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
Figure 1-5 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.
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.
Claims 4-6 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.
The term “small” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, it is not clear how small would be considered small enough to read on the claim.
The term “large” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, it is not clear how large would be considered large enough to read on the claim.
Claim 4 recites that the blade has a trapezoidal shape portion, and two other portions, one above the trapezoidal shape portion and another one below the trapezoidal shape portion. Claim 4 also recites that the thickness of the portions below and above the trapezoidal shape portion changes relative to the thickness of the trapezoidal shape portion. Claim 4 also recites that the thickness of each of the turbine blades decreases uniformly starting from the respective blade foot. This uniform decrease in blade thickness starting from the respective blade foot conflicts with the requirement of thickness change of the sections above and below the trapezoidal shape portion. Hence, it is not clear how to interpret “uniformly” in claim 4 and what thickness distribution the wheel exactly has. Hence, the metes and bounds of the claims regarding the blade thickness distribution are unclear.
Any and all claims rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, if rejected with art below under sections 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, are rejected as best understood.
Claims 4-5 are rejected due to their dependency from a previously 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nichols et al. (US 2021/0123378), referred to hereinafter as Nichols.
With regard to claim 4, Nichols discloses a turbine wheel for a radial turbine, the turbine wheel comprising: a hub (Fig. 2); a turbine disc (24) connected to the hub; and a plurality of turbine blades (22) connected to the hub via a respective plurality of blade feet (Fig. 2), wherein each of the turbine blades have a curvature following a line of curvature (Fig. 2, 6A, 6B), wherein, when viewed from an orthogonal cut through each of the turbine blades each of the turbine blades has a distribution of a thickness depending on a height of the respective turbine blade above the hub ([0030]), each turbine blade has a trapezoidal shape portion (Fig. 6B), the thickness of each of the turbines blades is greater at small heights above the hub of the respective turbine blade than in the trapezoidal shape portion, the thickness of each of the turbine blades decreases uniformly starting from the respective blade foot, and the thickness of each of the turbine blades is smaller at large heights above the hub of the respective turbine blade than in the trapezoidal shape portion (Fig. 6B. Note that one can interpret the beet to be the section below 25% span in Fig. 6A).
With regard to claim 5, Nichols further discloses that the thickness of each of the turbine blades is distributed in such a way that, for heights from 0 to 66% of a maximum of the height, the thickness is greater than in the trapezoidal shape portion (see 25%-75% in Fig. 6A in conjunction with Fig. 6B).
With regard to claim 6, Nichols further discloses that the thickness of each of the turbine blades for heights of 33% of the maximum of the height up to a maximum of the height is smaller than in the trapezoidal shape portion (see 25%-75% in Fig. 6A in conjunction with Fig. 6B).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Klaus et al. (US 2015/0204195), referred to hereinafter as Klaus.
With regard to claim 4, Klaus discloses a turbine wheel for a radial turbine, the turbine wheel comprising: a hub (Fig. 1); a turbine disc (Fig. 1) connected to the hub; and a plurality of turbine blades (3) connected to the hub via a respective plurality of blade feet (Fig. 1), wherein each of the turbine blades have a curvature following a line of curvature (Fig. 1. Note that the claim doesn’t recite any specific location for the line of curvature), wherein, when viewed from an orthogonal cut through each of the turbine blades each of the turbine blades has a distribution of a thickness depending on a height of the respective turbine blade above the hub (Fig. 2-7), each turbine blade has a trapezoidal shape portion (See annotated Fig. 2 and 3 below and see corresponding portions in Fig. 5-7. Also see [0012], [0014], [0038], [0046] for a trapezoidal shape portion. Also see “straight” in [0044], and “straight-running contour sections G1 to G7” in [0053]), the thickness of each of the turbines blades is greater at small heights above the hub of the respective turbine blade than in the trapezoidal shape portion, the thickness of each of the turbine blades decreases uniformly starting from the respective blade foot, and the thickness of each of the turbine blades is smaller at large heights above the hub of the respective turbine blade than in the trapezoidal shape portion (Fig. 2-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
914
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 and 3 of Klaus
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaus et al. (US 2015/0204195), referred to hereinafter as Klaus.
With regard to claims 5-6:
Klaus discloses the turbine wheel of claim 4, as set forth above.
Klaus does not appear to explicitly disclose that the thickness of each of the turbine blades is distributed in such a way that, for heights from 0 to 66% of a maximum of the height, the thickness is greater than in the trapezoidal shape portion, or the thickness of each of the turbine blades for heights of 33% of the maximum of the height up to a maximum of the height is smaller than in the trapezoidal shape portion.
However, Klaus teaches that the location and extent of the trapezoidal shape portion and the thickness transition location and contour is the result of an optimization based on the specific application at hand in order to attain the best possible compromise between rigidity and inertia ([0047]). Therefore, Klaus establishes a result effective variable optimization in which the variable (i.e., the location and extent of the trapezoidal shape portion and the thickness transition location and contour) affects the results (i.e., the rigidity and inertia) with the goal of the optimization being the best possible compromise between rigidity and inertia.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to try different turbine wheels with different profiles and thickness transition locations through routine experimentation and choose a profile and thickness transition location that best suits their particular application at hand, and arrive at the recites thickness transition locations of 0 to 66% of a maximum of the height, and 33% of the maximum of the height, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar turbine wheels such as US 11697995 and US 20210140324.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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 D 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights