DETAILED ACTION
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkeby (US 20150251362) in view of Tunis (US 6,773,655).
As to claims 1, 7, and 8, Kirkeby teaches a method for making a fan blade (Figs. 1-2) from composite material including a permanent core (9) and a fiber reinforced resin material (19 and [0067]). Kirkeby places a plurality of reinforcing fiber fabric layers ([0007], “mats”) on a bottom part of a mold (“fiber material 19 is laid onto the lower mold half”) in the shape of said fan blade or fan component (Fig. 3). Kirkeby places a (permanent) core (9) having a fan blade shape (Fig. 2) on the reinforcing fiber fabric layers in the bottom part of the mold ([0065]). Kirkeby folds (Fig. 3 and [0065] “core 9 is subsequently covered…to enclose the core 9) a remaining portion of the reinforcing dry fabric sheets over exposed portions of the (permanent) core to form a reinforcing fiber fabric-enveloped permanent core. Kirkeby closes the mold ([0065] “mold 10 is closed”) to form a mold cavity between a surface of the (permanent) core and an interior surface of said closed mold. Kirkeby infuses a resin inherently into an opening of the mold and allowing said resin to fill an entirety of said mold cavity ([0066], “impregnated with a resin”), cures the resin ([0067]), and removed from the mold ([0068] “blade 5 is removed from the mold”). Kirkeby does not teach removing the (permanent) core.
Kirkeby is silent to the core including a plurality of interconnected surface channels to facilitate resin flow on its surface.
Tunis teaches providing a single unitary core (Fig. 1) with a plurality of interconnected surface channels/grooves (14 and 18) on an entirety of the core surface (3:20, “entire core”), as recited in instant claims 1, 7, and 8. Tunis wraps one or more layers of fiber material around the core.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Tunis interconnected surface channels/grooves into Kirkeby as an obvious improvement on the Kirkeby core. Kirkeby teaches a core without the surface channels/grooves and infusing reinforcement on the core with resin. The prior art of Tunis is a comparable process improved in the same way as the claimed invention using channels/grooves to route resin to reinforcement provided on the core. One could have applied the known improvement of Tunis to Kirkeby’s core to provide the predictable result that the Kirkeby resin would be routed throughout the entire article in the same way already provided by Tunis.
As to claims 2, 3, and 6, these claims are drawn to features outside of the claimed process (when channels are formed in relation to molding of the core). Tunis specifically teaching machining grooves which meets claim 3, however, integrally mold grooves in the core would have been obvious as a combination of steps already provided in the prior art. In either case/order, the same core with channels/grooves is produced.
As to claims 4, both Kirkeby ([0008]) and Tunis (Abstract) each teach applying vacuum to the interior of the closed mold. As to claim 5, the Kirkeby article is depicted without seams or seam lines (Fig. 2). As to claim 9, the Kirkeby process may be provided as unidirectional (oriented) fibers. When provided as solely unidirectional (oriented) fibers, Kirkeby meets claim 9 by providing 100% oriented fiber fabrics.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkeby (US 20150251362) in view of Tunis (US 6,773,655), and further in view of Gurit (GB 2491190 A). Kirkeby and Tunis teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 2 and 6, even if it is ultimately determined that claims 2 and 6 are not met by Kirkeby and Tunis alone, Gurit shows that it is known to mold a core with integral channels (Fig. 7, items 52, 54).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the Gurit molding process to mold the Kirkeby/Tunis core with channels as an obvious interchangeable substitute process for forming resin transfer grooves. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the Gurit molding process for the machining already taught by Tunis, and the predictable result would have been (in either case) a core with molded grooves for transporting resin.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkeby (US 20150251362) in view of Tunis (US 6,773,655), and further in view of Sekido (US 20040130072). Kirkeby and Tunis teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 10, Kirkeby is silent to the claimed reinforcing fiber fabric comprising 60-70% of the resulting fiber reinforced resin material.
Sekido teaches a reinforcing fiber ratio of 45-65% ([0138]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the Sekido fiber ratio motivated by optimizing the mechanical properties of the resulting article. Sekido teaches, for example, that this 45-65% fiber reinforcement range is a balance between the effect of saving weight and improving compression strength ([0138]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination since Kirkeby does not teach any particular fiber ratio, and Sekido teaches that this range represents an optimized fiber ratio.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742