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 .
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: 9
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) 1-5, 8-10, and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider (US 20210231094).
Regarding claim 1, Schneider discloses A runner for a hydraulic turbine, comprising:
a hub (figure 9A, item 910); and
a plurality of blades extending from the hub (Figure 9A, items 920), 950
wherein each blade of the plurality of blades comprises a root located at the hub (922), a tip opposite the root (924), a leading edge (926), and a trailing edge opposite the leading edge (928),
wherein the runner is configured to rotate about a rotation axis (950 shows the rotational axis with the rotation described in paragraph 0115),
wherein each blade of the plurality of blades has a leading edge midpoint along the leading edge of the blade and a trailing edge midpoint along the trailing edge of the blade in a meridional section of the blade (figure 9A shows a leading edge midpoint at item m and a trailing edge midpoint at the trailing edges 928),
wherein a mean diagonal angle am is defined between the rotation axis and a midline intersecting the leading edge midpoint and the trailing edge midpoint (Figure 9A, an angle must exist between the midline and the rotational axis),
wherein at least one blade of the plurality of blades includes a ratio of a thickness of the leading edge to a diameter of the runner at a downstream side of runner, TLE/DR, that is greater than about 0.03 (Par. 0123 describes that this ratio can be 0.06-0.35), and
wherein for the 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 (Par. 0147).
Regarding claim 2, Schneider discloses that a maximum leading edge thickness of the at least one blade is at least approximately 50 mm. Paragraph 0126 describes that the maximum leading edge thickness may be 100 mm to 200 mm or more.
Regarding claim 3, Schneider discloses that a maximum leading edge thickness of the at least one blade is at least approximately 100 mm. Paragraph 0126 describes that the maximum leading edge thickness may be 100 mm to 200 mm or more.
Regarding claim 4, Schneider discloses that a maximum leading edge thickness of the at least one blade is at least approximately 200 mm. Paragraph 0126 describes that the maximum leading edge thickness may be 100 mm to 200 mm or more.
Regarding claim 5, Schneider discloses that the mean diagonal angle am is greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees (Annotated Figure 11B shows an angle between the midline and the rotational axis where the angle is clearly below 90 degrees and above 0 degrees. This relationship is clear through many of the figures).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 11B
Regarding claim 8, Schneider discloses an outer rim connecting the blade tips around a circumference of the runner (Par. 0118).
Regarding claim 9, Schneider discloses that the leading edge thickness of at least one of the blades at the blade tip is larger than the leading edge thickness at the blade root (Par. 0171).
Regarding claim 10, Schneider discloses that the plurality of blades comprises three or more blades (Figure 9A shows three blades).
Regarding claim 12, Schneider discloses that the leading edge of at least one of the blades is saddle-shaped (Paragraph 0120).
Regarding claim 13, Schneider discloses that a portion of the leading edge at the blade tip of at least one of the blades is slanted forward in a direction of blade rotation. Paragraph 0139 describes a 25 to 45 degree forwards slant of the leading edge.
Regarding claim 14, Schneider discloses that the portion of the leading edge at the blade tip is slanted at an angle ranging from about 20 degrees to about 90 degrees. Paragraph 0139 describes a 25 to 45 degree forwards slant of the leading edge.
Regarding claim 15, Schneider discloses that the portion of the leading edge at the blade tip is slanted at an angle ranging from about 25 degrees to about 45 degrees. Paragraph 0139 describes a 25 to 45 degree forwards slant of the leading edge.
Regarding claim 16, Schneider discloses that the trailing edge at the root is arranged downstream of the trailing edge at the tip. (Figure 9A shows the trailing edge at the root being downstream of the trailing edge at the tip).
Regarding claim 17, Schneider discloses that a diameter of the runner is between about 0.5 meters and 7 meters. Paragraph 0113 describes that the diameter can range from 0.5 meters to 5 meters, which is entirely within the range required.
Regarding claim 18, Schneider discloses A turbine, comprising:
a housing defining an inlet and an outlet for a flow of water (Figures 15A-15C, described in paragraph 0120); and
the runner according to claim 1 positioned within the housing (see rejections above).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US 20210231094).
Regarding claim 11, Schneider discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of blades having 5 to 10 blades. Schneider describes that the number of blades is one of a few variables that can affect the survival of a fish during a fish strike (Par. 0267) and that increasing the number of blades can provide sufficient tip solidity and efficiency of the system (Par. 0158). Thereby, the number of blades on the runner is a result effective variable with the results being the survival of the fish, the tip solidity of the runner, and the efficiency of the system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the blades include 5 to 10 blades, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have 5 to 10 blades for the purpose of providing the optimum blend of turbine efficiency and fish strike safety. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With regards to claims 6 and 7, while Schneider clearly shows the mean diagonal angle being between 0 and 90 degrees, it does not disclose with certainty that the angle is between 2 and 45 degrees or between 9 and 23 degrees. Further, while the term “approximately” is used for these angles, the specification of the instant application states in paragraph 0036 that “the terms "about" or "approximately" may refer to the stated amount or value +/- 5%”. As such, the limitations cannot be interpreted broadly enough for the Schneider reference to disclose or teach this angle. Further, Schneider does not provide any description of how this angle or this relationship might affect or improve the operability or efficiency of the blade and impeller design. Without such a benefit or rationale, it would not have been obvious to modify these angles. The specification of the instant application further states in paragraph 0061 that the mean diagonal angle affects the chord length and that “The longer chord length increases the blade surface area and improves pressure distribution while maintaining efficiency”. As such, any design choice rejection would be improper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571)-272-8648. 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
