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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 9th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Roy only teaches the chopped fiber layer as an exterior or surface layer and that being an exterior layer does not teach complete encapsulation. This argument is not persuasive.
First, the argument is narrowly focused on the passage describing the chopped fiber layer as an exterior surface layer. However, this passage expressly teaches the chopped fiber layer may be disposed at “an inner surface and/or an outer surface”. The utilization of a disjunctive “and/or” encompasses the embodiment where chopped fiber layers are present on both the inner and outer surfaces of the composite component simultaneously. With the continuous fiber layers sandwiched between the inner and outer chopped fiber layers, the continuous fiber-reinforced polymer is enclosed on all sides (completely encapsulated).
Second, Roy further discloses a plurality of chopped fiber layers may be biased toward the outer surface of the composite component (Col. 11, Line 48 to Col. 12, Line 39) and the chopped fiber layers may be biased toward one or both of the outer surfaces, which directly teaches the chopped fiber on both the first/second sides of the airfoil surface. The language in these passages encompasses multiple different assorted combinations that overlap with the claimed embodiment, including the coverage of the exterior by chopped fiber.
Last, in any composite airfoil layup, the outer plies drape over and wrap around the airfoil contour, covering the pressure/suction sides and leading/trailing edges. When the outermost plies are chopped fiber and the innermost plies are also chopped fiber, the continuous fiber plies in between are completely enclosed.
The rejection(s) are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 59, 66, and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 59 recites dependency upon now cancelled claim 58, As a result, the claim depends upon a nonexistent claim and is therefore indefinite because its scope cannot be determined. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 66 recites the limitation "first resin and the second resin" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 67 is rejected by virtue of its dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 59-68, and 70-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roy (US 11719103).
Regarding claim 1, Roy discloses a fiber-reinforced polymer blade comprising: an airfoil (100) defining an airfoil surface (114, 116), a leading edge (110), and a trailing edge (112), the airfoil surface defining a first side (114) and a second side (116) distal from the first side, the airfoil comprising fiber-reinforced polymer (various fibers combined with PMC), the fiber-reinforced polymer comprising chopped fiber-reinforced polymer (120) and continuous fiber-reinforced polymer (118), the chopped fiber-reinforced polymer on the first side and second side of the airfoil surface, the continuous fiber-reinforced polymer completely encapsulated by the chopped fiber-reinforced polymer on the airfoil (Col. 7, Line 58 to Col. 8, line 27 and Col. 11, line 48 to Col. 12, Line 39; discloses various embodiments of how the layers of material can be arranged, including the chopped fiber-reinforced polymer forming the outer layers of the airfoil with the continuous fiber-reinforced polymer sandwiched therebetween; the layers can be interchanged and in alternative orientations as well with Figures 3-4 showing just two examples of many; with the outer layer being chopped fiber FRP, the continuous FRP is completely encapsulated by the chopped fiber-reinforced polymer) and a root section attached to the airfoil and configured to secure the blade to a rotor or stator (root 106, airfoil useable in both stators and rotors).
Regarding claim 59, Roy discloses the fiber-reinforced polymer blade according to claim 1 above. Roy further discloses the chopped fiber-reinforced polymer and the continuous fiber-reinforced polymer extend to the root section and the continuous fiber reinforced polymer is completely encapsulated by the chopped fiber-reinforced polymer (blade extends to the root section and therefore teaches the same encapsulation as argued above).
Regarding claims 60-62, Roy discloses the fiber-reinforced polymer blade according to claim 1 above. Roy further discloses the chopped fiber- reinforced polymer on the first side of the airfoil surface covers the first side of the airfoil surface (Col. 7, Line 58 to Col. 8, Line 27), the chopped fiber- reinforced polymer extends to an outer surface of the root section, the root section is integral with the airfoil (Col. 7, Line 58 to Col. 8, Line 27 teaches the chopped FRP is on the outer surface, and the root section is defined as having chopped fibers and described as part of the airfoil and therefore integral).
Regarding claims 63-64, Roy discloses the fiber-reinforced polymer blade according to claim 1 above. Roy further discloses the chopped fiber- reinforced polymer comprises chopped fiber impregnated with a first resin and the continuous fiber-reinforced polymer comprises continuous fiber impregnated with a second resin, and the first resin extends continuously through the chopped fiber-reinforced polymer from the continuous fiber- reinforced polymer to the first side of the airfoil surface and covers the chopped fiber on the first side of the airfoil surface (“[the first and second matrix material] may be the same matrix material or a different matrix material”; because the chopped fiber polymer is utilized on the first/second sides of the airfoil surfaces, the resin extends continuously therethrough the chopped fiber reinforced polymer).
Regarding claims 65-67, Roy discloses the fiber-reinforced polymer blade according to claim 62 above. Roy further discloses a portion of the chopped fiber is mixed with the continuous fiber at an intersection of the chopped fiber-reinforced polymer and the continuous fiber-reinforced polymer, the first and second resin are thermoset resin, and the first resin and the second resin are mixed and cured together at an intersection of the chopped fiber- reinforced polymer and the continuous fiber-reinforced polymer (“Co-curing the continuous fiber layers 118 with the one or more chopped fiber layers 120 can promote co-mingling and/or sharing of the first and second matrix materials 124, 130 between the layers 118, 120.” and “Resins for PMC matrix materials can be generally classified as thermosets or thermoplastics”).
Regarding claims 68 and 70-71, Roy discloses the fiber-reinforced polymer blade according to claim 1 above. Roy further discloses the chopped fiber- reinforced polymer on the first side of the airfoil surface is molded against and into the continuous fiber-reinforced polymer, the airfoil surface is a molded surface, and the root section defines a molded outer surface (see Figures 3-4 which are combined with a layup machine which molds the layers together, and the airfoil/root are connected together; additionally, the utilization of “compression molded surface” implies a product-by-process limitation, and since Roy discloses the same structural characteristics of the claimed invention, the limitations are considered taught barring an unexpected result).
Regarding claims 72, Roy discloses the fiber-reinforced polymer blade according to claim 1 above. Roy further discloses the continuous fiber-reinforced polymer extends from the airfoil into the root section (Col. 6, lines 60-67). Since the continuous fiber layers form the structural backbone of the composite component, they extend from the airfoil to the root section.
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 69 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy (US 11719103) in view of Garcia Crespo (US 9482108).
Roy discloses he fiber-reinforced polymer blade according to claim 1 above. Roy further discloses the blade is secured to a rotor or a stator (“the composite component 100 may be a composite airfoil such as a fan blade 40, which may be referred to herein as “airfoil 100.” In other embodiments, the composite component 100 may be another composite airfoil, such as an inlet guide vane (IGV) or an outlet guide vane (OGV) 52, or other composite component such as a fan case, a shroud, etc.”).
Roy fails to explicitly teach that the root section is configured to removably secure the blade to a rotor or stator.
Garcia Crespo teaches a turbine blade constructing an airfoil portion and a root portion (Figure 5) with the root portion being configured to removably secure the blade to the rotor. Additionally, the blade is made of continuous fiber and chopped fiber composite material (Figures 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Roy such that the root section is configured to removably secure the blade to a rotor as taught by Garcia Crespo for the purposes of securing the rotor blade in the root slot of the turbine/fan/compressor disk.
Claims 73-74 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy (US 11719103) in view of Robertson (US 10428684).
Roy discloses the fiber-reinforced polymer blade according to claim 1 above. Roy further discloses that chopped fiber layers (120) comprise chopped fibers (126) formed as a film sheet. A film sheet of chopped fibers infused with a matrix matrial corresponds to a sheet molding compound.
Roy fails to explicitly teach the chopped fiber reinforced polymer is a bulk molding compound.
Robertson teaches a turbine airfoil component for a gas turbine engine wherein the airfoil body is formed from fiber reinforced thermoset resins that may be a bulk molding compound (Col. 5, Lines 10-15). Robertson presents BMC and SMC as interchangeable material forms for fiber-reinforced thermoset resin in turbine airfoil applications.
Because Robertson teaches that utilizing different types of thermoset resins are suitable in a turbine blade context, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer of Roy such that it is a bulk-molding compound as taught by Robertson for the purposes of selecting the appropriate chopped fiber compound form for the specific mold geometry and fill requirements of the airfoil being manufactured.
Claims 75-76 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy (US 11719103) in view of Kaji (US 20220168974).
Roy discloses the fiber-reinforced polymer blade according to claim 1 above. Roy further discloses the continuous fiber reinforced polymer extends to the root section (extends from root to tip).
Roy utilizes a layup process and therefore fails to teach the fiber is a continuous wound fiber-reinforced polymer.
Kaji teaches manufacturing an FRP product in which continuous fiber prepreg and chopped fiber prepreg are co-molded – the same material system as Roy. Kaji teaches forming a continuous wound FRP preform (Paragraph 77). The wound preform is then compression molded with chopped fiber prepreg in a step of curing (Paragraph 83). Kaji teaches by changing the number and arrangement of the pins of the jig, preforms having various shapes can be formed (Paragraph 78).
Roy and Kaji address the same composite manufacturing problem: forming a composite structure from continuous fiber-reinforcing polymer co-molded with chopped fiber reinforced polymer under heat and pressure. The blade of Roy is manufactured by co-curing continuous prepreg plies with chopped fiber plies under elevated temperature and pressure, (Col. 13, Lines 55-67). The solution of Kaji is to pre-form the continuous fiber prepreg by winding it around a shaping jig to create a stable 3D preform before placing it in a compression mold. A person of ordinary skill in the art of Roy which requires co-curing continuous fiber prepreg with chopped fiber prepreg would be aware of the risk that chopped fiber flow during molding can disturb the continuous fiber alignment. Kaji’s winding technique directly addresses this risk and is applicable with Roy because Kaji uses the same types of material: prepreg tape or tow prepreg for continuous fiber reinforcement, and chopped fiber prepreg for the discontinuous fiber portion (Paragraphs 77, 83). The modification amounts to winding Roy’s continuous fiber prepreg around a shaping jig to form a preform before co-curing with the chopped fiber layers: applying a known preforming technique to a known composite material system to achieve predictable result of improved fiber alignment retention during compression molding.
Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Roy such that the fiber is a continuous wound fiber-reinforced polymer as taught by Kaji for the purposes of pre-forming the continuous fiber reinforcement into a stable 3D shape that resists fiber displacement during co-molding with chopped fiber reinforced polymer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights