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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to purported merits of the invention (last sentence).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “one or more cover plates” in line 6. It is unclear if these refer to the pair of cover plates in line 2 or different ones. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as reciting --one or more of the pair of cover plates-- such as in claim 8.
Claim 2 recites a “reverse taper”. However, it is unclear how this is defined given that it is not recited with respect to what the taper is “reverse”.
Claim 8 similarly recites a “reverse taper”.
The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 or 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Denis et al. (U.S. Patent 9,333,508).
Claim 1: Denis et al. discloses a modular rotor blade assembly (1) comprising: a pair of cover plates (9 - Fig. 4); a base plate (27) disposed between the pair of cover plates (Id.); a wedge (61) disposed within a slot (29) formed in a perimeter (e.g. top/radially outer surface) of the base plate; and a rotor blade (57) attached to the wedge, wherein one or more cover plates and/or the rotor blade with corresponding wedge are capable of being replaced without the need to replace the base plate (e.g. column 2, lines 25-29).
Claim 2: The slot (29) formed in the perimeter of the base plate is formed with a reverse taper (Fig. 6; column 4, lines 32-37) to prevent unwanted movement of the wedge and the rotor blade in a radial direction during operation (it would serve this purpose).
Claim 3: Each cover plate includes a slot (19) formed in a perimeter for receiving the rotor blade.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denis et al.
The slot (19) of Denis includes a pair of side walls and a bottom wall, and is described as being “roughly rectangular” (column 3, lines 65-66), but the side walls are not necessarily parallel to each other, and the bottom wall is not necessarily perpendicular to the pair of side walls. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have shaped the slots this way since it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 25, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the specific shape of the slot.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson (U.S. Patent 1729050) in view of Schie (U.S. Patent 11,691,158).
Claim 1: Olson discloses a modular rotor blade assembly comprising: a base plate (10); a wedge (defined by 20) disposed within a slot (16) formed in a perimeter of the base plate; and a rotor blade (18) attached to the wedge, wherein the rotor blade with corresponding wedge are capable of being replaced without the need to replace the base plate (they would be removable as it is not otherwise attached to the base plate by any other means). Olson does not disclose a pair of cover plates, the base plate being disposed between the pair of cover plates.
However, Schie discloses a rotor blade assembly comprising a base plate (center plate 52) between a pair of cover plates (left and right plates 52 - Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a base plate between a pair of cover plates since making the assembly from multiple laminated plates allows for manufacturing a thicker plate by less expensive laser cutting from thinner sheets of material (column 4, lines 12-36).
Claim 2: Referring to Olson, the slot formed in the perimeter of the base plate is formed with a reverse taper to prevent unwanted movement of the wedge and the rotor blade in a radial direction (i.e. radially inward) during operation (page 1, line 96 - page 2, line 2).
Claim 3: Referring to Schie, each cover plate includes a slot (66) formed in a perimeter. It stands to reason that such slots would be provided for receiving the rotor blades of Olson given the similar slots in the base plate and the relative width of the blades therein.
Claim 4: The slots of Schie includes a pair of side walls that appear to be parallel to each other and a bottom wall that appears perpendicular to the pair of side walls. This would also stand to reason to accommodate the rectangular side surfaces of the blades 18 of Olson (page 1, lines 66-67). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have shaped the slots this way since it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 25, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the specific shape of the slot.
Claim 5: The base plate of Olson includes a central hub (13) with a cavity (12) and a keyway (14).
Claim 6: It would stand to reason for each cover plate to include a central opening for receiving the central hub of the base plate given its greater axial extent.
Claim 7: Referring to Schie, the base plate includes a plurality of mounting holes, wherein each cover plate includes a plurality of mounting holes, and wherein each of the plurality of base plate mounting holes and each of the plurality of cover plate mounting holes are capable of receiving a threaded fastener (201) to fasten the pair of cover plates to the base plate (e.g. Fig. 12; column 8, lines 18-25). In this case, the fastener passes through the threaded hole in a cover plate rather than the base plate including threaded mounting holes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided threaded holes in the base plate and arranged the fasteners accordingly since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 23, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the arrangement of the threaded holes. One of ordinary skill would have recognized various combinations of non-threaded and threaded holes and corresponding fasteners that would have effectively fastened the plates together.
Claim 8: Olson discloses a modular rotor blade assembly comprising: a base plate (10); a wedge (defined by 20) disposed within a slot (16) formed in a perimeter of the base plate, the slot being formed with a reverse taper (page 1, line 96 - page 2, line 2); and a rotor blade (18) attached to the wedge, wherein the rotor blade with corresponding wedge are capable of being replaced without the need to replace the base plate (they would be removable as it is not otherwise attached to the base plate by any other means).
Olson does not disclose a pair of cover plates, the base plate being disposed between the pair of cover plates. However, Schie discloses a rotor blade assembly comprising a base plate (center plate 52) between a pair of cover plates (left and right plates 52 - Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a base plate between a pair of cover plates since making the assembly from multiple laminated plates allows for manufacturing a thicker plate by less expensive laser cutting from thinner sheets of material (column 4, lines 12-36).
Schie further teaches the base plate includes a plurality of mounting holes, wherein each cover plate includes a plurality of mounting holes, and wherein each of the plurality of base plate mounting holes and each of the plurality of cover plate mounting holes receive a threaded fastener (201) to fasten the pair of cover plates to the base plate (e.g. Fig. 12; column 8, lines 18-25). In this case, the fastener passes through the threaded hole in a cover plate rather than the base plate including threaded mounting holes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided threaded holes in the base plate and arranged the fasteners accordingly since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 23, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the arrangement of the threaded holes. One of ordinary skill would have recognized various combinations of non-threaded and threaded holes and corresponding fasteners that would have effectively fastened the plates together.
Claim 9: Referring to Schie, each cover plate includes a slot (66) formed in a perimeter. It stands to reason that such slots would be provided for receiving the rotor blades of Olson given the similar slots in the base plate and the relative width of the blades therein.
Claim 10: The slots of Schie includes a pair of side walls that appear to be parallel to each other and a bottom wall that appears perpendicular to the pair of side walls. This would also stand to reason to accommodate the rectangular side surfaces of the blades 18 of Olson (page 1, lines 66-67). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have shaped the slots this way since it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 25, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the specific shape of the slot.
Claim 11: The base plate of Olson includes a central hub (13) with a cavity (12) and a keyway (14).
Claim 12: It would stand to reason for each cover plate to include a central opening for receiving the central hub of the base plate given its greater axial extent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPub 2004/0000606 discloses a modular rotor blade assembly having wedge-shaped cutters and a base plate.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights