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 .
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“a fixed blades profile chord length” identified in claims 1 and 11 at least.
“a moving blades profile chord length” identified in claims 1 and 11 at least.
“a high-pressure section” identified in claim 7.
“a low-pressure section” identified in claim 7.
“a medium-pressure section” identified in claim 7.
“A small modular reactor” identified in claim 8.
“A power plant” identified in claim 9.
“A method of manufacturing or servicing of a steam turbine” and all steps claimed in claims 11-15. To overcome this objection it is suggested to include a flow chart.
Note that 35 U.S.C. 113 identifies the requirement for drawings to be generally provided (“The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.”) and 37 CFR 1.83(a) identifies requirements for what those drawings must show (“The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box)”).
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.
Fig 1, and Fig 3(a), should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character 30 is used, in Figures 1-2, to designate the “fixed blades 30” (e.g. page 9 line 18) and “fixed blades trailing edge 30” (e.g. page 9 line 20) and “moving blades 30, 32” (e.g. page 9 line 23).
Reference character 32 is used, in Figures 1-2, to designate both “moving blades 32” (e.g. page 9 line 9) and “moving blades leading edge 32” (e.g. page 9 line 20).
For each of the drawing objections above, 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig 4 shows a tall bar with an amount of “34” and a shorter bar with an amount of “36”. This is atypical for labeling a bar chart, conveying information in a bar chart, and confuses the reader (“amount 36” is greater than “amount 34” yet has a smaller bar). Same for the bars showing “38” (tall bar) and “40” (short bar). Fig 5 is similarly confusing because the bars do not appear proportional with the labeled amounts of “41” and “44” and “46” and “48”. This is atypical for labeling a bar chart, conveying information in a bar chart, and confuses the reader.
It is unclear what Fig 6 is showing. It is showing 3 conventional stages A1, A2, A3, and stages of the invention B1, B2, B3. But what are the three bars at each stage? The figure itself does not make this clear, and the bottom of page 10 through the top of page 11 does not make this clear. What exactly are each of the 3 bars shown for each stage?
For each of the drawing objections above, 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(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL - The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 identifies that at least one blade stage of the plurality of blade stages “is a reaction blade stage”, while the specification provides no information on particular requirements that allow for a blade stage to be “a reaction blade stage”.
Claim 11 recites the same limitation, suffering from the same deficiency.
Various dependent claims also recite “reaction blade stages” and thus each suffer from the same deficiency.
For each of the above:
It is noted that there may be many elements possibly required to designate a stage as a reaction blade stage including but not limited to airfoil shape, required structure, required operating condition(s), etc. It appears Applicant is trying to claim an outcome or result, or a desire for a capability, without specifying/providing/claiming the actual structure which allows for or is responsible for the result or capability.
When a claim defines an invention in language specifying a desired result, the disclosure must not fail to sufficiently identify how the result is achieved. Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim does not necessarily satisfy that requirement (MPEP 2163.03.V.). In this case, the specification identifies that “stage reaction is a parameter known to the skilled person and used in the field of steam turbine engineering” without identifying exactly what is required of the blade stage in order to meet the claimed requirement of being “a reaction blade stage”.
Therefore, it appears this invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 4 and claim 14 identify “the stage reaction for the reaction blade stages is from 40% to 60%”, while the specification provides no information on particular requirements for a stage reaction.
Claim 5 and claim 15 identify “the stage reaction is from 45% to 55%”, while the specification provides no information on particular requirements for a stage reaction.
For each of the above:
It is noted that there are many elements possibly required to define a particular stage reaction. It appears Applicant is trying to claim an outcome or result, or a desire for a capability, without specifying/providing/claiming the actual structure which allows for or is responsible for the result or capability.
When a claim defines an invention in language specifying a desired result, the disclosure must not fail to sufficiently identify how the result is achieved. Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim does not necessarily satisfy that requirement (MPEP 2163.03.V.).
In this case, the specification identifies that “Reaction also known as the stage degree of reaction or as the stage reaction is a parameter known to the skilled person and used in the field of steam turbine engineering. It relates to angles at which steam is leaving the fixed blades and the moving blades. Irrespectively of the way how you define the stage reaction, it defines a certain design of a blade stage and thus describes configuration of blades in the steam turbine. It follows that the skilled person understands how to make a blade stage or a steam turbine with a given stage reaction degree.” without identifying exactly what is required to define a particular claimed stage reaction. Note that “Irrespectively of the way how you define the stage reaction…” seems to even explicitly identify that a stage reaction does not have a specific definition. In such a case, how exactly is a reader of the claim supposed to determine whether the claimed requirement is met or not?
Therefore, it appears this invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 8 claims “a small modular reactor”, while the specification provides no information on particular requirements that allow for an element to be a “small modular reactor”.
It is noted that there may be many elements possibly required to designate something as a small modular reactor including but not limited to power requirements, construction, size, etc. It appears Applicant is trying to claim an outcome or result, or a desire for a capability, without specifying/providing/claiming the actual structure which allows for or is responsible for the result or capability.
When a claim defines an invention in language specifying a desired result, the disclosure must not fail to sufficiently identify how the result is achieved. Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim does not necessarily satisfy that requirement (MPEP 2163.03.V.). In this case, the specification appears to not define what a small modular reactor is.
Therefore, it appears this invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim(s) 2-10, 12-15 is/are also rejected by virtue of their dependency.
In view of the 112(a) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (line 6) recites the limitation “the Wilson point” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- a Wilson point --. Note that not all steam turbine sections inherently have a Wilson point; for example, some high-pressure steam turbines do not have a Wilson point at all, as one having ordinary skill in the art would understand.
Claim 11 (line 5 and line 9) recites the limitation “the Wilson point” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- a Wilson point --. Note that not all steam turbine sections inherently have a Wilson point; for example, some high-pressure steam turbines do not have a Wilson point at all, as one having ordinary skill in the art would understand.
Claim 2 (line 1) and claim 12 (line 3 and line 6) recite the limitation “blade stages located on and after the Wilson point” which renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear how any stage can be located simultaneously on and after the Wilson point. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- blade stages located on or after the Wilson point --.
Claim 11 (2 locations) and claim 12 (2 locations) recite the limitation “the plurality of blade stages” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 (line 5 and line 8) recites the limitation “at least one blade stage” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same at least one blade stage previously identified in claim 11 line 3 or a different at least one blade stage.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a ratio of a fixed blades profile chord length to a moving blades profile chord length from 1.5 to 2.5” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same such element previously identified in claim 1 or a different such element. If the former, then it is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- the ratio of the fixed blades profile chord length to the moving blades profile chord length from 1.5 to 2.5 --.
Claim 12 (2 locations) recites the limitation “a ratio of a fixed blades profile chord length to a moving blades profile chord length from 1.5 to 2.5” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same such element previously identified in claim 11 or a different such element. If the former, then it is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- the ratio of the fixed blades profile chord length to the moving blades profile chord length from 1.5 to 2.5 --.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a fixed blades profile chord length to a moving blades profile chord length” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same such element previously identified in claim 1 or a different such element. If the former, then it is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- the fixed blades profile chord length to the moving blades profile chord length --.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a fixed blades profile chord length to a moving blades profile chord length” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same such element previously identified in claim 11 or a different such element. If the former, then it is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- the fixed blades profile chord length to the moving blades profile chord length --.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the stage reaction” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the stage reaction” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Examiner’s note: Claim 5 (via claim 4) recites a broad range/limitation “40% to 60%” and then a narrower range/limitation “45% to 55%”. This is allowed per MPEP 2173.05(c): “While a single claim that includes both a broad and a narrower range may be indefinite, it is not improper under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, second paragraph, to present a dependent claim that sets forth a narrower range for an element than the range set forth in the claim from which it depends. For example, if claim 1 reads "A circuit … wherein the resistance is 70-150 ohms." and claim 2 reads "The circuit of claim 1 wherein the resistance is 70-100 ohms.", then claim 2 should not be rejected as indefinite.” However, if, for example, claim 1 were amended to explicitly recite the range values of both claim 4 and claim 5, then amended claim 1 may be rejected for reciting a broader range/limitation and narrow range/limitation in a single claim (MPEP 2175). Claim 15 is similarly written and the above applies to claim 15 too.
Claim 10 attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process which renders the claim indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim(s) 2-10, 12-15 is/are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 3, 13, 6, 7, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3375665 A (Gyarmathy) in view of US 0814423 A (hereinafter Belluzzo).
Examiner’s note: All mapping below (references made to reference characters, figures, paragraphs, etc.) is with regard to the base reference (the first reference identified above) unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Gyarmathy discloses:
A steam turbine (col 1 line 24) including at least one steam turbine section (Fig 23a),
wherein said at least one steam turbine section comprises a plurality of blade stages (Fig 23 shows this, e.g. 112, 113, 114),
each blade stage includes a row of fixed blades (stator vanes of housing 107 in Fig 23a) and an adjacent row of moving blades (rotor blades of rotator 108 in Fig 23a) that is downstream of the row of fixed blades,
and wherein at least one blade stage of the plurality of blade stages has a ratio of a fixed blades profile chord length (chord length of the stator vanes) to a moving blades profile chord length (chord length of the rotor blades) (Fig 23a inherently shows this)
and is a reaction blade stage (col 19 lines 12-14: reaction turbine) located on or after the Wilson point (col 19 line 14: “The Wilson condition is reached in guide wheel 109 of the first stage.”) of the steam turbine.
Gyarmathy may not explicitly disclose:
The ratio is from 1.5 to 2.5
However, Belluzzo, in the same field of endeavor, steam turbines, teaches:
Stages comprising stator vanes (d2, d3, d4; Figs 1, 2) and rotor blades (r2, r3, r4; Figs 1, 2), wherein the width (h; Fig 1) of each downstream stage of rotor blades decreases (e.g. page 2 left column, line 21-29) in order to improve efficiency (e.g. page 2 left column, line 42-49). Fig 2 clearly shows that decreasing the width of the rotor blades also decreases the chord length of the rotor blades relative to the stator vanes. In this way the disclosure clearly recognizes that the variable of the width/length of the rotor blades relative to the stator vanes is a result effective variable.
Courts have established that a change in form, proportions, or degree, will not sustain a patent and is not inventive, rather is a practice requiring only ordinary skill and hence is considered a routine expedient, routine optimization and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In this case, the prior art’s Fig 2 fairly shows that the chord length of each rotor blade r2, r3, r4 is smaller than the chord length of each stator vane d2, d3, d4, and the chord length of the rotor blade r4 relative to the chord length of the stator vane d4 to be in the same general size range contemplated by the claim. Therefore, a slight difference between the prior art’s disclosed values and the claimed values is held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gyarmathy to include Belluzzo’s teachings as described above, having the ratio be from 1.5 to 2.5, in order to improve efficiency (e.g. page 2 left column, line 42-49).
This modification results in teaching the limitation above.
The prior art’s drawings are not relied upon for exact sizes. The drawings are relied upon for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, the drawings are relied upon for general relative proportions which are fairly shown in the drawings. The prior art’s disclosure is directed towards a specific sizing of the rotor blades, thus, one having ordinary skill in the art may reasonably conclude that the drawings fairly show general relative proportions. MPEP 2125 identifies what information may be obtained from drawings which may not be to scale. In this case, the prior art’s disclosure is not silent regarding relative sizes/dimensions of the rotor blades and stator vanes shown in the drawings.
Claim 11 is similarly rejected to claim 1. Claim 11 is a method claim reciting substantially the same limitations as the product claim 1, thus is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the prior art (see prior art rejections of claim 1 above), entirely corresponding with the disclosures, teachings, and rejections already discussed in detail above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Gyarmathy, as modified above, discloses:
the ratio of a fixed blades profile chord length to a moving blades profile chord length is some value.
Gyarmathy may not explicitly disclose:
The ratio is from 1.75 to 2.25.
However, Belluzzo, in the same field of endeavor, steam turbines, teaches:
Stages comprising stator vanes (d2, d3, d4; Figs 1, 2) and rotor blades (r2, r3, r4; Figs 1, 2), wherein the width (h; Fig 1) of each downstream stage of rotor blades decreases (e.g. e.g. page 2 left column, line 21-29) in order to improve efficiency (e.g. page 2 left column, line 42-49). Fig 2 clearly shows that decreasing the width of the rotor blades also decreases the chord length of the rotor blades relative to the stator vanes. In this way the disclosure clearly recognizes that the variable of the width/length of the rotor blades relative to the stator vanes is a result effective variable.
Courts have established that a change in form, proportions, or degree, will not sustain a patent and is not inventive, rather is a practice requiring only ordinary skill and hence is considered a routine expedient, routine optimization and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In this case, the prior art’s Fig 2 fairly shows that the chord length of each rotor blade r2, r3, r4 is smaller than the chord length of each stator vane d2, d3, d4, and the chord length of the rotor blade r4 relative to the chord length of the stator vane d4 to be in the same general size range contemplated by the claim. Therefore, a slight difference between the prior art’s disclosed values and the claimed values is held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gyarmathy to include Belluzzo’s teachings as described above, having the ratio be from 1.75 to 2.25, in order to improve efficiency (e.g. page 2 left column, line 42-49).
This modification results in teaching the limitation above.
The prior art’s drawings are not relied upon for exact sizes. The drawings are relied upon for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, the drawings are relied upon for general relative proportions which are fairly shown in the drawings. The prior art’s disclosure is directed towards a specific sizing of the rotor blades, thus, one having ordinary skill in the art may reasonably conclude that the drawings fairly show general relative proportions. MPEP 2125 identifies what information may be obtained from drawings which may not be to scale. In this case, the prior art’s disclosure is not silent regarding relative sizes/dimensions of the rotor blades and stator vanes shown in the drawings.
Claim 13 is similarly rejected to claim 3. Claim 13 (depending from independent claim 11) is a method claim entirely substantially similar to the product claim 3 (depending from independent claim 1), thus is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the prior art (see prior art rejection of claim 3 above), entirely corresponding with the disclosures, teachings, and rejections already discussed in detail above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Gyarmathy, as modified above, discloses:
said steam turbine section is selected from a group including a high-pressure section, a medium-pressure section, and a low-pressure section (Gyarmathy col 19 line 12: “low pressure portion”).
Regarding claim 7, Gyarmathy, as modified above, discloses:
the steam turbine includes two said steam turbine sections, wherein one is a high-pressure section and one is a low-pressure section, or wherein the steam turbine includes three said steam turbine sections wherein one is a high-pressure section, one is a medium-pressure section and one is a low-pressure section (while Gyarmathy Fig 23a shows only the low pressure portion of the reaction turbine, e.g. col 19 line 12-13, the disclosure indicates throughout that the steam turbine may comprise a high pressure portion and a low pressure portion, e.g. 44 and 46 in Fig 9).
Regarding claim 9, Gyarmathy, as modified above, discloses:
A power plant (e.g. title) selected from a group including a fossil power plant, a combined cycle power plant, a renewable energy power plant, a waste-to-energy power plant, and a nuclear power plant (e.g. col 9 line 56: “nuclear reactor”), wherein that the power plant includes a steam turbine according to claim 1 (e.g. see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 10, Gyarmathy, as modified above, discloses:
A use of a steam turbine defined in claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above) for increasing power production of a power plant (e.g. title, or Fig 9, or col 9 line 56: “nuclear reactor” or Fig 23a) or for increasing efficiency of an industrial process or for ensuring sustainable energy production of a power plant.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art reference(s) as applied to claim 1 above, and as evidenced by non-patent literature “A Novel Dehumidification Strategy to Reduce Liquid Fraction and Condensation Loss in Steam Turbines” (hereinafter Yang) and/or non-patent literature “An analytical method for Wilson point in nozzle flow with homogeneous nucleating” (hereinafter Ding).
Regarding claim 2, Gyarmathy, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not explicitly disclose:
All blade stages located on and after the Wilson point of the steam turbine are reaction blade stages that have a ratio of a fixed blades profile chord length to a moving blades profile chord length from 1.5 to 2.5.
However, Yang, in the same field of endeavor, steam turbines, also Ding, in the same field of endeavor, steam turbines, identify: that the location of the Wilson point within a steam turbine varies depending on operating conditions such as, for example and not necessarily limited to, steam temperature (e.g. Yang text at page 7) (e.g. Ding page 6 column 2 paragraph 2). As it is known that the location of the Wilson point changes based on turbine operating conditions, it is noted that Gyarmathy identifies a location of a Wilson point for a given set of operating conditions. As the location of Gyarmathy’s Wilson point may shift due to turbine operating conditions, it may shift aft to the point that the requirement of the above limitation is met.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art reference(s) as applied to claim 11 above, and as evidenced by non-patent literature Yang and/or non-patent literature Ding.
Claim 12 is similarly rejected to claim 2. Claim 12 (depending from independent claim 11) is a method claim entirely substantially similar to the product claim 2 (depending from independent claim 1), thus is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the prior art (see prior art rejection of claim 2 above), entirely corresponding with the disclosures, teachings, and rejections already discussed in detail above for claim 2.
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art reference(s) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6345952 B1 (hereinafter Oeynhausen).
Regarding claim 4, Gyarmathy, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not explicitly disclose:
the stage reaction for the reaction blade stages is from 40% to 60%.
However, Oeynhausen, in the same field of endeavor, steam turbines, teaches:
Stages having a reaction degree achievable between 5% and 70% (abstract) and particularly having a reaction degree value of 50% in order to have the enthalpy gradient in the guide blades is exactly the same as in the moving blades (e.g. col 1 line 59) and/or to achieve favorable flow paths in the blade ducts and high efficiencies (e.g. col 2 line 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gyarmathy to include Oeynhausen’s teachings as described above, having the stage reaction for the reaction blade stages in the claimed value, in order to in order to have the enthalpy gradient in the guide blades is exactly the same as in the moving blades (e.g. col 1 line 59) and/or to achieve favorable flow paths in the blade ducts and high efficiencies (e.g. col 2 line 32).
This modification results in teaching the limitation above.
Regarding claim 5, Gyarmathy as modified above discloses:
the stage reaction is from 45% to 55% (see claim 4 rejection above).
Claim(s) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art reference(s) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 6345952 B1 (hereinafter Oeynhausen).
Claim 14 is similarly rejected to claim 4. Claim 14 (depending from independent claim 11) is a method claim entirely substantially similar to the product claim 4 (depending from independent claim 1), thus is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the prior art (see prior art rejection of claim 4 above), entirely corresponding with the disclosures, teachings, and rejections already discussed in detail above for claim 4.
Claim 15 is similarly rejected to claim 5. Claim 15 (depending from independent claim 11) is a method claim entirely substantially similar to the product claim 5 (depending from independent claim 1), thus is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the prior art (see prior art rejection of claim 5 above), entirely corresponding with the disclosures, teachings, and rejections already discussed in detail above for claim 5.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art reference(s) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200027593 A1 (hereinafter Beckett).
Regarding claim 8, Gyarmathy, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not explicitly disclose:
A steam turbine according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Gyarmathy may not explicitly disclose:
A small modular reactor wherein the small modular reactor includes a steam turbine according to claim 1.
However, Beckett, in the same field of endeavor, steam turbines, teaches:
In Fig 1 a small modular reactor (12) wherein the small modular reactor includes a steam turbine (28) in order to generate electricity (e.g. para 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gyarmathy to include Beckett’s teachings as described above, having a small modular reactor wherein the small modular reactor includes a steam turbine according to claim 1, in order to generate electricity (e.g. para 0029).
This modification results in teaching the limitation above.
Conclusion
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 0971555 A - cited for teaching rotor blades with short chord lengths relative to stator blades.
US 0748216 A - cited for teaching in Fig 16 rotor blades with short chord lengths relative to stator blades.
US 20210142920 A1 - cited for teaching a small modular reactor with a steam turbine.
US 20180038230 A1 - cited for teaching in Fig 2 rotor blades with short chord lengths relative to stator blades; also stage reaction values.
JP H07208108 A - cited for teaching in Fig 3 rotor blades with short chord lengths relative to stator blades.
US 20140190011 A1 - cited for teaching a ratio of chord lengths of rotor blades and stator blades.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights