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 .
Examiner’s note: Applicant amended claim 1 and has not properly identified it as having been amended as required. See for example the addition in line 12 of “being swept backward”. Examiner is not allotted examination time to error-check Applicant’s entire claim set for amendments which Applicant has improperly amended/identified per requirements. If any such amendments are subsequently identified to result in a new rejection, the new rejection will not result in a non-final office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior drawing objections, claim objections, 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior objections/rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 3 of page 7 through paragraph 1 of page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive insofar as the amendments do overcome the previously formulated claim 1 rejection of the previous office action. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for amended claim 1, as identified below; please see the action below for details of new rejections.
Applicant includes arguments particularly directed towards that:
“as evidenced by the Examiner's own annotated Figure 1a on page 9 of the Office Action, where Hirsch's blade segment labeled as "first wing-shaped body" has its leading and trailing edges at an angle relative to the keying axis, and not parallel.” (para 5 of page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks).
This is not persuasive because Annotated Fig 1a clearly shows that the first wing-shaped body has its first leading edge and first trailing edge each parallel to the keying axis; Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with what is shown in Annotated Fig 1a.
“This limitation defines a specific modular construction where the blade is assembled from three distinct and separate bodies that are rigidly connected” (para 2 of page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks) and “"attached one another in succession" clearly defines a blade that is a modular assembly” (para 4 of page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks).
This is not persuasive because the limitation as written does not identify modular construction, and neither does the specification at for example paragraphs 0056 and 0058 in US-20250067277 because “rigidly connected” does not equate to “modular”; and “attached one another in succession” also does not equate to “modular”. A broadest reasonable interpretation of “succession” may be for example “a group of people or things arranged or following in order”, e.g. “a succession of stalls offering soft drinks”, wherein there is no element of time, per https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/succession.
Also, Hirsch clearly discloses the related claimed limitation as currently written, e.g. para 0050: “starting from the root of the blade, the blade comprises in succession a straight radial segment, a swept-forward segment, and then said swept-back segment”.
“A helicopter blade, as taught by Hirsch, must be a single, highly integrated component” (para 3 of page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks).
This is not persuasive because it is known in the art to have helicopter blades comprising multiple components/segments. See for example para 3 of page 5 of the English translation of WO 2009101226 provided with this office action and its figures.
Claim Interpretation
The previous claim interpretation(s) (identified in the office action mailed on 7/17/2025) regarding the term(s) “substantially parallel” is/are maintained.
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) 1, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110236208 A1 (hereinafter Hirsch) in view of JP 11180397 (hereinafter Shimizu).
Examiner's note: The examiner's submitted English translation of Shimizu, submitted with this office action, is referenced hereinafter.
PNG
media_image1.png
479
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1a
Regarding claim 1, Hirsch discloses:
An industrial axial fan, comprising:
a hub (4; Fig 3) rotatable about an axis of rotation (Fig 3 shows this) and a plurality of blades (10; Fig 3) mounted on said hub in a direction of rotation (F; Fig 1), wherein each blade extends along a keying axis (annotated Fig 1a) and comprises in succession:
a first wing-shaped body having a first leading edge and a first trailing edge (annotated Fig 1a),
the first leading edge and the first trailing edge being parallel to the keying axis (annotated Fig 1a shows this);
a second wing-shaped body having a second leading edge and a second trailing edge (annotated Fig 1a),
wherein the second leading edge and the second trailing edge are swept forward in the direction of rotation with respect to said keying axis (Fig 1 shows this);
and a third wing-shaped body attached to the second wing-shaped body (Fig 1 shows this) and having a third leading edge and a third trailing edge (annotated Fig 1a) being swept backward (Fig 1 shows this),
wherein the second and the third leading edges form an angle (“angle” in annotated Fig 1a) greater than 180° (Fig 1 clearly shows this), thereby defining a forward-pointing vertex (annotated Fig 1a) between the second leading edge and the third leading edge (Fig 1 shows this),
wherein the first, the second, and the third wing-shaped bodies are attached one another in succession (Fig 1 shows this; a broadest reasonable interpretation of “attached” may be “joined; connected; bound” per https://www.dictionary.com/browse/attached; e.g. para 0050: “starting from the root of the blade, the blade comprises in succession a straight radial segment, a swept-forward segment, and then said swept-back segment.”).
Hirsch may not explicitly disclose:
The wing-shaped bodies are extruded or pultruded.
However, Shimizu, in the same field of endeavor, rotor blades, teaches (e.g. title and paragraph 1; Figs 1 and 3) that rotor blades of a helicopter are extruded in order to enhance quality (page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hirsch to include Shimizu’s teachings as described above, having Hirsch’s blade extruded, in order to enhance quality (page 1).
Insofar as Applicant may argue that Hirsch’s blade may not be formed by a single extrusion, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make Hirsch’s blade as modified above from individual segments, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements (making components separable) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
Regarding claim 4, Hirsch as modified above discloses:
on each one of the blades, the first leading edge is parallel to the keying axis and, the first trailing edge is parallel to the keying axis (Figs 1 and 3 show all this).
Regarding claim 5, Hirsch as modified above discloses:
on each one of the blades, the second leading edge and the second trailing edge are substantially parallel to each other (Figs 1 and 3 show all this).
Regarding claim 6, Hirsch as modified above discloses:
on each one of the blades, the third leading edge and the third trailing edge are substantially parallel to each other (Figs 1 and 3 show all this).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art reference(s) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 3685332 A (Davidson).
Regarding claim 2, Hirsch as modified above discloses:
the third wing-shaped body of each blade comprises an end edge (radially outer-most edge in Fig 1) having a circumferential profile (Fig 1 clearly shows this) about an axis of rotation (A).
Hirsch as modified above may not explicitly disclose:
the circumferential profile is about an axis of rotation.
However, Davidson, in the same field of endeavor, fans, teaches:
In Fig 4 a fan blade 13 contained within a housing 11 wherein both the blade tip and housing share what is clearly a circumferential profile about an axis of rotation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hirsch as modified above to include Davidson’s teachings as described above, having the circumferential profile be about an axis of rotation, in order to contain the blade within a duct to obtain the flow characteristics of a ducted fan.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art reference(s) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6116857 A (hereinafter Splettstoesser).
Regarding claim 3, Hirsch as modified above discloses:
adjust a pitch angle of the blade (para 0070)
and wherein each blade further comprises a keying shaft (annotated Fig 1a) aligned with said keying axis (Fig 1 shows this) and fixed to the first wing-shaped body in a vicinity of the first leading edge (Fig 1 shows this).
Hirsch as modified above may not explicitly disclose:
each blade is selectively pivotable about said keying axis
However, Splettstoesser, in the same field of endeavor, fan blades, teaches:
In Fig 1 a blade with a blade root 26 (corresponding to Applicant’s/ Hirsch’s keying shaft), by which the blade is connected to the hub (col 5 line 63), and by which the blade can be pitched (col 5 line 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hirsch as modified above to include Splettstoesser’s teachings as described above, having each blade comprise Splettstoesser’s blade root, in order to allow the blade to pitch while using a robust unibody design for the blade attachment point to the hub. This modification would result in the limitation above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights