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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson (US 20120141274).
Claim 1 recites “a turbine blade.” Wilson teaches such a turbine blade, as will be shown.
Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) a turbine blade comprising:
a leading edge 24;
a trailing edge 26;
a pressure side 22; and
a suction side 20;
wherein each of the pressure side and the suction side extend between the leading edge and the trailing edge (para. 0030, Fig. 2);
wherein the pressure side is formed of a first wall (Figs. 2, 3);
wherein the suction side is formed of a second wall (Figs. 2, 3); and
wherein the first wall and the second wall are configured to be independently deformable and move relative to each other proximal the trailing edge in response to loading on the turbine blade (para. 0010-0012, 0040, 0041, Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding Claim 2, Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) the turbine blade of claim 1, wherein the first and second walls have a selected stiffness such that a camber of the turbine blade reduces under high load and increases under low load (para. 0034).
Regarding Claim 3, Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) the turbine blade of claim 1, wherein the first and second walls are independently rotatable and/or translatable at the trailing edge and can move in and out of contact with each other at the trailing edge in response to loading on the turbine blade (para. 0039, separate sections 36 of the first and second walls may be independently rotatable).
Regarding Claim 4, Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) the turbine blade of claim 1, wherein the first wall is formed of a first material and wherein the second wall is formed of a second material (para. 0010-0012).
Regarding Claim 5, Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) the turbine blade of claim 4, wherein the first material and the second material are the same material or are different materials (para. 0010-0012).
Regarding Claim 6, Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) the turbine blade of claim 5, wherein the first material and/or the second material is a composite material (para. 0041).
Regarding Claim 7, Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) the turbine blade of claim 5, wherein the first material and/or the second material is an isotropic material (para. 0041).
Regarding Claim 8, Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) the turbine blade of claim 6, wherein the first material and/or the second material comprises or is formed of an elastomer (para. 0041).
Regarding Claim 9, Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) the turbine blade of claim 1, wherein the first and second walls comprise a rigid portion proximal the leading edge (para. 0010).
Regarding Claim 10, Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) the turbine blade of claim 1, wherein the turbine blade comprises a rigid element 27 extending between the first wall and the second wall proximal the leading edge.
Regarding Claim 11, Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) the turbine blade of claim 10, wherein the rigid element comprises a rigid bar 27 extending between the first and second walls.
Regarding Claim 12, Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) the turbine blade of claim 11, wherein the rigid bar is at a quarter-chord position (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) a turbine comprising one or more turbine blades according to claim 1 (para. 0001).
Regarding Claim 16, Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) a turbine of claim 15, wherein the turbine is a tidal turbine or a wind turbine (abstract).
Claim 17 recites “a turbine blade.” Wilson teaches such a turbine blade, as will be shown.
Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) a trailing edge arrangement for a turbine blade, the trailing edge arrangement comprising:
a first wall portion 22 configured to form at least a portion of a pressure side of the turbine blade, and
a second wall portion 20 configured to form at least a portion of a suction side of the turbine blade,
wherein the first wall portion and the second wall portion are configured to be independently deformable so as to move relative to each other proximal the trailing edge of the turbine blade in response to loading on the turbine blade (para. 0010-0012, 0040, 0041, Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding Claim 18, Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) a kit of parts for a turbine blade, the kit of parts comprising the trailing edge arrangement of claim 17 (abstract).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Hibbard (US 20110081247).
Regarding Claim 13, Wilson teaches (Figs. 1-9) the turbine blade of claim 10,
However, Wilson does not teach wherein the rigid element is a rigid block filling a volume of the turbine blade proximal the leading edge.
Hibbard teaches (Figs. 1-4) a turbine blade wherein a rigid element 210 between a first 220 and second wall 221 is a rigid block filling a volume of the turbine blade proximal the leading edge (see Fig. 4, para. 0035).
Hibbard further teaches providing such a rigid block so that loads on the blade are transferred or carded over the blade joint providing a stronger blade joint and a blade of more predictable and controllable stiffness properties.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Hibbard to the turbine blade of Wilson to have the rigid element is a rigid block filling a volume of the turbine blade proximal the leading edge, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to turbine blades. Doing so would result in a stronger blade joint and a blade of more predictable and controllable stiffness properties, as recognized by Hibbard.
Regarding Claim 14, Wilson, as modified with Hibbard in Claim 13 above, teaches (Hibbard Figs. 1-4) the turbine blade of claim 13, wherein the rigid block fills a volume of the turbine blade between the leading edge and a quarter-chord position (see Fig. 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights