to Li et al. (hereinafter “LI”).
(A) Regarding Claim 14:
PRICONE teaches:
A height of at least one of the plurality of convex structures and a pitch of the plurality of convex structures (Fig. 2)
However, the difference(s) between PRICONE and the claimed invention is that PRICONE does not explicitly teach the height is equal to or smaller than a half of the pitch.
LI teaches:
A height of at least one of the plurality of convex structures (Figs. 2A-D and 4A-H) is equal to a half of a pitch (Fig. 3 shows a range from minimum height of 25 microns and spacing, i.e. pitch, at 50 microns to maximum height of 1000 microns and spacing at 2000 microns; and furthermore, col. 9, ll. 65-67 – col. 10, l. 1 indicates a height of 250 microns and a spacing of 500 microns), wherein the riblet structures are dimensioned based on boundary layer flow conditions so that the riblet structure results in reduced drag (col. 1, ll. 33-36, 40-42).
Since applicant has not disclosed any unexpected results to suggest that having the height equal to or smaller than a half the pitch provides an advantage, solves a stated problem, or is for a particular purpose above the fact that the riblet structure is appropriately dimensioned to address the boundary layer conditions that lead to drag, and it appears that the convex riblet structures of PRICONE would perform equally well at reducing drag with the dimension of height being half the pitch, as taught by LI, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the height of the convex structures equal to or smaller than a half a pitch, as claimed, for the purpose of reducing drag.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified PRICONE, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent No. 2018/0319044 to Lanfant et al. (hereinafter “LANFANT”).
(A) Regarding Claim 17:
PRICONE teaches:
The plurality of convex structures (Fig. 2) and the blade is removed from the mold along a direction.
However, the difference(s) between PRICONE and the claimed invention is that PRICONE does not explicitly teach the direction the blade is removed is a direction that is along the directions which the plurality of convex structures extend.
LANFANT teaches:
A blade, with riblets formed on the surface, is removed from a mold film surface by peeling in a direction that is parallel (i.e. a globally longitudinal direction) or perpendicular (i.e. a globally transverse direction) to the principle orientation of the ribs/grooves (paras. 0022-0023, 0060-0061), thereby preventing damage to the riblets (para.0062).
Since applicant has not disclosed any unexpected results to suggest that having the blade removed from the mold surface in a direction along directions of the convex structures provides an advantage, solves a stated problem, or is for a particular purpose above the fact that the riblet structure integrity depends on the direction of removal, and it appears that the mold of PRICONE would perform equally well by removal from the blade based on directions of the convex structures, as taught by LI, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to remove the blade from the mold in a direction along the directions of the convex structures, as claimed, for the purpose of reducing damage to the riblet structures.
(B) Regarding Claim 18:
PRICONE teaches:
The plurality of convex structures (Fig. 2) and the blade is removed from the mold along a direction.
However, the difference(s) between PRICONE and the claimed invention is that PRICONE does not explicitly teach the direction the blade is removed is a direction that is an average of directions along which the plurality of convex structures extend.
LANFANT teaches:
A blade, with riblets formed on the surface, is removed from a mold film surface by peeling in a direction that is parallel (i.e. a globally longitudinal direction) or perpendicular (i.e. a globally transverse direction) to the principle orientation of the ribs/grooves (paras. 0022-0023, 0060-0061), thereby preventing damage to the riblets (para.0062).
Since applicant has not disclosed any unexpected results to suggest that having the blade removed from the mold surface in a direction along directions of the convex structures provides an advantage, solves a stated problem, or is for a particular purpose above the fact that the riblet structure integrity depends on the direction of removal, and it appears that the mold of PRICONE would perform equally well by removal from the blade based on directions of the convex structures, as taught by LI, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to remove the blade from the mold in a direction along an average of directions of the convex structures, as claimed, for the purpose of reducing damage to the riblet structures.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PRICONE in view of SAVILL.
(A) Regarding Claim 9:
PRICONE teaches:
A blade member (Fig. 1), wherein
a plurality of convex structures (i.e. due to the imprint of convex structures from the mold surface, Fig. 2), each of which extends along a first direction and each of which protrudes toward a second direction that intersects with the first direction, are formed to be arranged along a third direction that intersects with the first direction and the second direction (e.g. a width direction, a height direction, and a length direction),
the blade member comprises:
a first area in which the plurality of convex structures are formed (col. 3, ll. 50-55);
a second area in which the plurality of convex structures are not formed (col. 3, ll. 50-55); and
a third area which is located between the first area and the second area along the first direction (col. 3, ll. 50-55), and
in a case where a pitch of the plurality of convex structures is P, and a height of the plurality of convex structures protruding toward the second direction is H, at least one of a first condition 5 micrometers < P < 200 micrometers (col. 3, ll. 33-35: e.g. 50 to 90 microns) and a second condition 2.5 micrometers < H < 100 micrometers is satisfied (col. 1, ll. 25-27: e.g. maximum of 200 microns).
However, the difference(s) between PRICONE and the claimed invention is that PRICONE does not explicitly teach the third area has a plurality of other convex structures respectively connected to the plurality of convex structures, the plurality of other convex structures extend from the first a