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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14-24 are examined. Claims 25-26 are withdrawn.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Line 8, change: “further [[concernsa]] concerns a fluid-dynamic…”
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 22, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 4, change: “from the leading edge [[backwards]] toward the trailing edge,”
Claim 14, line 6, change: “from the trailing edge [[forwards]] toward the leading edge,”
Claim 22, line 2, change: “the central portions, in [[the]] a direction perpendicular…”
Claim 24, line 2, change: “surface is [[the]] a blade of a rotor.”
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.
Claims 14-24 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the leading edge" and “the trailing edge” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the leading edge and the trailing edge are the same or different with respect to a “front leading edge” and a “rear trailing edge”, respectively, recited in line 1.
Claim 20 is indefinite because in line 1, the claim recites of “A fluid-dynamic surface” and further recites in line 2, “at least two airfoils”. It is unclear how the fluid dynamic surface (i.e., 54 from Applicant’s Fig. 13) can comprise at least two airfoils because the fluid dynamic surface is a surface of a blade (56). It is therein unclear how the claim can be directed to a “fluid dynamic surface” and further claim “two airfoils according to claim 14” because structurally, the fluid dynamic surface cannot comprise of two airfoils since the fluid dynamic surface is a surface of a single airfoil/blade. In other words, two airfoils are not on the fluid dynamic surface (54), according to Applicant’s disclosure. Due to the lack of clarity and ambiguity of the claim, the metes and bounds cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite. Further, due to the lack of clarity of the claim, a prior art rejection cannot be applied to claim 20 and the dependent claims thereof (claims 21-24) since it is unclear how a fluid-dynamic surface of a blade airfoil can comprise two additional airfoils.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the extension of the central portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear of the feature “the extension” since “the extension” has not been previously introduced with respect to claims 1 or 20.
Dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency of a rejected independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Munoz Saiz (EP 1043223).
Regarding claim 14, Munoz Saiz discloses an airfoil (Fig. 1) comprising: a front leading edge (i.e., front leading edge of airfoil shown in Fig. 1), a rear trailing edge (i.e., rear trailing edge shown in Fig. 1), a mean line (i.e., imaginary mean line equidistance from suction and pressure sides of airfoil in Fig. 1) and a thickness (i.e., thickness between top and bottom surfaces of airfoil in Fig. 1),
- a front portion in which the thickness increases (as shown in Fig. 1, the front portion of the airfoil increases in thickness), along the mean line from the leading edge backwards, up to a maximum thickness (i.e., in the direction of an imaginary mean line toward the trailing edge up to section 2, which has the maximum thickness); and
- a rear portion in which the thickness increases along the mean line from the trailing edge forwards, up to the maximum thickness (i.e., in the direction from the trailing edge of the airfoil toward the leading edge of the airfoil, the thickness increases to a maximum thickness up to section 2);
a central portion (2), placed between the front portion and the rear portion (as shown in Fig. 1), in which the thickness is constant and equal to the maximum thickness (as shown in Fig. 1, the thickness is constant and maximum in section 2);
and at least one front section (4) and rear section (5), assembled (assembled as shown in Fig. 1), wherein:
- the front portion is defined by the front section (i.e., the front portion containing the leading edge is defined by the front section 4); and
- the rear portion is defined by the rear section (i.e., the rear portion containing the trailing edge is defined by the rear section 5).
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “wherein the front section (4) and the rear section (5) are obtained by extrusion/pultrusion.” renders the claim as a product-by-process claim. As shown above, the apparatus or structure claimed is identical to that described in the reference and is therefore anticipated by the reference because patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 16, Munoz Saiz discloses wherein the central portion (2) is defined by the front section (i.e., the central portion is continuous with the front section 4, and is therein defined by the front section) and/or by the rear section (i.e., the central portion is continuous with the rear section 5, and is therein defined by the rear section).
Regarding claim 17, Munoz Saiz discloses a central section (i.e., the central section is formed by the central portion 2, wherein the central section spans between the front section 4 and the rear section 5, as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “wherein the central section (2) is obtained by extrusion/pultrusion.” renders the claim as a product-by-process claim. As shown above, the apparatus or structure claimed is identical to that described in the reference and is therefore anticipated by the reference because patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 19, Munoz Saiz discloses a back (i.e., back surface referenced by “bk” in Fig. 1’ below) and a belly (i.e., belly surface referenced by “be” in Fig. 1’), and wherein the back and/or the belly and/or the mean line are continuous and uniform (i.e., each surface of the back “bk” and the belly “be” is continuous and uniform, as shown in Fig. 1’, wherein each surface is planar and uniform without changes in direction; the belly and back are also continuous with other portions of the airfoil).
PNG
media_image1.png
262
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1’
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 5:00 pm EST alternating Fridays off.
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.
/ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 12/01/2025