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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al (US 2016/0076552).
Anderson et al taught a method and composite fan blade (an airfoil) which included a core 16 formed from interwoven fiber bands (comprising one or more fiber tows) in a manner identical to that claimed, see paragraph [0024] for the discussion of what an airfoil is, paragraph [0032] for a discussion of what each band of fibers is (essentially a tape of fibers in resin), paragraphs [0034]-[0051], Figures 9-15 for the layup of the composite material to make the core 16 therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al (US 2016/0076552) in view of Popper et al (US 6,323,145).
Anderson taught a method and composite fan blade, as detailed above. The reference did not expressly suggest that equal numbers of tows would have been at least two tows in a set of tows laid down which crossed over each other set of previously laid sets of tows therein in the operation and did not expressly recite the angle of the pattern of application of the fiber tows in the sequences of lay down. Popper et al taught the interlacing of fiber tows in the manufacture of a composite fabric which was provided with enhanced penetration resistance wherein one applied fiber tows in pairs and laid the same up and interlaced the same to produce the preform therein (see Figures 1A-1E). The reference taught that one would have performed the interlacing of the fiber tows to produce a fabric with improved penetration resistance. Note that the airfoil (fan blade) would desirably have had good penetration resistance (as it might be subject to bird strikes therein). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize pairs of tow bands which were interlaced in the laying of the interlaced preform of Anderson et al as such was common practice for forming such fabric preforms as suggested by Popper et al.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al (US 2016/0076552) in view of Popper et al (US 6,323,145) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of European Patent 2354455.
The Anderson and Popper references suggested the formation of an airfoil which included the formation of a fan blade for a turbine engine, as detailed above. However the references did not expressly suggest that the composite airfoil (fan blade) which was part of a gas turbine which included a compressor section, a combustor in fluid communication with the compressor section and a turbine section in fluid communication with the combustor. Applicant is, however, advised that this is nothing more than the known structure of a gas turbine engine and this is further evidenced by EP '455. It should be noted in Figures 1 and 2 that the reference to EP '455 clearly envisioned that a composite fan blade would have been provided in a gas turbine engine which included a compressor section, a combustor in fluid communication with the compressor section and a turbine section in fluid communication with the combustor therein. Certainly then, it would have been obvious to associate the composite fan blade (air foil) of Anderson et al with a gas turbine engine as part of the same therein given that composite fan blades were generally known per se in the art as useful in such engines as expressed by EP '455.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant provides an incorrect claim status, stating various claims being amended, canceled, and newly added which are inconsistent with the claims filed 02/17/2026. The pending claims are 1-15, all of which are presented in their original form.
Applicant argues that Anderson and Popper fail to teach or fairly suggest the instantly claimed method. In particular, Applicant argues that Anderson and Popper do not teach or fairly suggest “a progressive sequence where each tow crosses only over previously placed tows from groups with lower i.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that Anderson and Popper teach progressive layup arrangements in which applied tows cross over previously applied tows as claimed. Applicant has not articulated a different layup arrangement, but instead uses different terminology and phrasing to describe a layup arrangement which is conventional and known in the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights