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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 9/11/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior claim objections, 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior objections/rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraphs 8-9 of page 6 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that incorporating certain elements of former claim 2 into amended claim 1 makes amended claim 1 allowable because it is well known in the art to treat only a mold with a liquid release agent, and it is not well known to treat a tool used in the molding process such as Murphy’s mandrel with a liquid release agent.
The arguments are not persuasive because it was well known in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to treat not just the mold used in a molding process but also molding tools used in the molding process, such as Murphy’s mandrel, with a liquid release agent. 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 is printed out and provided with this office action as non patent literature “Release Agents” (hereinafter PacificCoast).
Note that the claim 1 amendment also introduces a new limitation, which was not present in former claim 2, specifying that the liquid release agent is applied before step h). This amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action below. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Please see mapping of amended limitations to prior art below for details.
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, 8, 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 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 is printed out and provided with this office action 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, 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).
Regarding claim 8, Fremont, as modified above, further discloses:
A profile bladed element (Fremont abstract), for a propulsion assembly (Fremont paragraph 0001), obtained according to the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
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).
Claim(s) 3-5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fremont in view of Murphy and USQ, as evidenced by PacificCoast, and in view of US 20160082674 A1 (hereinafter Kray).
Regarding claim 3, Fremont, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except:
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) 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 cover plates attached to ends 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.
Regarding claim 4, Fremont, as modified above, further discloses:
after the step c') of positioning the gap filler at the other of the first and second open ends, a step c") of positioning a counter plate (Kray 140; 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) at the other of the first and second open ends (Kray Fig 7 shows this).
Regarding claim 5, Fremont, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except:
a step j) of closing one of the first and second open ends of the hollow composite part.
However, Kray, in the same field of endeavor, hollow composite airfoils, teaches:
a step j) of closing one of the first and second open ends (130; Fig 7; paragraph 0051) of the hollow composite part.
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 cover plates attached to ends 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.
Regarding claim 7, Fremont, as modified above, further discloses:
the step j) of closing one of the first and second open ends of the hollow part is performed by bonding a preformed composite counter plate (Kray 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).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fremont in view of Murphy and USQ, as evidenced by PacificCoast, and in view of Kray as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 20100221115 A1 (hereinafter Jardine).
Regarding claim 6, Fremont, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except:
the step j) of closing one of the first and second open ends of the hollow part is performed by plugging with a cold resin.
However, Jardine, in the same field of endeavor, design of vanes in gas turbine engines, teaches:
A cold resin (“epoxy” identified in paragraph 0038, which is used to attach collar 307 to vane 368).
Therefore, it is known to use cold resins at vanes of gas turbine engines, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fremont as modified above to include Jardine’s teachings as described above, having a cover (Kray 130) adhered to the vane (at Fremont 219) using the cold resin (Jardine epoxy), in order to choose a suitable substance to adhere Kray’s cover to the vane.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
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 8:30-5:00.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights