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 Amendment
The Amendment filed on 4/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 of 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Fotev (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0388858) teaches the added feature of one ends of the protruding structures facing a trailing edge of the blade are provided with recesses, which are recessed to be formed at rears of the protruding structures, each recess has a shape of an arrow, and includes two obliquely arranged inner wall surfaces (see figure 4).
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) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0328693) in view of Fostev (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0388858).
As per claim 1, Wilson discloses a rotary wing, comprising a blade (16; figure 1), wherein a plurality of protruding structures (102; figure 2) are arranged on a surface of the blade (16), the plurality of protruding structures (102) are sequentially arranged at intervals in a spanwise direction of the blade, and a height difference is provided between adjacent protruding structures (as shown; figures 8, 10).
Wilson does not explicitly teach one ends of the protruding structures facing a trailing edge of the blade are provided with recesses, which are recessed to be formed at rears of the protruding structures, each recess has a shape of an arrow, and includes two obliquely arranged inner wall surfaces.
Fotev is related prior art in that it teaches mechanism for reducing boundary layer friction. Fotev one ends of the protruding structures facing a trailing edge of the blade are provided with recesses, which are recessed to be formed at rears of the protruding structures, each recess has a shape of an arrow, and includes two obliquely arranged inner wall surfaces (see figure 4). Fotev teaches these shapes promote wake, while at the same time suppress separation for as long as possible, or avoid separation altogether (paragraph [0047], [0048]). Fotev also teaches its usage in wind turbine (paragraph [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Wilson’s protruding structure to incorporate Fotev’s arrow shaped geometry as they promote wake, while at the same time suppress separation for as long as possible, or avoid separation altogether (paragraph [0047], [0048]).
As per claim 2, Wilson, in view of Fotev, discloses the rotary wing according to claim 1, wherein a height of the plurality of protruding structures is sequentially reduced in the spanwise direction of the blade to form a stepped distribution (as shown; figures 8, 10).
As per claim 4, Wilson, in view of Fotev, discloses the rotary wing according to claim 1, wherein the protruding structures (2) are polygonal bosses (vortex generator 102 can be fin 110 having a triangular shape; paragraph [0039]).
As per claim 5, Wilson, in view of Fotev, discloses the rotary wing according to claim 4, wherein each polygonal boss comprises a front portion, wherein the front portion has a triangular cross section (vortex generator 102 can be fin 110 having a triangular shape; paragraph [0039]).
As per claim 7, Wilson, in view of Fotev, discloses the rotary wing according to claim 1, wherein a height of the protruding structures satisfies:
t
=
k
c
R
e
0.2
wherein t is the height of the protruding structures; and k is a proportionality coefficient, and k ranges from 0.01 to 0.2; c is a local chord length; and Re is a local Reynolds number.
Although Wilson does not use the exact mathematical relationship for the thickness of claim 7, Wilson clearly and unambiguously teaches the mathematical relationships determining the height of the vortex generators (protruding structures) in terms of a) chord length of the airfoil and b) boundary layer thickness at the location of the vortex generator which can be derived to a conclusion that Wilson anticipates the claimed thickness range.
In paragraph [0050], Wilson teaches the vortex generators 102 have a height between 0.5% and 4% of the local chord. Therefore, the following relationship is true:
t
=
A
*
c
(1)
wherein A is the height(t) to chord length (c) ratio between 0.005 and 0.04 from teachings of paragraph [0050], c is the chord length, and t is the height of the vortex generator.
In paragraph [0051], Wilson teaches the height 112 of vortex generator 102 is additionally defined relative to a boundary layer 140 at the span-wise location of the vortex generator. Wilson teaches the height of vortex generator is between 0.5 and 7 times the local boundary layer thickness at the location (x) of the vortex generator. Therefore, the following is also true:
t
=
B
*
δ
x
(2)
wherein B is the height (t) to boundary layer thickness ratio between 0.5 and 7 from teachings of paragraph [0051] and
δ
x
is the local boundary layer thickness. The local boundary layer thickness is governed by the well-established Blasius solution:
δ
x
=
5.0
*
x
R
e
x
(3)
wherein x is the location of the vortex generator and Rex is the local Reynold’s number at the vortex generator. It should be also noted that this local Reynold’s number Rex is not the chord Reynolds number Rec as the local Reynolds number Rex defines the specific flow condition at a localized distance x from the leading edge rather than the entire chord. The chord Reynold’s number
R
e
c
is the same as the Reynold’s number used in claim 7 of the instant application. In paragraph [0044], Wilson teaches the vortex generator is disposed at a location between 10% and 40% of the local chord from the leading edge. Thus:
x
=
D
*
c
(4); and
R
e
x
=
D
*
R
e
c
(5)
wherein D represents the location of the vortex generator from the leading edge in terms of the chord length and is between 0.1 and 0.4 from teachings of paragraph [0044]. And therefore, combining (3), (4) and (5):
δ
=
5.0
*
D
*
c
R
e
x
=
5.0
*
D
*
c
D
*
R
e
c
(5)
And combining (1), (2), (3) yields:
t
=
A
*
c
=
B
*
δ
x
=
B
*
5.0
*
D
*
c
D
*
R
e
c
(6)
A
=
B
*
5.0
*
D
D
*
R
e
c
(7)
Therefore, the chord Reynold’s number
R
e
c
is:
R
e
c
=
25
*
B
2
*
D
A
2
(8)
Because paragraphs [0044] teaches D is between 0.1 and 0.4, paragraph [0050] teaches A is between 0.005 and 0.04 and paragraph [0051] teaches B is between 0.5 and 7, Wilson’s local chord Reynold’s number
R
e
c
can be calculated.
In case of A=0.005, B=0.5 and D=0.1, the chord Reynold’s number
R
e
c
is:
R
e
c
=
25
*
B
2
*
D
A
2
=
25
*
0.5
2
*
0.1
0.005
2
=
25,000
And from equation (1), the thickness of Wilson’s vortex generator is
t
=
A
*
c
=
0.005
c
Substituting the chord Reynold’s number with the claimed Reynold’s number in the claimed thickness model yields the required claimed thickness to be:
f
o
r
k
=
0.01
;
t
=
k
c
R
e
c
0.2
=
0.01
c
25000
0.2
=
0.00132
c
or
f
o
r
k
=
0.2
;
t
=
k
c
R
e
c
0.2
=
0.2
c
25000
0.2
=
0.0264
c
Therefore, Wilson teaches wherein the height (thickness) of the vortex generator to be 0.005c while the claimed model requires the height to be in between 0.00132c and 0.0264c. Clearly, Wilson’s vortex generator fits within the claimed range and therefore Wilson clearly anticipates the claimed thickness (height) range.
As per claim 8, Wilson, in view of Fotev, discloses the rotary wing according to claim 7, and further discloses wherein the local Reynolds number satisfies the following requirement:
R
e
=
ρ
ω
r
c
μ
wherein ρ is an air density; ω is a rotational angular velocity of the blade; r is a local spanwise position; and µ is aerodynamic viscosity. Wilson’s device is a rotor blade (i.e., velocity u=
ω
r
), i.e., the chord Reynold’s number is
R
e
=
ρ
u
c
μ
=
ρ
ω
r
c
μ
.
As per claim 9, Wilson, in view of Fotev, discloses the rotary wing according to claim 8, wherein the local Reynolds number is greater than or equal to 10,000, and less than or equal to 500,000 (as calculated for claim 7 above, Wilson teaches Reynold’s number of 250,000).
As per claim 10, Wilson, in view of Fotev, discloses the rotary wing according to claim 1, wherein the protruding structures have a chordwise length greater than or equal to 0.05c and less than or equal to 0.2c, wherein c is a local chord length (vortex generator 102 having a length 114 between 4% and 20% of the local chord 46; paragraph [0050]).
As per claim 13, Wilson, in view of Fotev, discloses the rotary wing according to claim 1, wherein spacing between the protruding structures and a leading edge of the blade is greater than or equal to 0.05c and less than or equal to 0.5c, wherein c is a local chord length (vortex generator 102 located between 10% and 40% of the local chord; paragraph [0044]).
Claim(s) 1, 2-4, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0398971) in view of Fostev.
As per claim 1, Guo discloses a rotary wing, comprising a blade (62; figure 4), wherein a plurality of protruding structures (98; figure 5A) are arranged on a surface of the blade (as shown; figure 5A), the plurality of protruding structures are sequentially arranged at intervals in a spanwise direction of the blade (as shown; figure 5A), and a height difference is provided between adjacent protruding structures (height of the vortex generator is 0.2%-5% of the local airfoil chord length; paragraph [0126]). It should be noted that because the local airfoil chord length varies along the spanwise length of the blade (as shown in figure 5A), by the height of the vortex generators would also vary along the length of the blade.
Guo does not explicitly teach one ends of the protruding structures facing a trailing edge of the blade are provided with recesses, which are recessed to be formed at rears of the protruding structures, each recess has a shape of an arrow, and includes two obliquely arranged inner wall surfaces.
Fotev (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0388858) is related prior art in that it teaches mechanism for reducing boundary layer friction. Fotev one ends of the protruding structures facing a trailing edge of the blade are provided with recesses, which are recessed to be formed at rears of the protruding structures, each recess has a shape of an arrow, and includes two obliquely arranged inner wall surfaces (see figure 4). Fotev teaches these shapes promote wake, while at the same time suppress separation for as long as possible, or avoid separation altogether (paragraph [0047], [0048]). Fotev also teaches its usage in helicopter blades (paragraph [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Guo’s protruding structure to incorporate Fotev’s arrow shaped geometry as they promote wake, while at the same time suppress separation for as long as possible, or avoid separation altogether (paragraph [0047], [0048]).
As per claim 2, Guo, in view of Fostev, discloses the rotary wing according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein a height of the plurality of protruding structures is sequentially reduced in the spanwise direction of the blade to form a stepped distribution (height of the vortex generator is 0.2%-5% of the local airfoil chord length; paragraph [0126]). It should be noted that because the local airfoil chord length varies along the spanwise length of the blade (as shown in figure 5A) and the vortex generators 98 are discretely spaced, by the heights of the vortex generators would vary to form a stepped distribution.
As per claim 4, Guo, in view of Fostev, discloses the rotary wing according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the protruding structures are polygonal bosses (as shown; figures 7A, 10G).
As per claim 14, Guo, in view of Fostev, discloses a rotary wing aircraft, comprising: a rotary wing, wherein the rotary wing comprises a blade (62; figure 4), wherein a plurality of protruding structures (98; figure 5A) are arranged on a surface of the blade (as shown; figure 5A), the plurality of protruding structures are sequentially arranged at intervals in a spanwise direction of the blade (as shown; figure 5A), and a height difference is provided between adjacent protruding structures (height of the vortex generator is 0.2%-5% of the local airfoil chord length; paragraph [0126]). It should be noted that because the local airfoil chord length varies along the spanwise length of the blade (as shown in figure 5A), by the height of the vortex generators would also vary along the length of the blade.
Guo does not explicitly teach one ends of the protruding structures facing a trailing edge of the blade are provided with recesses, which are recessed to be formed at rears of the protruding structures, each recess has a shape of an arrow, and includes two obliquely arranged inner wall surfaces.
Fotev (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0388858) is related prior art in that it teaches mechanism for reducing boundary layer friction. Fotev one ends of the protruding structures facing a trailing edge of the blade are provided with recesses, which are recessed to be formed at rears of the protruding structures, each recess has a shape of an arrow, and includes two obliquely arranged inner wall surfaces (see figure 4). Fotev teaches these shapes promote wake, while at the same time suppress separation for as long as possible, or avoid separation altogether (paragraph [0047], [0048]). Fotev also teaches its usage in helicopter blades (paragraph [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Guo’s protruding structure to incorporate Fotev’s arrow shaped geometry as they promote wake, while at the same time suppress separation for as long as possible, or avoid separation altogether (paragraph [0047], [0048]).
As per claim 15, Guo, in view of Fostev, discloses the rotary wing aircraft according to claim 14, and further discloses wherein a height of the plurality of protruding structures is sequentially reduced in the spanwise direction of the blade to form a stepped distribution (height of the vortex generator is 0.2%-5% of the local airfoil chord length; paragraph [0126]). It should be noted that because the local airfoil chord length varies along the spanwise length of the blade (as shown in figure 5A) and the vortex generators 98 are discretely spaced, by the heights of the vortex generators would vary to form a stepped distribution.
As per claim 17, Guo, in view of Fostev, discloses the rotary wing aircraft according to claim 14, and further discloses wherein the protruding structures are polygonal bosses (as shown; figures 7A, 10G).
As per claims 3 and 16, Guo, in view of Fostev discloses the rotary wing according to claim 2 and the rotary wing aircraft according to claim 15. Guo does not explicitly teach wherein a height difference between a protruding structure closest to a rotation center of the blade and a protruding structure farthest from the rotation center is 0.1 mm. However, Guo does teach the vortex generators can have thickness only about 0.05 – 0.2 mm.
Guo teaches the height of the vortex generator is crucial (paragraph [0126]). Therefore, Guo recognizes the height as a variable that affects the aerodynamic performance. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Guo’s vortex generators to incorporate a height difference of 0.1 mm since it is not inventive to discover a workable or optimal range by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 5, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Fostev and Grabau (WO 00/15961A1).
As per claims 6, 11 and 12, Wilson, in view of Fostev, discloses the rotary wing according to claims 1 and 5. Wilson does not explicitly teach the specific dimensional relationships recited in claims 6, 11 and 12.
Grabau is analogous prior art in that it deals with vortex generators for a rotor blade. Grabau teaches wherein an inner angle closest to a leading edge of the blade in a triangle is greater than or equal to 30° and less than or equal to 90° (width b/ length L=0.1-2, i.e., a range including 30° and 90°; page 7, line 4), wherein a ratio of a spanwise width of the protruding structures to a chordwise length of the protruding structures is greater than 0.01 and less than 0.2 (width b/ length L = 0.1 – 2; page 7, line 4), and wherein a ratio of spacing between adjacent protruding structures to a spanwise width of the protruding structures is greater than 0.1 and less than 2 (width of 15mm and interspace a of 70mm, i.e., ratio of 0.21; page 7, lines13-19).
Grabau teaches vortex generators having this geometry can improve efficiency of the blade without the risk of damaging the vortex generators (page 3, lines 1-10; page 7, line 25 – column 8, line 8). Wilson also acknowledged that particular orientations and/or sizing of the vortex generators affect the efficiency of the rotor blade assembly (paragraph [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Wilson’s vortex generator’s to incorporate Grabau’s geometry and/or relative dimensions because as Grabau’s vortex generator shape can improve efficiency of the blade without the risk of damaging the vortex generators (page 3, lines 1-10; page 7, line 25 – column 8, line 8).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (Chinese Patent Document CN 217,227,901 U) in view of Fostev and Wilson.
As per claim 1, Zhao discloses a rotary wing, comprising a blade (1; figure 1), wherein a plurality of protruding structures (2) are arranged on a surface of the blade (1), the plurality of protruding structures (2) are sequentially arranged at intervals in a spanwise direction of the blade (as shown; figure 1).
Zhao does not explicitly teach a height difference is provided between adjacent protruding structures.
Wilson is related prior art in that it deals with a vortex generator (protruding structure) for a rotor blade. Wilson teaches varying the heights along the length of the blade based on the size of the local chord (paragraph [0053]). Wilson teaches orientations and/or sizes of the vortex generators may advantageously improve the performance and efficiency of the rotor (paragraph [0055]).
It should be noted that Zhao also teaches height of the vortex generators are in relationship to the chord (paragraph [0008]) however does not explicitly teach it uses the local chord to vary the height. In order to improve the improve the aerodynamic performance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Zhao’s spoiler or vortex generators to incorporate the teachings of Wilson that varies the height of the vortex generators along the length in relationship to the chord because as Wilson teaches, the orientations and/or sizes of the vortex generators may advantageously improve the performance and efficiency of the rotor (paragraph [0055]).
Zhao also does not explicitly teach one ends of the protruding structures facing a trailing edge of the blade are provided with recesses, which are recessed to be formed at rears of the protruding structures, each recess has a shape of an arrow, and includes two obliquely arranged inner wall surfaces.
Fotev (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0388858) is related prior art in that it teaches mechanism for reducing boundary layer friction. Fotev one ends of the protruding structures facing a trailing edge of the blade are provided with recesses, which are recessed to be formed at rears of the protruding structures, each recess has a shape of an arrow, and includes two obliquely arranged inner wall surfaces (see figure 4). Fotev teaches these shapes promote wake, while at the same time suppress separation for as long as possible, or avoid separation altogether (paragraph [0047], [0048]). Fotev also teaches its usage in helicopter blades (paragraph [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Zhao’s protruding structure to incorporate Fotev’s arrow shaped geometry as they promote wake, while at the same time suppress separation for as long as possible, or avoid separation altogether (paragraph [0047], [0048]).
As per claim 2, Zhao, in view of Fostev and Wilson teaches the rotary wing according to claim 1. While Zhao does not explicitly teach the features of claim 2, Wilson teaches wherein a height of the plurality of protruding structures is sequentially reduced in the spanwise direction of the blade to form a stepped distribution (as shown; figures 8, 10).
As per claim 4, Zhao, in view of Fostev and Wilson teaches the rotary wing according to claim 1. Zhao further discloses wherein the protruding structures (2) are polygonal bosses (as shown; figures 4, 5).
As per claim 5, Zhao, in view of Fostev and Wilson discloses the rotary wing according to claim 4. Zhao further discloses wherein each polygonal boss comprises a front portion, wherein the front portion has a triangular cross section (as shown; figure 5).
As per claim 7, Zhao, in view of Fostev and Wilson discloses the rotary wing according to claim 1. Zhao further discloses wherein a height of the protruding structures satisfies:
t
=
k
c
R
e
0.2
wherein t is the height of the protruding structures; and k is a proportionality coefficient, and k ranges from 0.01 to 0.2; c is a local chord length; and Re is a local Reynolds number (see claim 4).
As per claim 8, Zhao, in view of Fostev and Wilson discloses the rotary wing according to claim 7. Zhao further discloses wherein the local Reynolds number satisfies the following requirement:
R
e
=
ρ
ω
r
c
μ
wherein ρ is an air density; ω is a rotational angular velocity of the blade; r is a local spanwise position; and µ is aerodynamic viscosity (this limitation is just the definition of the Reynold’s number used in fluid mechanics).
As per claim 14, Zhao discloses a rotary wing aircraft, comprising: a rotary wing, wherein the rotary wing comprises a blade (1; figure 1), wherein a plurality of protruding structures (2) are arranged on a surface of the blade (1), the plurality of protruding structures (2) are sequentially arranged at intervals in a spanwise direction of the blade (as shown; figure 1). Zhao does not explicitly teach a height difference is provided between adjacent protruding structures.
Wilson is related prior art in that it deals with a vortex generator (protruding structure) for a rotor blade. Wilson teaches varying the heights along the length of the blade based on the size of the local chord (paragraph [0053]). Wilson teaches orientations and/or sizes of the vortex generators may advantageously improve the performance and efficiency of the rotor (paragraph [0055]).
It should be noted that Zhao also teaches height of the vortex generators are in relationship to the chord (paragraph [0008]) however does not explicitly teach it uses the local chord to vary the height. In order to improve the improve the aerodynamic performance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Zhao’s spoiler or vortex generators to incorporate the teachings of Wilson that varies the height of the vortex generators along the length in relationship to the chord because as Wilson teaches, the orientations and/or sizes of the vortex generators may advantageously improve the performance and efficiency of the rotor (paragraph [0055]).
Zhao also does not explicitly teach one ends of the protruding structures facing a trailing edge of the blade are provided with recesses, which are recessed to be formed at rears of the protruding structures, each recess has a shape of an arrow, and includes two obliquely arranged inner wall surfaces.
Fotev (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0388858) is related prior art in that it teaches mechanism for reducing boundary layer friction. Fotev one ends of the protruding structures facing a trailing edge of the blade are provided with recesses, which are recessed to be formed at rears of the protruding structures, each recess has a shape of an arrow, and includes two obliquely arranged inner wall surfaces (see figure 4). Fotev teaches these shapes promote wake, while at the same time suppress separation for as long as possible, or avoid separation altogether (paragraph [0047], [0048]). Fotev also teaches its usage in helicopter blades (paragraph [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Zhao’s protruding structure to incorporate Fotev’s arrow shaped geometry as they promote wake, while at the same time suppress separation for as long as possible, or avoid separation altogether (paragraph [0047], [0048]).
As per claim 15, Zhao, in view of Fostev and Wilson teaches the rotary wing according to claim 14. While Zhao does not explicitly teach the features of claim 15, Wilson teaches wherein a height of the plurality of protruding structures is sequentially reduced in the spanwise direction of the blade to form a stepped distribution (as shown; figures 8, 10).
As per claim 17, Zhao, in view of Fostev and Wilson teaches the rotary wing aircraft according to claim 14. Zhao further teaches wherein the protruding structures (2) are polygonal bosses (as shown; figures 4, 5).
As per claim 18, Zhao, in view of Fostev and Wilson teaches the rotary wing aircraft according to claim 17. Zhao further discloses wherein each polygonal boss comprises a front portion, wherein the front portion has a triangular cross section (as shown; figure 5).
As per claim 20, Zhao, in view of Fostev and Wilson teaches the rotary wing aircraft according to claim 14. Zhao further discloses wherein a height of the protruding structures satisfies:
t
=
k
c
R
e
0.2
wherein t is the height of the protruding structures; and k is a proportionality coefficient, and k ranges from 0.01 to 0.2; c is a local chord length; and Re is a local Reynolds number (see claim 4).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 11-13 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Fostev and Grabau.
As per claims 5, 6, 11-13 and 18-19, Guo, in view of Fostev, discloses the rotary wing according to claim 1 and the rotary wing aircraft according to claim 17. Guo does not explicitly teach the specific relative dimensions and/or geometry recited in claims 5, 6, 10-13, 18-19. Guo however teaches the vortex generator may have any suitable shape (paragraph [0100]).
Grabau is analogous prior art in that it deals with vortex generators for a rotor blade. Grabau teaches wherein each polygonal boss comprises a front portion, wherein the front portion has a triangular cross section (as shown; figure 1), wherein an inner angle closest to a leading edge of the blade in a triangle is greater than or equal to 30° and less than or equal to 90° (width b/ length L=0.1-2, i.e., a range including 30° and 90°; page 7, line 4), wherein a ratio of a spanwise width of the protruding structures to a chordwise length of the protruding structures is greater than 0.01 and less than 0.2 (width b/ length L = 0.1 – 2; page 7, line 4), and wherein a ratio of spacing between adjacent protruding structures to a spanwise width of the protruding structures is greater than 0.1 and less than 2 (width of 15mm and interspace a of 70mm, i.e., ratio of 0.21; page 7, lines13-19).
Grabau teaches vortex generators having this geometry can improve efficiency of the blade without the risk of damaging the vortex generators (page 3, lines 1-10; page 7, line 25 – column 8, line 8). Wilson also acknowledged that particular orientations and/or sizing of the vortex generators affect the efficiency of the rotor blade assembly (paragraph [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Guo’s vortex generators to incorporate Grabau’s geometry and/or relative dimensions because as Grabau’s vortex generator shape can improve efficiency of the blade without the risk of damaging the vortex generators (page 3, lines 1-10; page 7, line 25 – column 8, line 8).
Claim(s) 7-10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo, in view of Fostev and Wilson.
As per claims 7-10 and 20, Guo, in view of Fostev, discloses the rotary wing according to claim 1 and the rotary wing aircraft according to claim 17. Guo does not explicitly teach the relative dimensions recited in claims 7-10 and 20. As discussed above, Wilson teaches the features of claims 7-10 and claim 20 only recites the same limitations of claim 7. Wilson is a related prior art in that it teaches vortex generator arrangement on a rotor blade.
Guo also teaches the vortex generator may have any suitable shape (paragraph [0100]) and Wilson teaches an exemplary vortex generator arrangement and shape appreciable by a person of ordinary skill in the art (i.e., person having a working knowledge in fluid mechanics of rotor blades) because Wilson teaches its orientations and/or sizes of the vortex generators improve the performance and efficiency of a rotor blade (paragraph [0055]).
Therefore, in order to improve the aerodynamic efficiency, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Guo’s vortex generators to incorporate Wilson relative dimensions for the vortex generators because as Wilson teaches, its orientations and/or sizes of the vortex generators improve the performance and efficiency of a rotor blade (paragraph [0055]).
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 SANG K KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm 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.
/SANG K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights