FINAL REJECTION
This is in response to Applicant amendments filed on 07/29/2026 amending Claims 1, and 12; cancelling Claim 7-9; and adding Claim 21. Claims 1-6, 10-13, and 21 are examined.
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 1-4, 10-13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (US 4,832,252), in view of Prentice (US 2016/0115820), Jones (US 2004/0151585), Panero (US 2021/0023661), and Sato (US 2005/0173496).
Regarding Claim 1: Fraser discloses a method of repairing blade (see tittle), the blade including a first portion (see annotated figure ‘252) and a second portion (see annotated figure ‘252) secured together (see annotated figure ‘252), the method including: removing material (see Figs. 1-2) from a damaged portion (14; Fig. 1) of a leading edge (13; Fig. 1) of the hollow fan blade; and welding the damaged portion (see abstract Figs. 7-8) such that a temperature of any heat stressed element (any element that can be subject to heat stress, see Col. 5 L. 59-68) in the blade does not exceed a distortion temperature (see Col. 5 L. 59-68).
Fraser is silent regarding the blade being a hollow fan blade, and the first portion and the second portion secured together via a joint and thus the heat stressed element being the joint.
However, Prentice teaches a hallow fan blade (24; Fig. 3) having a first portion (81; Fig. 3) and a second portion (82; Fig. 3) secured together via a joint (83; Fig. 3), and an interior cavity (see Fig. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blade of Fraser, to have the blade being a hollow fan blade, and the first portion and the second portion secured together via a joint, as taught by Prentice and thus having the heat stressed element being the joint. Such a modification would enable to reduce weight of the blade, as recognized by Prentice (see [0003]).
Fraser in view of Prentice is silent regarding the interior cavity of the hollow fan blade being charged with a vacuum.
However, Jones teaches a fan hollow blade (26; Fig. 4) having an interior cavity (66; Fig. 3) of the hollow fan blade being charged with a vacuum ([0055]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interior cavity of the blade of Fraser and Prentice, to have the hollow fan blade being charged with a vacuum, as taught by Jones. Such a modification would enable to further reduce weight of the blade.
Fraser in view of Prentice and Jones is silent regarding arranging a gas pad on at least one of the first portion and the second portion for dispersing an inert gas during the welding.
However, Panero teaches a method of repairing (Abstract) a blade (abstract) with welding (see Fig. 4) by arranging a gas pad (pad formed by 410; Fig. 4) on at least one of a first portion and a second portion (406, Fig. 4) for dispersing an inert gas (410; Fig. 4) during the welding (see Fig. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the welding of Fraser, to have arranging a gas pad on at least one of the first portion and the second portion for dispersing an inert gas during the welding, as taught by Panero. Such a modification would enables to limit reaction with oxygen, as recognized by Panero (see [0026]).
Fraser in view of Prentice, Jones, and Panero is silent regarding cooling the blade using a cooling system during the welding, wherein the cooling system includes at least one of a copper block and a water-cooled block.
However, Sato teaches a method of repairing (see [00002]) a blade (1; Fig. 1) using a cooling system (51; Fig. 2) during the welding ([0011]), wherein the cooling system includes at least one of a copper block and a water-cooled block (51, Fig. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the welding of Fraser, to have cooling the blade using a cooling system during the welding wherein the cooling system includes at least one of a copper block and a water-cooled block, as taught by Sato. Such a modification would enable to solidify the weld beads, as recognized by Sato (see [0011]).
Regarding Claim 2: Fraser in view of Prentice, Jones, Panero, and Sato teach all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Fraser further discloses arranging a thermocouple (50-56; Fig. 6) on at least one of the first portion and the second portion.
Regarding Claim 3: Fraser in view of Prentice, Jones, Panero, and Sato teach all the limitations of Claim 2, as stated above, and further teaches monitoring a temperature (see Col. 5 L. 59-68) of a portion (portion where 50-56; Fig. 6 of Fraser) of the hollow fan blade during the welding using the thermocouple (see Col. 5 L. 59-68 of Fraser).
Regarding Claim 4: Fraser in view of Prentice, Jones, Panero, and Sato teach all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Fraser further discloses arranging a plurality of thermocouples (50-56; Fig. 6) on the first portion or the second portion (portion visible of 10 in Fig. 6), but does explicitly show the thermocouples being arranged on each of the first portion and the second portion, i.e. duplicated the thermocouples on the other side of the blade (portion opposite to the visible portion of 10; Fig. 6)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicated the thermocouples on the other side of the blade, and thus to have the thermocouples being arranged on each of the first portion and the second portion, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding Claim 10: Fraser in view of Prentice, Jones, Panero, and Sato teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, but is silent regarding wherein the welding includes Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welding.
However, Panero teaches a method of repairing (Abstract) a blade (abstract) with welding (see Fig. 4) wherein the welding includes Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welding ([0018]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the welding of Fraser, to have the welding includes Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welding, as taught by Panero. Such a modification would enable to limit reaction with oxygen, as recognized by Panero (see [0026]).
Regarding Claim 11: Fraser in view of Prentice, Jones, Panero, and Sato teach all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Prentice further teaches wherein the interior cavity further includes a honeycomb structure ([0023]).
Regarding Claim 12: Fraser in view of Prentice, Jones, Panero, and Sato teach all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Fraser further discloses applying a finishing process after the welding (Col. 6 L. 6-10).
(In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding Claim 13: Fraser in view of Prentice, Jones, Panero, and Sato teach all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Prentice further teaches wherein the joint includes a braze joint (see [0005]).
Regarding Claim 21: Fraser in view of Prentice, Jones, Panero, and Sato teach all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Fraser further discloses wherein removing the material includes removing a portion of the blade within a cutback region (see annotated figure ‘252), the cutback region extending inboard from the leading edge such that an innermost surface (see annotated figure ‘252) of the cutback region is spaced apart from the joint by at least a minimum safe distance (see annotated figure ‘252), and wherein the minimum safe distance is a distance from the joint at which the welding is performed without causing heat stressed element to reach or exceed the distortion temperature (see Col. 5 L. 59-68), and Fraser in view of Prentrice, as stated for Claim 1, teaches the heat stressed element being the joint (see rejection Claim 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (US 4,832,252) in view of Prentice (US 2016/0115820), Jones (US 2004/0151585), Panero (US 2021/0023661), Sato (US 2005/0173496), and further in view of Buchal (US 2013/0312249).
Regarding Claim 5: Fraser in view of Prentice, Jones, Panero, and Sato teach all the limitations of Claim 4, as stated above, but is silent regarding comprising arranging each of the plurality of thermocouples using at least one item selected from the group consisting of spot welding and adhesive.
However, Buchal teaches attaching a sensor (22, 24; Fig. 1) to a blade (12; Fig. 1) using at least one item selected from the group consisting of spot welding and adhesive ( [0031]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified how the thermocouples of Fraser are attached, to have comprising arranging each of the plurality of thermocouples using at least one item selected from the group consisting of spot welding and adhesive, as taught by Buchal. Such a modification would enable to easily affix the thermocouples to the blade.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (US 4,832,252) in view of Prentice (US 2016/0115820), Jones (US 2004/0151585), Panero (US 2021/0023661), Sato (US 2005/0173496), and further in view of Aleshin (US 6,326,585).
Regarding 6: Fraser in view of Prentice and Jones teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, but is silent regarding securing the hollow fan blade within a purge box prior to the welding.
However, Aleshin teaches a method of repairing (abstract) a blade (14; Fig. 1) comprising securing the blade (see Fig. 6 how the blade is secured) within a purge box (60; Fig. 5) prior to a welding (abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fraser, to have securing the hollow fan blade within a purge box prior to the welding, as taught by Aleshin. Such a modification would enable to provide an inert gas atmosphere, as recognized by Aleshin (Col. 7 L. 25-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed on 07/29/2026 have been considered but are moot for the following:
Applicant’s representative asserts that Panero (US 2021/0023661) fails to teach “arranging a gas pad […] dispersing an inert gas during the welding”. Applicant’s representative asserts that the term “gas pad” should be interpreted as a discrete structure being the same as the structure 302, 304 of Fig. 6 of the present specification.
However, the remarks are not commensurate in scope with the claim language. The claim recites “a gas pad […] for dispersing an inert gas during the welding” under broader reasonable interpretation the claim interpretation is not require to have a discrete structure that is the exact same structure as the one illustrated by elements 302, 304. Panero teaches a gas pad (see 410 in Fig. 4, i.e. a thick agglomeration of gas extending between the torch and the element to be welded) that disperses (see Fig. 4 wherein 410 is spreading/dispersing) an inert gas (see [0026] wherein 410 is formed by an inert gas).
Therefore, Panero teaches “arranging a gas pad […] dispersing an inert gas during the welding”.
Applicant’s representative asserts that the modification by Sato (US 2005/0173496) is inappropriate because the cooling system recited in Sato is prior art. In addition, Applicant’s rely on Para. [0017] of Sato to allegedly show that Sato discourages the use of such a cooling system.
However, in Para. [0017] Sato recites that for some specific cases, i.e. corner position and use of TiAl, some cracks may be created. Such a disadvantage does not render the use of the cooling system impossible. For example, the cooling system taught by Sato can be used in other cases, i.e. other than corner position and/or with other alloys than TiAl.
Even though the cooling system of Sato is used in the specific cases where cracks may appear, the use of the cooling of Sato will not destroy the welding, i.e. the two pieces will be strongly affixed together by being welded together as it is showed in Figs. 4a-4B.
Therefore, the modification by Sato is inappropriate
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Conclusion
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 RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
