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 § 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 3-5, 9 and 16-17 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.
Claims 3-5 recite “preferably along an entire axial extension”, “preferably at least 75%”, and “preferably at least 30%”. It is unclear whether the limitations are required by the claims due to “preferably”.
Claim 9 recites “the chords of the end flow profiles at the leading edge”, and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “in particular for a Kaplan or Francis turbine”, and it is unclear whether the limitation is required by the claim due to “in particular”.
Claim 17 is rejected due to its dependence on a rejected 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 1, 9, 13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaechele et al. (DE19950227).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kaechele teaches a guide vane for a guide wheel of a pump or turbine, comprising a guide vane body (see Fig. 3) having a leading edge (4, right side), a trailing edge (4, left side), a chord (not outlined but inherent to the blade), and at least one pivot pin (aligned with axis 1), wherein the guide vane can be mounted such that it can be rotated about a rotation axis (1) that is defined by the pivot pin, wherein the chord (5) of the guide vane (1) is, at least in some regions, spaced apart from the rotation axis (see Fig. 4), wherein the guide vane body forms different flow profiles along an axial extension, which flow profiles differ at the leading edge and/or at the trailing edge (the flow profiles are considered different at inner and outer radial sides of the blade because of its curved shape), and wherein the rotation axis is positioned, at least in some regions, outside of the guide vane body (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Kaechele teaches chords of the end flow profiles at the leading edge are at an angle to chords of flow profiles therebetween (see Fig. 3 showing the outer and inner radial edges are angled relative to the midspan of the vane).
Regarding claim 13, Kaechele teaches the pivot pins comprise an end face which is embodied to be roughly perpendicular to the rotation axis and at which the pivot pins are connected to the guide vane body (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Kaechele teaches a guide wheel for a pump or turbine, in particular for a Kaplan or Francis turbine, which is formed by multiple guide vanes (Fig. 3), wherein the guide vanes are embodied according to claim 1 (see rejection above).
Regarding claim 17, Kaechele teaches the vane bodies of the guide vanes are arranged to be eccentric (Fig. 3 shows the eccentricity) from the rotation axes of the respective guide vanes such that the chords of the vane bodies have a smaller spacing from the machine axis than the rotation axes.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaechele in view of Kotzbacher (DE102012101974).
Regarding claim 2, Kaechele teaches the guide vane according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the rotation axis is positioned outside of the guide vane body along an entire axial extension of the guide vane body.
In an analogous art, Kotzbacher teaches a rotatable turbine vane. Kotzbacher teaches a rotation axis (14) is arranged outside the contour of the vane for advantageous movement of the vane (see translation, page 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the guide vane of Kaechele and change it so that the rotation axis is positioned outside of the guide vane body along an entire axial extension of the guide vane body as taught by Kotzbacher to provide advantageous movement for the vane.
Regarding claims 3-5, Kaechele teaches the guide vane according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the rotation axis has, at least in some regions, preferably along an entire axial extension of the guide vane body, a spacing from the guide vane body which corresponds to at least 50%, preferably at least 75%, of a maximum thickness of the guide vane, wherein the chord comprises, at least in a partial region of the guide vane, preferably along an entire axial extension of the guide vane body, a spacing from the rotation axis that corresponds to at least 15%, preferably at least 30%, of a length of the chord, and wherein the chord comprises, at least in a partial region of the guide vane, preferably along an entire axial extension of the guide vane body, a spacing from the rotation axis that corresponds to at least 50%, preferably at least 75%, of a maximum thickness of the guide vane.
Kotzbacher further teaches the rotation axis (14) is spaced from a centroid (20) of the vane by a distance (22) that is optimized to reduce the pitch circle radius and improve efficiency of the turbine (see translation page 5). Thus, Kotzbacher teaches the spacing of the rotation axis from blade components is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the guide vane of Kaechele and change it so that the rotation axis has, at least in some regions, preferably along an entire axial extension of the guide vane body, a spacing from the guide vane body which corresponds to at least 50%, preferably at least 75%, of a maximum thickness of the guide vane, wherein the chord comprises, at least in a partial region of the guide vane, preferably along an entire axial extension of the guide vane body, a spacing from the rotation axis that corresponds to at least 15%, preferably at least 30%, of a length of the chord, and wherein the chord comprises, at least in a partial region of the guide vane, preferably along an entire axial extension of the guide vane body, a spacing from the rotation axis that corresponds to at least 50%, preferably at least 75%, of a maximum thickness of the guide vane according to the teachings of Kotzbacher to optimize a result effective variable to improve efficiency of the turbine.
Claims 7-8, 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaechele in view of Osako et al. (US2014/0341729).
Regarding claims 7-8, 11, and 14-15, Kaechele teaches the guide vane according to claim 1, but fails to teach the flow profiles at the leading edge have at the axial ends a greater thickness than in a region therebetween, wherein the flow profiles at the leading edge have at the axial ends chords which are longer than chords of flow profiles therebetween, so that end noses are formed at the leading edge, wherein flow profiles in a region that is close to the trailing edge have a greater thickness at the axial ends than in a region therebetween, so that a thickening forms, wherein a rounding is arranged at a transition region between the guide vane body and end face, wherein the rounding has different curvature radii along a longitudinal direction of the guide vane, wherein the guide vane body comprises at the axial ends roundings which extend from the leading edge to the trailing edge.
In an analogous art, Osako teaches a turbine vane. Osako teaches thickened leading edges at the axial ends (see Fig. 3A), wherein flow profiles in a region that is close to the trailing edge have a greater thickness (Fig. 3A shows the thickened edges continue from leading to trailing edge), wherein the guide vane body comprises at the axial ends roundings (the inner and outer radial features are considered “roundings”) which extend from the leading edge to the trailing edge. The roundings have variable curvature (see Osako paragraph [0075]). Osako teaches this arrangement causes the vane angle to correspond with an inflow angle of working gas (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the guide vane of Kaechele and change it so that the flow profiles at the leading edge have at the axial ends a greater thickness than in a region therebetween, wherein the flow profiles at the leading edge have at the axial ends chords which are longer than chords of flow profiles therebetween, so that end noses are formed at the leading edge, wherein flow profiles in a region that is close to the trailing edge have a greater thickness at the axial ends than in a region therebetween, so that a thickening forms, wherein a rounding is arranged at a transition region between the guide vane body and end face, wherein the rounding has different curvature radii along a longitudinal direction of the guide vane, wherein the guide vane body comprises at the axial ends roundings which extend from the leading edge to the trailing edge as taught by Osako to cause the vane angle to correspond with an inflow angle of working gas.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaechele in view of Crespo et al. (US8668445).
Regarding claim 12, Kaechele teaches the guide vane of claim 1, but fails to teach gaskets are arranged on faces of the guide vane body.
In an analogous art, Crespo teaches a guide vane. Crespo teaches gaskets (162) disposed on faces of the guide vane body to seal with an adjacent vane sleeve (148).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the guide vane of Kaechele and add gaskets arranged on faces of the guide vane body as taught by Crespo to provide sealing with turbine mounting structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US references 2022/0042514, 10883379, 10753369, 2018/0313320, 2014/0147278, 2985427, 2904307, 1728435, 3588270 teach rotatable turbine vanes with offset rotation axes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON A CORDAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0383. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
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.
/CAMERON A CORDAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745