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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 5 of page 6 through paragraph 6 of page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 1, particularly that:
Kray’s cover plate 130 is not a gap filler because it merely “plugs [the hole] at its end” (para 7 of page 6 of Applicant’s Remarks), a “filler” must “fill the opening and therefore not simply be positioned at its end” (para 3 of page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks).
The arguments are not persuasive because a broadest reasonable interpretation of “fill” may be for example "to stop up or close (a cavity, hole, etc.)" per https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fill, or to “plug with a substance" per https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/fill, and, these definitions for example clearly match Applicant’s own statement that that Kray’s cover plate 130 “plugs [the hole] at its end” identified in para 7 of page 6 of Applicant’s Remarks filed 2/27/2026.
Kray does not disclose that “the gap filler is inserted in the orifice”.
This argument is persuasive; please see allowable subject matter below.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140314556 A1 (hereinafter Fremont) in view of US 4594761 A (hereinafter Murphy), and non-patent literature “Mould Release” (hereinafter USQ), and as evidenced by non-patent literature “Release Agents” (hereinafter PacificCoast).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fremont's figures
Regarding claim 11, Fremont discloses:
A method for manufacturing a hollow part (512; Fig 13) made of composite material (abstract) for an aircraft turbomachine (paragraph 0001), the method comprising the following steps:
a) a preform (600; Fig 17) is produced by three-dimensional weaving of threads (abstract);
b) said woven preform is cut (paragraph 0146 identifies blank 501 is cut) so as to provide an internal separation (paragraph 0080 identifies that the preform is cut, wherein that cutting subsequently provides for forming gap 102b which is an internal separation of portion 107a and portion 106a; that cutting provides for the internal separation shown in Fig 6, wherein the internal separation shown in Fig 6 would be different, e.g. in length L, if not for that cutting; Figs 5-7 and associated reference characters correspond to Figs 15-17 and associated reference characters) allowing a deformation of the cut preform (deforming as shown from Fig 16 to Fig 17) so as to provide an orifice (internal longitudinal passage 219 in Fig 17 is the orifice; the gap 102b is connected to zone 501c and thus allows zone 501c to deform to provide the orifice 219) from the internal separation (Fig 17 clearly shows that the orifice is from the internal separation) passing through the cut preform (Fig 17 clearly shows that passage 219 passes through the preform);
c) said cut preform is deformed so as to provide the orifice from the internal separation (deforming as shown from Fig 16 to Fig 17),
the deformed preform then comprising a first open end and a second open end opposite the first open end (600 and 218, 219 of Fig 17 correspond to 512 and 18, 19 of Fig 13 respectively, wherein paragraph 0123 identifies “The vane 512 differs from the vane 112 of FIG. 2 in that the airfoil 18 presents an internal passage 19 running along its entire length and opening out at its longitudinal ends.”);
d) said deformed preform is placed in an injection mould (paragraph 0146: “each resulting vane preform held in its tooling is impregnated with a resin by injection or by infusion”);
e) a binder comprising a resin is injected into said injection mould in order to impregnate the whole of the deformed preform (paragraph 0146: “each resulting vane preform held in its tooling is impregnated with a resin by injection or by infusion”);
f) the resin is polymerized (paragraph 0146: “curing the resin”);
and g) a composite part is extracted from the mould (implicit to manufacturing a composite part by a molding process);
h) a tooling element is positioned in the orifice provided in the deformed preform from one of the first and second open ends (paragraph 0129: “an internal longitudinal passage 219 formed along the zone of non-interlinking 501c by inserting a tooling element therein”) before the resin injection step e) (paragraph 0146 identifies that shaping by means of shaping tooling occurs before impregnating with the resin);
i) the tooling element is removed from one of the first and second open ends (implicit to creating internal longitudinal passage 219 with tooling),
the composite part then having a hollow core (Fig 17).
Fremont does not disclose:
The tooling element is a flexible mandrel having a predetermined shape
the flexible mandrel is removed after the resin polymerisation step f) or after the extracting step g),
However, Murphy, in the same field of endeavor, hollow composite airfoils, teaches:
a flexible mandrel (73; Fig 9-10; column 5 lines 10-15 identify the mandrel is made of silicone rubber) having a predetermined shape (Fig 9-10 show this)
the flexible mandrel is removed after the resin polymerisation step (column 5 lines 54-56: “After the vane preform 70 has been cured in the molding machine 80, the mandrels 73 are removed through one end”)
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 Fremont to include Murphy’s teachings as described above, having Fremont’s internal longitudinal passage 219 created with Murphy’s flexible mandrel and removing the mandrel after curing, in order to create a hollow airfoil using a shaping tool which will not adhere to an epoxy resin during cure and can be easily removed because of its fixability (column 5 lines 10-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim(s) 1, 4-8 is/are allowed.
Claim 1 is mapped below to US 20140314556 A1 (hereinafter Fremont) in view of US 4594761 A (hereinafter Murphy), US 20160082674 A1 (hereinafter Kray), and non-patent literature “Mould Release” (hereinafter USQ), and as evidenced by non-patent literature “Release Agents” (hereinafter PacificCoast).
Regarding claim 1, Fremont discloses:
A method for manufacturing a hollow part (512; Fig 13) made of composite material (abstract) for an aircraft turbomachine (paragraph 0001), the method comprising the following steps:
a) producing a preform (501; Fig 15) by three-dimensional weaving of threads (abstract);
b) cutting said woven preform so as to provide an internal separation (paragraph 0080 identifies that the preform (101, which corresponds to 501) is cut, wherein that cutting subsequently provides for forming gap 102b which is an internal separation of portion 107a and portion 106a; that cutting provides for the internal separation shown in Fig 6, wherein the internal separation 102b shown in Fig 6 would be different, e.g. in length L, if not for that cutting; Figs 5-7 and associated reference characters correspond to Figs 15-17 and associated reference characters);
c) deforming said cut preform (deforming as shown from Fig 16 to Fig 17) so as to provide an orifice (internal longitudinal passage 219; Fig 17) from the internal separation passing through the cut preform (Fig 17 clearly shows that passage 219 passes through the preform),
the deformed preform then comprising a first open end and a second open end opposite the first open end (600 and 218, 219 of Fig 17 correspond to 512 and 18, 19 of Fig 13 respectively, wherein paragraph 0123 identifies “The vane 512 differs from the vane 112 of FIG. 2 in that the airfoil 18 presents an internal passage 19 running along its entire length and opening out at its longitudinal ends.”);
d) placing said deformed preform in an injection mould (paragraph 0146: “each resulting vane preform held in its tooling is impregnated with a resin by injection or by infusion”);
e) injecting a binder comprising a resin into said injection mould in order to impregnate the whole of the deformed preform (paragraph 0146: “each resulting vane preform held in its tooling is impregnated with a resin by injection or by infusion”);
f) polymerising the resin (paragraph 0146: “curing the resin”);
and g) extracting a composite part from the mould (implicit to manufacturing a composite part by a molding process);
h) positioning a tooling element in the orifice provided in the deformed preform from one of the first and second open ends (paragraph 0129: “an internal longitudinal passage 219 formed along the zone of non-interlinking 501c by inserting a tooling element therein”) before the resin injection step e) (paragraph 0146 identifies that shaping by means of shaping tooling occurs before impregnating with the resin);
i) removing the tooling element from one of the first and second open ends (implicit to creating internal longitudinal passage 219 with tooling, as one having ordinary skill in the art would understand armed with Fremont’s disclosure) after the resin polymerisation step f) or after the extracting step g),
the composite part then having a hollow core (Fig 17).
Fremont may not explicitly disclose:
The tooling element is a flexible mandrel having a predetermined shape
the flexible mandrel is removed after the resin polymerisation step f) or after the demoulding step g),
However, Murphy, in the same field of endeavor, composite airfoils, teaches:
a flexible mandrel (73; Fig 9-10; column 5 lines 10-15 identify the mandrel is made of silicone rubber) having a predetermined shape (Fig 9-10 show this)
the flexible mandrel is removed after the resin polymerisation step (column 5 lines 54-56: “After the vane preform 70 has been cured in the molding machine 80, the mandrels 73 are removed through one end”)
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 Fremont to include Murphy’s teachings as described above, having Fremont’s internal longitudinal passage 219 created with Murphy’s flexible mandrel and removing the mandrel after curing, in order to create a hollow airfoil using a shaping tool which will not adhere to an epoxy resin during cure and can be easily removed because of its fixability (column 5 lines 10-15).
Fremont as modified above may not explicitly disclose:
the method further comprising a step of treating the flexible mandrel with a liquid release agent.
However,
It is well known and conventional in the art of manufacturing by molding processes to treat molding structure (i.e. a mold and any molding tools such as Murphy’s mandrel) with a liquid release agent for the purposes of releasing the molding components (i.e. a mold and any molding tools such as Murphy’s mandrel) from the created part without having the part stick/adhered to the mold and any molding tools. Fremont as modified above (particularly Murphy’s disclosure) is silent regarding this limitation because it is so well known and conventional. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of the claimed invention, to treat molding structure (i.e. a mold and any molding tools such as Murphy’s mandrel) with a liquid release agent for the purposes of releasing the molding components (i.e. a mold and any molding tools such as Murphy’s mandrel) from the created part without having the part stick/adhered to the mold and any molding tools.
See, for example, the general statement that “Mold release agents are used to remove a part from a tool or mold. Mold release agents minimize the adhesion of a part, to your tool or mold” at https://web.archive.org/web/20151023090940/https://www.pccomposites.com/category/surface-preparation/release-agents/ (para 1 of page 1), which is dated Oct 23 2015 per the url, which clearly identifies that it was well known in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date that such release agents are generally known to be applied to tools such as Murphy’s mandrel, tools used in a molding process, and not just molds. This reference was printed out and provided with the office action mailed on 12/08/2025 as non patent literature “Release Agents” (hereinafter PacificCoast).
Fremont as modified above may not explicitly disclose:
the step of treating the flexible mandrel with a liquid release agent is performed before step h).
However, USQ, printed out and provided with the office action mailed on 12/08/2025, in the same field of endeavor, molding parts, provides a general teaching of first treating a molding hardware/tool with a layer of a liquid release agent and then placing the part to be molded in contact with the treated molding tool in order to prevent the part from coming into direct contact with the untreated molding tool (see screen captures shown at times 1:07, 1:13, 1:16).
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 Fremont as modified above to include USQ’s teachings as described above, having Murphy's mandrel treated with the liquid release agent before the mandrel is inserted into the orifice, in order to easily access and treat each portion of the mandrel with the agent before portions of the mandrel are obstructed by direct contact with the part (screen captures shown at times 1:07, 1:13, 1:16).
Fremont as modified above may not explicitly disclose:
after the step c) of deforming the cut preform, a step c') of positioning a gap filler at the other of the first and second open ends,
the steps h) of positioning the flexible mandrel and i) of removing the flexible mandrel being carried out through an opposite open end.
However, Kray, in the same field of endeavor, hollow composite airfoils, teaches:
after the step c) of deforming the cut preform, a step c') of positioning a gap filler (130; Fig 7; wherein paragraphs 0051-0053 identify the plates 130 and 140 may be formed of the same or similar composite material as the preform 100 and stitched to the preform before the assembly is placed in a mold) (a broadest reasonable interpretation of “fill” may be for example "to stop up or close (a cavity, hole, etc.)" per https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fill, or to “plug with a substance" per https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/fill, and, these definitions for example match Applicant’s own statement that that Kray’s cover plate 130 “plugs [the hole] at its end” identified in para 7 of page 6 of Applicant’s Remarks filed 2/27/2026) at the other of the first and second open ends
the steps h) of positioning the flexible mandrel and i) of removing the flexible mandrel being carried out through an opposite open end (implicit that if one radial end of the airfoil is capped, that the mandrel must be removed through the opposite end).
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 Fremont as modified above to include Kray’s teachings as described above, having a cover plate attached to an end of Fremont’s airfoil, covering the internal longitudinal passage (Fremont 219), in order to provide some strength and rigidity for the vane’s radial end (paragraph 0051), and also removing the mandrel.
Fremont as modified above may not explicitly disclose:
the gap filler being inserted in the orifice (No – Kray’s gap filler/cover plate 130 in Fig 7 is shown as essentially a flat plate and not some kind of structure that is or can be inserted into either of Fremont’s two openings caused by separation 219 in Fig 17. Fremont does not disclose a filler/cover for the openings and Kray does not teach a filler/cover 130 that is specifically inserted into the openings.).
Other prior art, such as US 4594761 A for example, teaches an end plug 50 having an insert portion 51 which is inserted into a vane opening, however, as disclosed in col 4 lines 12-48, this plug is not molded with the vane as required by Applicant’s claim but rather is made of nylon and connected to the vane after the vane is molded.
At this time, the prior art of record does not fairly disclose, teach, or suggest the missing limitation(s) as described above such that a modification would be possible in order to arrive at the claimed invention. One would not be motivated to further modify Kray’s filler/cover 130 to insert into Fremont’s opening such that it would read on Applicant’s claim, without improper hindsight from Applicant’s disclosure. The claim is therefore deemed to be allowable over the prior art.
Claims 4-8 each depend from claim 1 and are therefore allowed for at least that reason.
Conclusion
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