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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 30, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Response to Amendment / Claim Interpretation
The amendments to claims 7&8 overcome the new matter rejection. Support for the amendment is found in Fig. 2e and para 0053-0055 of the published application. The figure and description show the replacement of a second strand with a first strand. For example, between L10 and L9 warp planes, one second strand if replaced with one first strand. As 8 strands are depicted, the numeric percent replacement of the yarn is 12.5%, within the maximum set by the description and claim of 30%.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2018/0045207 to Paquin in view of US Pub. No. 2013/0149154 to Kuroiwa.
Regarding claims 1-8, 10, and 12-18, Paquin teaches a gas turbine engine (claim 15, 18) comprising a fan blade comprising a fiber composite material comprising a polymer matrix, carbon fibers (first strands), and non-carbon fibers (second strands) in a three dimensionally woven structure (Paquin, abstract, para 0006-0010, 0020), reading on a composite material structure comprising a fibrous reinforcement obtained by three-dimensional weaving and a matrix in which the fibrous reinforcement is embedded. Paquin teaches the non-carbon fibers (second strands) have a strain to failure value greater than the strain to failure value of the carbon fibers (first strands) (Id., abstract, para 0005, 0019), reading on the first stands having a first elongation at break and the second strands having a second elongation at break that is greater than the first elongation. Paquin teaches the fan blade comprising a root connected to a blade portion (Id., para 0009, 0024, Fig. 2, 0048), reading on first portion comprising the root and a second portion comprising the tip. Paquin teaches that fiber composite material comprising carbon fibers have less ductility than metal material and show brittle type failure on impact as opposes to a ductile type failure (Id., para 0019). Paquin teaches the distribution of the non-carbon fiber can be chosen to optimize the properties of the final article and teaches having a higher density of non-carbon fiber near the surface to help absorb impact energy and have a lower density of where an enhanced mechanical properties in strength is critical (Id., para 0035). Paquin teaches tailoring the structural properties of the blades such as for strength and stiffness of different regions of the blade (Id., para 0045). Paquin teaches the number of yarns, types of yarns, and weave pattern of the perform can be tailored to achieve the desired properties of the composite blade (Id., para 0048). Paquin teaches the use of two different types of non-carbon fibers and the distribution of each type of non-carbon fiber can be tailored to result in the desired properties in the fiber composite material (Id., para 0031).
Paquin does not explicitly teach a single embodiment wherein the three dimensionally woven preform has the second portion containing the non-carbon fibers and the first portion is devoid of the non-carbon fibers.
However, Kuroiwa teaches a turbine blade having a blade root side formed of carbon-fiber plastic and a blade tip comprising glass-fiber plastic such that the blade root side 1A (first portion) is formed of carbon-fiber plastic member and the blade tip side 1B (second portion) is form from glass-fiber member (Kuroiwa, abstract, para 0073-0074). Kuroiwa teaches carbon-fiber plastic having high strength but are expensive and teaches that by using only in the blade root side where strength is most required, it is possible to reduce production cost while still maintaining the strength (Id., para 0049), thereby reading on the root portion (first portion) consisting of carbon fiber and thereby being devoid of other non-carbon fiber. Kuroiwa also teaches the arrangement also improve lightning protection (Id., para 0048). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would appreciate that the non-carbon fibers of Paquin would also be less conductive than the carbon fiber and result in improved lightning protection. Kuroiwa teaches the connection part (third portion, claim 4) between the carbon-fiber plastic member and the glass-fiber plastic member (non-carbon fiber) being arrange at 1/8 to ½ the length of the entire blade from the blade tip (Id., para 0075-0076), reading on a third portion between 1A, or first portion, and 1B, the second portion with the 1A first portion being at least 30% of the length, or height, of the blade, such about 50% to 87.5% (claim 3). Kuroiwa teaches strength can decline at the connection between different material (Id., para 0079). Kuroiwa teaches that by gradually changing the position of the connection part between the carbon-fiber plastic member and the glass-fiber plastic member, it is possible to secure enough strength to prevent deformation such as buckling (Id., para 0078-0079, Fig. 5). This gradual transition results in a longitudinal gradual change of the amount of carbon fibers and glass fibers in the vertical, or weft, direction.
It would have been obvious to form the blade of Paquin, wherein the three dimensionally woven preform has a first portion near the root consisting of the carbon fibers near and devoid of non-carbon fibers, a second portion containing the non-carbon fibers near the tip, and third portion between the first portion and the second portion, as taught by Kuroiwa, motivated by the desire of using conventionally fiber arrangements predictably suitable for forming blade and by the desire to use the carbon fiber where the strength is most beneficial to reduce cost while maintaining strength as well as improve lightning protection by eliminating the carbon fibers from the portion of the blade most likely to be struck by lightning as well as avoid prevent deformation at the transition points between the two portions as well as being within the totality of the teachings of Paquin. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the preform of Paquin, wherein to two non-carbon fibers are used with the strong fiber present in the portion comprising the root and the lower strength non-carbon fiber in the portion containing the tip, thereby the portion containing the root being devoid of the lower strength non-carbon fiber (second strands), motivated by the desire of using disclosed predictably suitable woven material and by the desire to tailor the feature of the preform as taught by Paquin targeting the use of strong fibers in the portion containing the root as taught by Kuroiwa as desirable and important.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination teaches the three dimensionally woven structure comprising warp yarns and weft yarns (Paquin, para 0038-0039). The prior art combination teaches yarns extending the X direction consisting of the non-carbon fibers (second strands) while yarns extending in the Y direction are free of non-carbon fibers (Id., para 0039), reading on the second portion comprising warp strand and weft strands and at least one of the warp strands or the weft strands being devoid of the first strands, or carbon fibers.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches the weakest region for laminate composite being the interlaminar regions between the laminates (third portion) and teaches strength can decline at the connection between different material (Paquin, para 0044; Kuroiwa, para 0079). The prior art combination teaches that by gradually changing the position of the connection part between the carbon-fiber plastic member and the non-carbon-fiber plastic member, it is possible to secure enough strength to prevent deformation such as buckling (Kuroiwa, para 0078-0079, Fig. 5), reading on the fibrous reinforcement comprising a third portion extending between the first portion and the second portion and a density of the non-carbon-fiber strands (second strands) progressively increasing in the third portion from the first portion toward the second portion.
Regarding claims 5-8, prior art combination teaches that by gradually changing the position of the connection part between the carbon-fiber plastic member and the non-carbon-fiber plastic member, it is possible to secure enough strength to prevent deformation such as buckling (Id., para 0078-0079, Fig. 5 (Kuroiwa, para 0078-0079, Fig. 5). The prior art combination teaches tailoring the structural properties of the blades such as for strength and stiffness of different regions of the blade and teaches the number of yarns, types of yarns, and weave pattern of the perform can be tailored to achieve the desired properties of the composite blade (Paquin, 0045, 0048). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the blade of the prior art combination, wherein the size of the transition are (third portion) is designed, such as within the claimed distance and percent height of the blade, having the gradual change, such as by the claimed percent replacement in claims 7-8, motivated by the desire to design a fan blade having portion designed for the loading experienced by those portions and having a gradual transition as taught by the prior art, absent evidence to the contrary. 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art combination teaches the non-carbon fibers having a strain to failure value greater than or equal to 2.5% (Paquin, para 0031) and teaches the carbon fibers having a strain to failure less than or equal to 1.5% (Id., para 0029), reading on the second elongation at break being greater than 1.67 times the first elongation at break. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of between 1.5 and 3 times, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and vary optimize the strain to failure of the carbon fiber and non-carbon fibers, and therefore the relative relationship, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claims 12 and 17, the prior art combination teaches the non-carbon fibers having a strain to failure value (elongation at break) greater than or equal to 2.5% (Paquin, para 0031). While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of elongation at break being between 3% and 6% (claim 12), specifically between 4% and 5% (claim 17), the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the strain to break (elongate at break), such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art combination teaches the non-carbon fibers being aramid fibers (Paquin, para 0031).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art combination teaches the three dimensionally woven structure comprising warp yarns and weft yarns (Paquin, para 0038-0039) and teaches yarns extending the X direction comprising or consisting of the non-carbon fibers (second strands) (Id., para 0039), reading on the second strands comprising at least one of warp threads and weft threads.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art combination teaches the connection part (third portion, claim 4) between the carbon-fiber plastic member and the glass-fiber plastic member (non-carbon fiber) being arrange at 1/8 to ½ the length of the entire blade from the blade tip (Kuroiwa, para 0075-0076), reading the 1A first portion being at least 30% of the length, or height, of the blade, such about 50% to 87.5%. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of between 30% and 65% of a height of the blade, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and vary the proportion of the 1B and therefore 1A, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paquin in view of Kuroiwa, as applied to claims 1-8, 10, and 12-18, further in view of US Pub. No. 2016/0208617 to Andrews.
NOTE: US Pub. No. 2018/0363176 to Shan is being used as an English translation for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 5-6, alternatively, Andrews teaches a fan blade for a gas turbine engine having a root region and a tip region formed of a preform having a lowermost region A near the root portion having a higher thickness and an uppermost region B near the tip portion of the blade having a lower region with a tapered region or transition zone T of tapered thickness between the lowermost and upper most regions A and B (Andrews, abstract, para 0001, 0047-0052, Fig. 3a). Andrews teaches that the region of the blade which experience relatively large stresses and centrifugal forces include a suitably thick, and therefore strong, material whereas the region of the blade which experience relatively smaller stresses and centrifugal forces can be thinner (Id., para 0053). Andrews teaches the region T having a span length less than 20 percent of the total span (Id., para 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the blade of the prior art combination, wherein the transition zone is less than 20% of the height of the blade, as taught by Andrews, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known span of transition zone between regions of higher strength and lower strength predictably suitable for use in blade used in gas turbine engines. The overall height would depend on the overall height of the blade. As the blade is used in the same service and application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have expected the over lapping percent height to also overall lap with the height in centimeters.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 5% to 30%, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the percent span, or height, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paquin in view of Kuroiwa, as applied to claims 1-8, 10, and 12-18 above, in view of Material, Design, and Manufacturing for Lightweight Vehicles to Mallick and Fuels and Lubricant Handbook to Totten.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, the prior art combination teaches the non-carbon fibers being aramid (Paquin, para 0029). The prior art combination teaches the carbon fibers being intermediate or high modulus carbon fibers having a modulus of elasticity greater than 250 GPa and having a strain to failure (elongation at break) less than or equal to 2.0% (Id.) Aramid is known in the art as having a Young’s modulus, or tensile modulus, of 131 GPa, as evidence by Mallick (Mallick, Table) . High modulus carbon fiber can have a tensile modulus (Young’s modulus) greater than 250 GPa, as evidenced by Totten (Totten, Table 18), which means a Young’s modulus of the first strands is greater than a Young’s modulus of the second strands.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of elongation at break being between 1.5% and 2.5% (claim 11), the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the strain to break (elongate at break), such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regards to the prior art rejection.
Applicant argues, with regards to the application of Paquin and Kuroiwa, that the combination does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness because these references do not disclose, teach, or suggest all the limitations of independent claim 1, as Paquin does not teach how non-carbon fibers would be arranged in a woven fabric but solely precises the weave structure and does not suggest one portion of the woven fabric could be devoid of non-carbon fibers. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paquin explicitly teaches “the distribution of the non-carbon fiber can be chosen to optimize the properties of the final article” (Paquin, para 0035), providing a clear teaching to adjust the distribution of the non-carbon fiber. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have known how to form a three dimensional weave having the targeted distribution of carbon fiber and non-carbon fibers. While Paquin teaches the yarn in the Z-direction comprising carbon fiber and non-carbon fiber, one could change or adjust the yarn composition during weave to result in the desired distribution. This tailorability is support by Paquin. Kuroiwa provides the teaching and motivation to use only the high strength carbon fibers in the first portion comprising the root.
Applicant argues that the non-carbon fibers are present from the root to the tip of the blade as the Z-direction extends between the first portion comprising the root and the second portion comprising the tip. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paquin teaches a perform comprising a polymer matric, carbon fibers, and non-carbon fibers combined in a three dimensionally woven structure having yarns extending in the X, Y and Z directions, wherein the yarns extending in the Z direction comprise non-carbon fibers and the non-carbon fibers have a strain to failure value greater than the strain to failure value of the carbon fibers (Id., para 0007). While the use of non-carbon fibers in the Z direction is taught, the location relative to the root and tip is not limited. Paquin explicitly teaches “[a]ccording to another embodiment a fan blade for a jet engine, the fan blade comprises a root connected to a blade portion, the blade portion including a leading edge and a trailing edge, wherein the root, the blade portion or both comprise a fiber composite and the fiber composite comprises carbon fibers, non-carbon fibers having a strain to failure value greater than the strain to failure value of the carbon fibers and a polymer matrix” (Paquin, para 0009). As the root portion is not required to containing the fiber composite, the presence of non-carbon fibers is not required, supporting the prior art combination embodiment based on the combined teachings. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing would have known how to adjust the three-dimensional weave to achieve the desired distribution.
Applicant argues that Kuroiwa teaches the second portion comprising the tip is devoid of the first strand not that the root portion does not contain non-carbon fibers and would teach away the skilled person from removing the carbon fibers from the root of the blades. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kuroiwa provides a clear teaches that root portion requires a higher strength and teaches the use of carbon-fiber only in this portion (Kuroiwa, para 0049). Kuroiwa teaches the blade root side being formed of carbon-fiber plastic having high strength and light weight and the blade tip side being formed of the glass-fiber plastic laminated body whose strength is not as high as the carbon-fiber plastic but is high to a certain degree (Id., para 0048). Kuroiwa teaches carbon fiber being expensive and the reduced use of carbon fiber also reducing cost (Id., para 0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date to form the preform of Paquin, wherein the portion containing the root consist of high strength fiber, i.e. carbon fiber, based on the teachings of Kuroiwa.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to a uniweave material is directed towards a different embodiment than the three dimensionally woven structure, or preform. Para 0035 and 0038 are directed towards three dimensionally woven fabric. Paquin teaches “[w]arp yarns and weft yarns are woven together to form integrally woven three-dimensional structure with a layer-to-layer angle interlock weave pattern. Alternatively, structure can have a through-thickness angle interlock weave pattern or an orthogonal weave pattern” (Paquin, para 0038). These weave patterns are shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
198
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Unal, p. 94, Fig. 1).
If the direction from root to tip extends form the page, the Z-direction yarn can easily varied along this axis to achieve the desired distribution of carbon-fibers on the in root portion.
Examiner would also like to note that Paquin teaches “[i]t is expressly contemplated that when two different types of non-carbon fibers are used the distribution of each type of non-carbon fiber can be tailored to result in the desired properties in the fiber composite material” (Paquin, para 0031). Even if the non-carbon fiber is present in the portion containing the root, the use of high strength fiber, as taught by Kuroiwa, would have resulted in the selected distribution of the non-carbon fibers such that the higher strength fiber is present in the portion containing the root and thereby being devoid of the lower strength non-carbon fiber, i.e. the second strands, in the embodiment containing two different types of non-carbon fiber.
In summary, Paquin teaches an embodiment that includes carbon fiber and the non-carbon fiber combined a three-dimensional woven structure with a polymer matrix (Paquin, para 0006). Paquin teaches the non-carbon fiber being present in an amount of 1 to 5 volume percent, based on the total fiber volume in the fan blade (Id.). Paquin teaches a perform comprising a polymer matrix, carbon fibers, and non-carbon fibers combined in a three dimensionally woven structure having yarns extending in the X, Y and Z directions, wherein the yarns extending in the Z direction comprise non-carbon fibers and the non-carbon fibers have a strain to failure value greater than the strain to failure value of the carbon fibers (Id., para 0007). While the use of non-carbon fibers in the Z direction is taught, the location relative to the root and tip is not limited. Kuroiwa provides teaching for carbon fiber only in the portion containing the root due it being high strength as well as teachings the desire to have a transition zone where the fiber composition gradually changes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to vary the three-dimensional weave to achieve a fiber distribution with carbon fibers in the root, or second portion, requiring higher strength, and carbon fibers with non-carbon fibers in the blade portions. Applicant has provided no evidence that the claim structure would result in expected results by excluding the second fiber from the root portion apart. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection detailed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights