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 .
Status
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment/request for reconsideration dated 2 September 2025 (hereinafter “Reply”).
Claim(s) 7, 20-22 are canceled.
Claim(s) 23-26 are new.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-19, 23-26 is/are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 25 August 2025 was/were filed after the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered.
Response to Amendment
The objection(s) to claim(s) is/are withdrawn after consideration of the submitted amendment(s).
The rejection of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is/are withdrawn after consideration of the submitted amendment(s).
The rejection of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) is/are withdrawn after consideration of the submitted amendment(s).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1-7, 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pricone, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At page 10, last paragraph of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to disclose the following feature(s) of claim 1: an upper surface part and a corner part, which includes a curved surface and is formed on an end of the upper surface part along the third direction. Specifically, Pricone discloses the riblets have angular acute features with an edge radius and/or corner radius of curvature less than 25 microns.
It appears the argument is directed toward the present application embodiment of Figs. 11A-B, which has a corner part (713) comprising a planer surface (7131) connected to the convex structure sides by respectively curved surfaces (7132 and 7133). However, the claims only recite a curved surface is formed on an end of the upper surface part along the third direction. Thus, this argument is respectively considered not persuasive because Pricone remains to disclose the claimed features. Specifically, Pricone discloses an embodiment comprising the convex structures with an edge radius and a corner radius (see col. 3, ll. 16-18: edge radius and/or corner radius). With respect to the present claim language, Pricone discloses an upper surface, i.e. the top-most surface of the convex structure defined by the edge radius, and a corner part that includes a curved surface, i.e. the surfaces of the convex structure between the top-most surface and the side surfaces defined by the corner radius.
The rejection of claim(s) 8-14, 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained due to dependence from claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pricone in view of Savill, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At pages 11-12, bridging paragraph of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to teach or suggest the following feature(s) of claim 19: a height of at least one of the plurality of other convex structures becomes lower as the at least one other convex structure becomes closer to the second area. Specifically, Savill teaches the riblet height increases in a series of steps and the leading edge of the riblets can be faired, but does not disclose a change in height in an area comparable to the recited “third area.”
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument not persuasive because the embodiment of Savill is interpreted to have a first area, i.e. an area having riblets “r” of equivalent height, a second area, i.e. an area to the left of riblets “r” having none, and a third area, i.e. an area having faired riblets “f”). Thus, the riblets “f”, i.e. the claimed “other convex structure,” extend from the first area, i.e. the area with riblets “r,” and have a height that becomes lower closer to the second area, i.e. area without riblets, due to being faired into the wall surface as shown by the dashed lines. Therefore, Savill remains to teach the claimed limitations.
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) 1-6, 8-18, 23-26 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(A) Regarding Claim(s) 1:
Claim(s) 1 recite(s): an upper surface part and a corner part. The most relevant portion(s) of the specification and/or drawings, found by the Office, at paragraph 0088 discloses the corner part includes a planar surface, a curved surface that connects the planar surface and the side surface 711, and a curved surface that connects the planar surface and the side surface 712. Thus, claim(s) 1 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the claim is reciting an upper surface separate from the corner part or the upper surface is part of the corner part. 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 an upper surface and/or corner part to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(B) Claim(s) 2-6, 8-18 is/are rejected due to inheriting the deficiency(ies) raised with regard to claim 1.
(C) Regarding Claim 23:
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the first position" in line(s) 4. 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.
(D) Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected due to inheriting the deficiency(ies) raised with regard to claim 23.
(E) Regarding Claim 24:
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the first position" in line(s) 3. 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.
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.
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) for molding, by 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 meltable material,
a plurality of convex structures (Fig. 2) on the mold surface, each of which extends along a first direction and protrudes toward a second direction that intersects with the first direction, and which are 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 plurality of convex structures each include an upper surface part and a corner part, which includes a curved surface and is formed on an end of the upper surface part along the third direction (col. 3, ll. 17-19: edge radius and corner radius of curvature);
a boundary between the first convex structure and a second convex structure, the second convex structure being adjacent to the first convex structure along the third direction, is a boundary part (Figs. 1-2),
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, 1 micrometer < R < 4 micrometers is satisfied (col. 3, ll. 17-19: e.g. less than 25 microns), and at least one of a (i) 5 micrometers < P < 200 micrometers (col. 3, ll. 33-35: e.g. 50 to 90 microns) and (ii) 2.5 micrometers < H < 100 micrometers is satisfied (col. 1, ll. 25-27: e.g. maximum of 200 microns).
NOTE ON PRIOR ART INTERPRETATION:
PRICONE discloses an embodiment comprising the convex structures with an edge radius and a corner radius (see col. 3, ll. 16-18: edge radius and/or corner radius). With respect to the present claim language, PRICONE discloses an upper surface, i.e. the top-most surface of the convex structure defined by the edge radius, and a corner part that includes a curved surface, i.e. the surfaces of the convex structure between the top-most surface and the side surfaces defined by the corner radius.
(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 upper surface part of 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 upper surface part of the first convex structure includes a second side surface that faces the second convex structure, the upper surface part of 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 15:
PRICONE further discloses:
The plurality of convex structures are arranged along the third direction at an equal pitch or based on at least one rule (col. 3, ll. 43-44).
(H) 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.
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 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PRICONE, as applied to claim 1 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 (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).
(B) Regarding Claim 23:
PRICONE teaches:
A radius of curvature of the curved surface of the corner part (col. 3, ll. 17-19: corner radius of curvature) at a first convex structure and a second convex structure, which is formed at a second position (4, Fig. 1) that is different from the first position (8, Fig. 1) (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 position is different from the radius of curvature at the second position.
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 position, 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).
(C) Regarding Claim 24:
PRICONE teaches:
A plurality of the first convex structures are formed in a fourth area (8, Fig. 1) including the first position, and a plurality of second convex structures are formed in a fifth area including the second position (4, Fig. 1) (col. 3, ll. 50-55).
NOTE ON PRIOR ART INTERPRETATION:
The fourth area is included in the upper portion of the blade (designated 8) and the fifth area is included in the lower portion of the blade ( designated 4), wherein the convex structures may be in any position within each area such that there are multiple “areas” on the blade, e.g. the trailing edge, leading edge, pressure side, suction side.
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 principal 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 principal 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 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) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified PRICONE, as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of an engineering expedient as evidenced by KRAY.
(A) Regarding Claims 25-26:
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 density of the first convex structures is different than a density of the second convex structures and the radius of curvature of the curved surface at the first part is larger than the radius of curvature 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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA M MCCAFFREY whose telephone number is (571)272-3438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (excluding Wednesday) 10AM - 2 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 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 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.
KAYLA M. MCCAFFREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/Kayla McCaffrey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights