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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 9, 2026 have been fully considered.
The functional aspect of the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection of claims 6 and 13 has been withdrawn. The aspect related to “conforms” is maintained.
The previous 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection of claim 10 is withdrawn, but new 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections of claim 10 are presented below. It is noted, that claim 10 is also related to new 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections of the independent claims.
The 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections of claims 16 and 18 is withdrawn based on the amendments.
The applicant argues the 35 U.S.C 102 rejections by arguing that Phan’s hub is continuous (circumferentially) and does not have a plurality of separate faces. The examiner finds that the claimed plurality of faces is indefinite, please see the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections below. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation of faces (due to indefiniteness), the examiner is interprets the plurality of faces as regions of the hub surface. This analysis also applies to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections.
The changes to the rejections are necessitated by amendment and are therefore made final.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the plurality of faces each having a curved surface” and “wherein a radius of curvature of each of the plurality of faces is larger than a radius of curvature of the rounded edges of the hub” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6, 10, 13, 16, and 18 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.
Claims 1, 12, and 16 recite, “a hub comprising a plurality of faces each having a curved surface”. It is unclear what the definition of a face is. In less formal geometry (primary school), it may be asked how many faces does a cylinder have (see attached NPL, “How Many Faces Does a Cylinder Have? 3, 2, or 0”). The answer may be 3 (2 circular bases + the curved lateral surface) using a definition where there is some sort of boundary between faces. This definition is fine for elementary shapes such as cylinders, but does not have sufficient mathematical formalism for complex examples of volumes/shapes. The answer to how many faces does a cylinder have may also be 2, if the definition of face requires that the surface be flat (the curved lateral surface would not count). In the most formal definition of a face, a cylinder would have zero faces. Faces have straight edges and vertices and are only part of a polyhedron (or polytope in higher dimensions); a cylinder is not a polyhedron. The most clear and formal definition is a face is the intersection of an n-dimensional polytope with a tangent hyperplane (see attached NPL Weisstein “Face”). Claims dependent from these claims are also rejected.
The applicant’s disclosure in [0114] recites, “Faces 2112 may not correspond to the spherical shape of hub 2110. In some examples, the plurality of faces may have a curved or convex shape. Faces 2112 may have a spherical shape with a larger radius of curvature relative to the other portion of the hub 2110. In other words, the plurality of faces 2112 may have less curvature than portions of the hub 2110 other than the faces 2112. In some examples, the plurality of faces 2112 are generally flat or planar.”
By having the “faces” have curvature (not flat), the applicant is trying to use the first (least formal) definition of face described above. As described above, this definition is fine for elementary shapes such as cylinders/spheres, but does not have sufficient mathematical formalism for complex examples of volumes/shapes that may be used in hub designs. Therefore, it is unclear when something can be considered a “face”. For purposes of examination, the broadest potential definition is used, where a face is a generic surface.
Additionally, in claim 10 it is claimed that the plurality of faces are separated from one another by rounded edges of the hub. It is unclear what is a “rounded edge”. The edge aspect would be referring to a reference geometry that is not present. It is unclear if a rounded edge can be rounded in 2-dimensions or in 3-dimensions. It is unclear if any curved surface could be considered a rounded edge. Claim 10 is therefore also indefinite.
Claims 6 and 13 recite, “wherein the root/tip of each pivotable blade conforms to the shape of an outer surface of the hub / shape of a discharge ring of the housing during rotation of the pivotable blade from a maximum pitch to a minimum pitch”. The term “conform” in claims 6 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “conform” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no clear delineation of when something is close enough to be considered conforming and when it does not. Additionally, conforming is a comparison of 2 shapes and is a complex multidimensional comparison (not just a mathematical comparison of 2 values); therefore it is unclear how the comparison of “conforms” is defined. For example, there is no way to evaluate if a large difference over a small region would be considered “conforming” or if a small difference over a large region would be “conforming”.
Regarding claim 21, the antecedent basis for the four faces is unclear. The claim presumably should recite, “wherein the number of the plurality of faces is four” or something to similar effect.
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 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phan et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20170370343) hereinafter Phan.
PNG
media_image1.png
677
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
637
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Phan discloses:
A runner for a hydraulic turbine {Figure 4 (2); [0001]}, comprising:
a hub comprising a plurality of faces each having a curved surface {[0035]; Annotated Figure 2 the portion of (1) along (III) has a plurality of faces having a curved surface. See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above. For purposes of examination, the broadest potential definition is used, where a face is a generic surface and the exterior surface of a solid can be divided into “faces” at arbitrary boundaries as there is no formal definition of what constitutes the boundaries between “faces” in the applicant’s context}; and
a plurality of pivotable blades extending from the hub {Figures 4/5, blades (3) are pivotable and extend from hub (1); [0038]},
each pivotable blade of the plurality of pivotable blades comprising a root located at the hub {Figures 3/4/5 (31) is the root and is located at the hub (1)},
a tip opposite the root {Figure 3 (33) is the tip and is opposite root (31)}, and
a leading edge opposite a trailing edge {Figure 3 (34) is opposite (32); [0033]},
wherein each pivotable blade of the plurality of pivotable blades is pivotable relative to the hub about a respective pivot axis {Figures 3 and 5, (3) are pivotable relative to the hub (1) about pivot axis (R); [0038]},
wherein for at least one blade, the leading edge at the root is positioned along a radial axis of the runner and the leading edge at the tip is cantilevered beyond the radial axis in a circumferential direction of the runner {Annotated Figure 1, the leading edge at the root (Ia) defines a radial axis of the runner which extends in/out of the page. The leading edge at the tip (Ib) is cantilevered beyond this the axis which extends through (Ia) and in/out of the page in the circumferential direction of the runner which is roughly the left/right direction in the figure}.
wherein, the trailing edge at the root of the blade is located further downstream than the trailing edge at the tip of the blade {Annotated Figure 2, the trailing edge at the root (IIa) is further downstream than the trailing edge at the tip (IIb)}.
Regarding claim 17, Phan further discloses:
Wherein the trailing edge extends downstream of a downstream end of the hub for at least one pivotable blade of the plurality of pivotable blades {Annotated Figure 2 (3) extends downstream of (III)}.
Regarding claim 18, Phan further discloses:
wherein at least one pivotable blade of the plurality of pivotable blades has a surface curvature having a first shape and a second shape, wherein the first shape is concave and the second shape is convex as viewed from an upstream direction {axial turbine blades implicitly have a cross-section that is hydrofoil/airfoil shaped where a pressure side is concave and a suction side is convex, see MPEP 2144.01. The airfoil shape when viewed from upstream can also be said to be concave away from the upstream direction and then at the trailing edge have a convex direction}.
Regarding claim 20, Phan further discloses:
wherein the trailing edge of a pivotable blade of the plurality of pivotable blades bows in an upstream direction between the tip and the root of the pivotable blade {Annotated Figure 2, (IIb) is more upstream than (IIa) due to the bow between the root and the tip of the trailing edge}.
Regarding claim 21, Phan further discloses:
Wherein the hub comprises four faces {[0034]; there are several blades which each has a corresponding “face” as discussed in the rejection of claim 16, see implicit disclosure 2144.01. It is also noted that if the number of faces is 4 or greater the system “comprises” four blades}
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20170370343) hereinafter Phan in view of Schneider et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20210231094) hereinafter Schneider.
Regarding claim 1, Phan discloses:
A runner for a hydraulic turbine {Figure 4 (2); [0001]}, comprising:
a hub comprising a plurality of faces each having a curved surface {Figure 4 (1) has a plurality of faces having a curved surface; [0035]; See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above. For purposes of examination, the broadest potential definition is used, where a face is a generic surface and the exterior surface of a solid can be divided into “faces” at arbitrary boundaries as there is no formal definition of what constitutes the boundaries between “faces” in the applicant’s context}; and
a plurality of pivotable blades extending from the hub {Figures 4/5, blades (3) are pivotable and extend from hub (1); [0038]},
each pivotable blade of the plurality of pivotable blades comprising a root located at the hub {Figures 3/4/5 (31) is the root and is located at the hub (1)},
a tip opposite the root {Figure 3 (33) is the tip and is opposite root (31)}, and
a leading edge {Figure 3 (34); [0033]},
wherein each pivotable blade of the plurality of pivotable blades is pivotable relative to the hub about a respective pivot axis {Figures 3 and 5, (3) are pivotable relative to the hub (1) about pivot axis (R); [0038]},
wherein for at least one blade, the leading edge at the root is positioned along a radial axis of the runner and the leading edge at the tip is cantilevered beyond the radial axis in a circumferential direction of the runner {Annotated Figure 1, the leading edge at the root (Ia) defines a radial axis of the runner which extends in/out of the page. The leading edge at the tip (Ib) is cantilevered beyond this the axis which extends through (Ia) and in/out of the page in the circumferential direction of the runner which is roughly the left/right direction in the figure}.
Phan is silent regarding exact dimensions of the blade/runner and is therefore silent regarding the ratio of the thickness of the leading edge to a diameter of the runner.
Schneider pertains to hydraulic turbine runners. Schneider teaches:
wherein a ratio of a thickness of the leading edge TLE to a diameter of the runner DR is in a range of approximately 0.03 to approximately 0.35 {[0123]}.
Since Phan is silent regarding exact dimensions of the blade/runner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio of the thickness of the leading edge to a diameter of the run be in the range of 0.03 to 0.35. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for decreased fish mortality {Schneider [0123]-[0124]}.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Phan and Schneider teaches the runner of claim 1. Phan is silent with regard to precise dimensions of the axial length of the runner and diameter of the runner and therefore does not teach:
wherein a ratio of an axial length of the runner to a diameter of the runner is less than about 0.55.
Schneider pertains to hydraulic turbine runners. Schneider teaches:
wherein a ratio of an axial length of the runner to a diameter of the runner is less than about 0.55 {[0017]/[0123]}.
Since Phan is silent regarding exact dimensions of the blade/runner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio of the axial length of the runner to a diameter of the runner be less than 0.55 for the runner of the combination of Phan and Schneider based on the teachings of Schneider. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for decreased fish mortality {Schneider [0123]-[0124]}, the range overlaps the claimed range {MPEP 2144.05}, and the ratio is a typical value for a hydraulic turbine.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Phan and Schneider teaches the runner of claim 1. Phan is silent with regard to precise dimensions of the chordwise length of the runner and diameter of the runner and therefore does not teach:
wherein a ratio of a chord length at the tip of each pivotable blade to the diameter of the runner is less than about 0.9.
Schneider pertains to hydraulic turbine runners. Schneider teaches:
wherein a ratio of a chord length at the tip of each pivotable blade to the diameter of the runner is less than about 0.9 {[0127], 0.6-0.64}.
Since Phan is silent regarding exact dimensions of the blade/runner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio of the chord length of the runner to a diameter of the runner be less than about 0.9 for the runner of the combination of Phan and Schneider based on the teachings of Schneider. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for decreased fish mortality {Schneider [0123]-[0124]}, the range overlaps the claimed range {MPEP 2144.05}, and the ratio is a typical value for a hydraulic turbine.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Phan and Schneider further teaches:
wherein each pivot axis is angled relative to a shaft axis of the runner at an angle between approximately 8 degrees and approximately 155 degrees {Figure 5, pivot axis (R) is angled relative to a shaft axis (H) of the runner at an angle between approximately 8 degrees and approximately 155 degrees. It is noted that the angle is close to 90 degrees and may be interpreted as slightly greater or slightly less than 90 degrees depending on the up/down directionality of (H) that the angle is measured from. See MPEP 2125}.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Phan and Schneider teaches the runner of claim 1. Phan is silent with regard to precise dimensions of the thickness of the leading edge and therefore does not teach:
wherein a thickness of the leading edge of each pivotable blade is between about 100 mm and about 700 mm.
Schneider pertains to hydraulic turbine runners. Schneider teaches:
wherein a thickness of the leading edge of each pivotable blade is between about 100 mm and about 700 mm {[0123]}.
Since Phan is silent regarding exact dimensions of the blade/runner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the leading edge be between 100 mm and 700 mm. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for decreased fish mortality {Schneider [0123]-[0124]}.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Phan and Schneider teaches the runner of claim 1, but is silent regarding the precise dimensions and geometric relationships of the blade. The combination of Phan and Schneider is therefore silent regarding:
wherein a portion of the leading edge at the tip of each pivotable blade is slanted relative to a radial axis of the runner at an angle between approximately 20 degrees and approximately 90 degrees.
Schneider teaches:
wherein a portion of the leading edge at the tip of each pivotable blade is slanted relative to a radial axis of the runner at an angle between approximately 20 degrees and approximately 90 degrees {claim 12, Figure 9A (θT)}
Since the combination of Phan and Schneider is silent regarding the dimensions / angles of the blades, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the leading edge at the tip to be slanted relative to a radial axis at an angle of between 20 degrees and 90 degrees. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for decreased fish mortality {Schneider [0141]}.
Regarding claim 12, Phan discloses:
A turbine {[0001]} comprising:
a housing defining an inlet and an outlet for a flow of liquid {[0001]/[0002]. The housing that defines an inlet and outlet for flow of a liquid is implicitly in the turbine with the application simply focusing on the hub/runner; see MPEP 2144.01}; and
a runner for a hydraulic turbine {Figure 4 (2); [0001]}, comprising:
a hub comprising a plurality of faces each having a curved surface {Figure 4 (1) has a plurality of faces having a curved surface; [0035]; See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above. For purposes of examination, the broadest potential definition is used, where a face is a generic surface and the exterior surface of a solid can be divided into “faces” at arbitrary boundaries as there is no formal definition of what constitutes the boundaries between “faces” in the applicant’s context}; and
a plurality of pivotable blades extending from the hub {Figures 4/5, blades (3) are pivotable and extend from hub (1); [0038]},
each pivotable blade of the plurality of pivotable blades comprising a root located at the hub {Figures 3/4/5 (31) is the root and is located at the hub (1)},
a tip opposite the root {Figure 3 (33) is the tip and is opposite root (31)}, and
a leading edge opposite a trailing edge {Figure 3 (34) is opposite trailing edge (32); [0033]},
wherein each pivotable blade of the plurality of pivotable blades is pivotable relative to the hub about a respective pivot axis {Figures 3 and 5, (3) are pivotable relative to the hub (1) about pivot axis (R); [0038]},
wherein for at least one blade, the leading edge at the root is positioned along a radial axis of the runner and the leading edge at the tip is cantilevered beyond the radial axis in a circumferential direction of the runner {Annotated Figure 1, the leading edge at the root (Ia) defines a radial axis of the runner which extends in/out of the page. The leading edge at the tip (Ib) is cantilevered beyond this the axis which extends through (Ia) and in/out of the page in the circumferential direction of the runner which is roughly the left/right direction in the figure}.
Phan is silent regarding exact dimensions of the blade/runner and is therefore silent regarding the ratio of the thickness of the leading edge to a diameter of the runner.
Schneider pertains to hydraulic turbine runners. Schneider teaches:
wherein a ratio of a thickness of the leading edge TLE to a diameter of the runner DR is in a range of approximately 0.03 to approximately 0.35 {[0123]}.
Since Phan is silent regarding exact dimensions of the blade/runner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio of the thickness of the leading edge to a diameter of the run be in the range of 0.03 to 0.35. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for decreased fish mortality {Schneider [0123]-[0124]}.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Phan and Schneider further teaches:
wherein the root of the trailing edge extends further downstream than a remainder of the trailing edge {Annotated Figure (IIa) is the root of the of the trailing edge and is further downstream (down in the direction of the figure) than the remainder of the trailing edge}.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20170370343) hereinafter Phan in view of Sickinger et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20150337796) hereinafter Sickinger.
PNG
media_image3.png
627
686
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Phan discloses the runner of claim 16, but does not disclose:
wherein the hub comprises a plurality of faces that are planar,
the faces being radially spaced around a longitudinal axis of the hub.
Sickinger pertains to hydraulic turbines. Sickinger teaches:
wherein the hub comprises a plurality of faces that are planar {Annotated Figure 3 (IVa-c) are planar},
the faces being radially spaced around a longitudinal axis of the hub {Annotated Figure 3 (IVa-c) are spaced around the longitudinal axis}
Since Phan is silent regarding the internal geometry of the hub, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the hub of Phan have a plurality of planar faces as claimed in the internal hub geometry based on the teachings of Sickinger. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for basic engineering reasons of having a part with sufficient strength (thickness) and securing of elements.
Claims 5-6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan in view of Schneider as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Fisher Jr. et al. (U.S Patent 5,954,474) hereinafter Fisher.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Phan and Schneider teaches the runner of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein an outer surface of the hub swept by the root of each pivotable blade during rotation of the blade from a maximum pitch to a minimum pitch is spherically shaped
Fisher pertains to hydraulic turbines. Fisher teaches:
wherein an outer surface of the hub swept by the root of each pivotable blade during rotation of the blade from a maximum pitch to a minimum pitch is spherically shaped {Column 7 lines 16-42}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a spherical outer surface of the hub swept by the blade of the combination of Phan and Schneider based on the teachings of Fisher. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to have the blade be able to appropriately rotate and maintain the desired clearance {Fisher Column 7 lines 16-42; Phan [0004] and [0035]}.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Phan and Schneider teaches the runner of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the root of each pivotable blade comprises a curvature such that the root conforms to the shape of the outer surface of the hub during rotation of the pivotable blade from a maximum pitch to a minimum pitch,
wherein the tip of each pivotable blade has a generally spherical sweep shape over a pivot range of the pivotable blade from the maximum pitch to the minimum pitch.
Fisher pertains to hydraulic turbines. Fisher teaches:
wherein the root of each pivotable blade comprises a curvature such that the root conforms to the shape of the outer surface of the hub during rotation of the pivotable blade from a maximum pitch to a minimum pitch {Column 7 lines 16-42}.
wherein the tip of each pivotable blade has a generally spherical sweep shape over a pivot range of the pivotable blade from the maximum pitch to the minimum pitch {Column 9 lines 13-49}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a root matching the outer surface of the hub and tip of the blade have a spherical sweep as claimed for the combination of Phan and Schneider based on the teachings of Fisher. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to have the blade be able to appropriately rotate and maintain the desired clearance {Fisher Column 9 lines 13-49, Column 7 lines 16-42; Phan [0004] and [0035]}.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Phan and Schneider teaches the turbine of claim 12, but does not teach:
wherein the tip of each pivotable blade conforms to a shape of a discharge ring of the housing during rotation of the blade from a maximum pitch to a minimum pitch, and
wherein an inner surface of the discharge ring of the housing swept by the tip of each pivotable blade during rotation of the pivotable blade from the maximum pitch to the minimum pitch is spherically shaped.
Fisher pertains to hydraulic turbines. Fisher teaches:
wherein the tip of each pivotable blade conforms to a shape of a discharge ring of the housing during rotation of the blade from a maximum pitch to a minimum pitch {Column 9 lines 30-49}, and
wherein an inner surface of the discharge ring of the housing swept by the tip of each pivotable blade during rotation of the pivotable blade from the maximum pitch to the minimum pitch is spherically shaped {Column 9 lines 13-49}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tip conform to a shape of the discharge ring and inner surface of the discharge ring be spherical as claimed for the combination of Phan and Schneider based on the teachings of Fisher. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to have the desired gap {Fisher Column 9 lines 30-49}.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan in view of Schneider as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Torleif (U.S Patent 2,086,633) hereinafter Torleif.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Phan and Schneider teaches:
the turbine of claim 1 but is does not teach:
wherein the leading edge of each pivotable blade is arc-shaped when viewed along an axis that is perpendicular to a shaft axis of the runner
wherein the leading edge of each pivotable blade when viewed along the axis that is perpendicular to the shaft axis of the runner curves away from an upstream end of the runner at the root and back toward an upstream end of runner toward the tip.
Torleif pertains to a hydraulic turbine. Torleif teaches:
wherein the leading edge of each pivotable blade is arc-shaped when viewed along an axis that is perpendicular to a shaft axis of the runner {Figure 1, the leading edge at the top of blades (25) is arc shaped when viewed in Figure 1 which is perpendicular to the shaft axis of the runner}
wherein the leading edge of each pivotable blade when viewed along the axis that is perpendicular to the shaft axis of the runner curves away from an upstream end of the runner at the root and back toward an upstream end of runner toward the tip {Figure 1, the root curves away from the upstream (upper) end of the runner at the root and then back upstream}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a leading edge that curves as claimed as taught by Smith for the leading edge of the combination of Phan and Schneider. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to be able so as it is a simple substitution {MPEP 2143 I B}. Both leading edges have known functions of interacting with the flow entering the turbine with the results of the substitution being predicable.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan in view of Schneider as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Obermeyer et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20160084218) hereinafter Obermeyer.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Phan and Schneider teaches the turbine of claim 12 but is silent regarding the details of the housing and is therefore silent regarding:
wherein a discharge ring of the housing has removable segments that are configured to be removably assembled from either an exterior or from an interior of the turbine, and
wherein the discharge ring of the housing is split.
Obermeyer pertains to a hydraulic turbine. Obermeyer teaches:
wherein a discharge ring of the housing has removable segments that are configured to be removably assembled from either an exterior or from an interior of the turbine {[0009]}, and
wherein the discharge ring of the housing is split {[0009]}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a split discharge ring with removable segments as claimed for the combination of Phan and Schneider based on the teachings of Obermeyer. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to be able to remove the runner for service {Obermeyer [0009]}.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights