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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-11, 26, and 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 in regards to the combination of Nissen et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0032491 A1), Nishihara, and Lombardi not teaching or suggesting, “each blade of the plurality of blades comprising a core comprising a ceramic first material and a plurality of discontinuous filaments embedded in the ceramic first material and oriented along an axial direction extending away from the hub toward a tip portion of a respective one of the plurality of blades.” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully notes that “a plurality of discontinuous filaments embedded in the ceramic first material and oriented along an axial direction extending away from the hub toward a tip portion of a respective one of the plurality of blades” only requires “at least two” discontinuous filaments embedded in the ceramic first material and oriented along an axial direction extending away from the hub toward a tip portion of a respective one of the plurality of blades”, and Nissen et al. shows at least one section (823f, 823s, 823r) of the support network (823) as having an orientation along an axial direction extending away from the hub toward a tip portion and the process of ‘additively manufacturing’ these elements with the process of Lombardi would certainly produce at least two fibers oriented along said axial direction extending away from the hub towards the tip portion of the respective one of the plurality of blades as claimed by the Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-11, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, line 4 now recites, “each of the plurality of blades having a flexural modulus of at least 32 million pounds per square inch”
The Examiner respectfully notes that the language of the claim includes an unbounded, flexural modulus of over 32 million pounds per square inch and not just the species of yttria toughened zirconia (which is indicated as having a 32.0 Msi in [0035] of the immediate specification) or of silicon nitride (which is indicated as having a 36.8 Msi in [0035] of the immediate specification); and effectively includes materials with an infinite flexural modulus which is not supported by the immediate specification. Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 4-11, 26, and 28 are rejected based on their dependencies.
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, 11, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissen et al (US PGPUB 2019/0032491 A1) in view of Nishihara et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0169573 A1) and Adams et al. (“Young`s modulus, flexural strength, and fracture of yttria-stabilized zirconia versus temperature”, Journal of the American Ceramic Society).
PNG
media_image1.png
484
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
284
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Nissen et al. discloses a propeller (58) comprising:
a hub (66); and
a plurality of blades (70) extending outward from the hub (Fig. 1), each blade of the plurality of
blades comprising a core ([0089], 823 "support network") comprising a ceramic first material ([0074]-
[0075], "Support member can be tailored by the choice of materials. Any material known in the art can
be used for any of the support member and components therefore described in the foregoing
embodiments.. ceramics,").
However, Nissen et al. does not teach or suggest, "each of the plurality of blades having a flexural modulus of at least 32 million pounds per square inch”
Nishihara et al. teaches, in the field of ceramic sintered bodies, a ceramic sintered body
comprising at least a zirconia-based compound oxide with yttria stabilized zirconia ([0006]) and a zirconia-alumina ceramic ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the propeller of Nissen et al. to be the ceramic as taught by Nishihara et al., as Nissen et al. requires a ceramic ([0074-0075]) and Nishihara et al. teaches a ceramic, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, "The ceramic sintered body of the present disclosure has high bending strength and high fracture toughness. [0008]".
Adams et al. further teaches, in the field of ceramics, that the “the value of the porosity-corrected Young’s moduli was 222 GPa at 25C (abstract)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the combination of the propeller of Nissen et al. created by the ceramic as taught by Nishihara et al. would have a flexural modulus of 222GPa at 25C (32.19 Msi).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al. teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein the propeller is made completely of the first ceramic material (Nissen et al.; [0089], 823 "support network") comprising a ceramic first material (Nissen et al.; [0074]-[0075], "Support member can be tailored by the choice of materials. Any material known in the art can be used for any of the support member and components therefore described in the foregoing embodiments.. ceramics,").
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al. teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein the propeller has an aerodynamic efficiency in a range from 50% to 80% (The Examiner notes that there is no structural difference between the immediate claim and the prior art of record as shown above and would have an aerodynamic efficiency of between 50% to 80% as claimed. (See MPEP 2114 IV.).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al. teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein the ceramic first material is selected from the group consisting of yttria-toughened zirconia ceramic (Nishihara et al., [0006]), and alumina-zirconia ceramic (Nishihara et al., [0006]).
Claims 3 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissen et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0032491 A1) in view of Lombardi et al. (US Patent 5,906,863 A).
Regarding claim 3, Nissen et al. discloses a propeller (58) comprising:
a hub (66); and
a plurality of blades (70) extending outward from the hub (Fig. 1), each blade of the plurality of
blades comprising a core ([0089], 823 "support network") comprising a ceramic first material ([0074]-
[0075], "Support member can be tailed by the choice of materials. Any material known in the art can be
used for any of the support member and components therefore described in the foregoing
embodiments.. ceramics,")
However, Nissen et al. does not teach or suggest, "and a plurality of discontinuous filaments
embedded in the ceramic first material and oriented along an axial direction extending away from the
hub toward a tip portion of a respective one of the plurality of blades."
Lombardi et al. teaches, in the field of preparing three dimensional bodies to include aerospace
applications (Col. 3:1-7), a method of passing a fiber-laden suspension through a nozzle configured so
that the fibers are oriented substantially parallel to each other and substantially in the direction of
suspension movement relative to the nozzle (Col. 3:35-52).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
to produce the ceramic propeller of Nissen et al. using the method of passing a fiber-laden suspension
through a nozzle configured so that the fibers are oriented substantially parallel to each other and
substantially in the direction of suspension movement relative to the nozzle, as both references are in
the same field of endeavor, and a person of ordinary skill would appreciate, "Such directionally-aligned-
fiber reinforcement contributes to the body's increased mechanical strength, not only as compared to
bodies having no such fiber reinforcement, but over a body which has randomly oriented fibers (Col.
3:31-35)." Additionally, the Examiner notes that several cross sections (823f, 823r) are "oriented along
an axial direction extending away from the hub toward a tip portion of a respective one of the plurality
of blades" as the "printing" of the method of Lombardi et al. involves the use of stepper motors in a
gantry to control the nozzle and would follow the path of the support network to deposit the core (Also,
note Fig. 13, 14, and 19 for further disclosure of deposition paths).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Nissen et al. and Lombardi et al. teach all of claim 3,
wherein each of the discontinuous filaments has a diameter in a range of 8 µm to 12 µm (Lombardi et
al., Col. 9:59-64 teaches that the fibers in the suspension are between 5 µm to 30 µm).
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Seminel (US PGPUB 2019/0016440 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al., teach all of claim 1 as above.
However, the combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al. do not teach or suggest, "wherein each blade of the plurality of blades further comprises a skin covering the core, the skin comprising a second material different than the first ceramic material."
Seminel teaches, in the field of protecting propeller blades, a protective polymeric film (30)
applied over the entirety of the core (8, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
modify the propeller combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al. by applying the polymeric coating to the outer surface of the core as taught by Seminel, as both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate, "the smooth film surface may provide improved aerodynamic and noise performance [0049]."
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., Adams et al. and Seminel teach all of claim 4 as above, wherein the second material of the skin is a polymer (Seminel, [0049)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., Adams et al., and Seminel teach all of claim 4 as above.
However, the combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., Adams et al., and Seminel do not explicitly teach, "wherein a maximum thickness of the core is an range from 65% to 85% of a maximum thickness of a respective one of the plurality of blades."
Seminel further teaches in paragraph [0032] that "The particular thickness may be determined
as appropriate for any particular application."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the propeller core of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., Adams et al., and Seminel to be 65% to 85% of a maximum thickness of the plurality of blades as Seminel teaches that the thickness of their polymer second skin may be determined as appropriate for any particular reason. Since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform different that the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case the ceramic propeller combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., Adams et al., and polymer skin of Seminel would not operate different from the claimed thickness of the core as the thickness of the polymer skin "may be determined as appropriate for any particular reason" and protect the ceramic core of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al.. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the core "may" be within the claimed ranges (specification [0018], [0040)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., Adams et al., and Seminel teach all of claim 6 as above.
However, the combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., Adams et al., and Seminel do not explicitly teach, "wherein the maximum thickness of the core is at least 75% of the maximum thickness of the respective one of the plurality of blades."
Seminel further teaches in paragraph [0032] that "The particular thickness may be determined as appropriate for any particular application."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the propeller core of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al., be 75% of a maximum thickness of the plurality of blades as Seminel teaches that the thickness of their polymer second skin may be determined as appropriate for any particular reason. Since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform different that the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case the ceramic propeller combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al., and polymer skin of Seminel would not operate different from the claimed thickness of the core as the thickness of the polymer skin "may be determined as appropriate for any particular reason" and protect the ceramic core of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al.. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the core "may" be within the claimed ranges (specification [0018], [0040)]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., Adams et al., and Seminel teach all of claim 6 as above.
However, the combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., Adams et al., and Seminel do not explicitly teach, "wherein a thickness of the skin is in a range from 7.5% to 17.5% of the maximum thickness of the respective on of the plurality of blades."
Seminel further teaches in paragraph [0032] that "The particular thickness may be determined
as appropriate for any particular application."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have the skin thickness of 7.5% to 17.5% of the maximum thickness of the
plurality of blades as Seminel teaches that the thickness of their polymer second skin may be
determined as appropriate for any particular reason. Since it has been held that "where the only
difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed
device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform different that the prior art
device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" Gardner V. TEC Syst.,
Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In
the instant case the ceramic propeller combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al., and polymer skin of Seminel would not operate different from the claimed thickness of the core as the thickness of the polymer skin "may be determined as appropriate for any particular reason" and protect the ceramic core of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al.. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the core "may" be within the claimed ranges (specification [0018], [0040]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., Adams et al., and Seminel teach all of claim 8 as above.
However, the combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., Adams et al., and Seminel do not explicitly teach, "wherein a thickness of the skin is 12.5% of the maximum thickness of the respective one of the plurality of blades."
Seminel further teaches in paragraph [0032] that "The particular thickness may be determined
as appropriate for any particular application."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have the skin thickness of 12.5% of the maximum thickness of the plurality of
blades as Seminel teaches that the thickness of their polymer second skin may be determined as
appropriate for any particular reason. Since it has been held that "where the only difference between
the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device
having the claimed relative dimension would not perform different that the prior art device, the claimed
device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338,
220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case the
ceramic propeller combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al., and polymer skin of Seminel would not operate different from the claimed thickness of the core as the thickness of the polymer skin "may be determined as appropriate for any particular reason" and protect the ceramic core of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al.. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the core "may" be within the claimed ranges (specification [0018], [0040)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stahl (US Patent 9,944,372 B1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al. teach all of claim 1 as above.
However, neither Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., nor Adams et al., teach or suggest; "wherein a ratio of a tip thickness to a chord length at a tip of each blade of the plurality of blades is 6% or less."
Stahl teaches, in the field of propellers, a revere-thrusting modular propeller with tip thickness of as little as 3% of the chord length (Col. 2:57-end).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
modify the propeller of Nissen et al., Nishihara et al., and Adams et al. to have a chord-to-tip ratio of less than 6% as taught by Stahl, and both references are in the same field of endeavor, and a person of ordinary skill would appreciate that "The blades begin at the roots with thicker symmetric hydrofoil cross-sections that then wide and thin at greater radii outward, and the narrows but continues thinning more as the distal tip is approached. No localized cupping on the leading or trailing is desirable of productive (Col. 2:51-56).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745