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 .
Acknowledgement is made of amendments received 01-26-2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “twist along a radial length of the at least two mandrel parts” as in claims 12 and 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). There is no discussion of said twist in the Detailed Description portion of the specification and no reference numbers indicating a “twist” in the Figures. Applicant has amended ¶ [0067] to reference a “twist”, but that is describing the airfoil as opposed to the mandrel as claimed, and it appears to be describing a motion of the airfoil as opposed to a shape of the mandrel. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 10, the phrase “the second mandrel part has an outer shape which is closer to straight” is understood to mean that an outer shape of the second mandrel part is closer to a straight line than the bowed profile of the first mandrel part.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “at least two mandrel parts” should be --the at least two mandrel parts-- because the limitation has already been recited in claims 9 and 16. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-20 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 9 recites “the two mandrel parts” in line 10 and “the other of the two mandrel parts” in line 11. However, line 3 recites “at least two mandrel parts”, which could include more than two mandrel parts. This it is unclear if lines 10 and 11 are referring to two particular mandrel parts and/or if lines 10 and 11 are attempting to limit the claim to only two mandrel parts. Examiner recommends --one of the at least two mandrel parts-- for line 10 and --another of the at least two mandrel parts-- for line 11.
Claim 14 also recites “the one of the two mandrel parts” in lines 2-3, which is likewise unclear. Examiner recommends --the one of the at least two mandrel parts--.
Claim 11 recites “the CMC yarns” (plural) in line 2. However, claim 9 only recites “yarn” (singular). It is unclear if claim 11 is introducing additional yarns. Examiner recommends --the CMC yarn--.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Tsuru and Eisch is persuasive in view of the instant amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01-26-2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 9-20 under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn. However, a number of formal matters and 35 USC 112(b) remain, as detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741