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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinta et al. (hereafter Chinta – US 20230313687).
Claim 1 recites “a blade.” Chinta teaches such a blade, as will be shown.
Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) a blade, comprising:
a spar 202; and
an airfoil 212 coupled to the spar, the airfoil including:
an outer surface 210 defining an external contour of the airfoil and defining an inner cavity 230; and
an internal lattice structure (242, see para. 0056) arranged in the inner cavity, the internal lattice structure including:
a first set of at least two adjacent first unit cells (Fig. 5, para. 0057) at a first location 250, the first unit cells having a first structure (para. 0057); and
a second set of at least two adjacent second unit cells (Fig. 5, see para. 0057) at a second location 250, the second set different than the first set, the second unit cells having a second structure different than the first structure (para. 0057),
wherein the first structure and the second structure are based on at least one environmental factor impacting the respective first and second locations of the airfoil (para. 0051).
Regarding Claim 2, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the blade of claim 1, wherein the first set has a first stiffness and the second set has a second stiffness greater than the first stiffness (para. 0051, different material and/or geometry would have different stiffnesses).
Regarding Claim 3, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the blade of claim 1, wherein the first structure includes first walls intersecting at respective first vertices (para. 0056, walls and vertices of a honeycomb structure), and the second structure includes second walls intersecting at respective second vertices (para. 0056), the second walls are thicker than the first walls and the second vertices are thicker than the first vertices (para. 0051).
Regarding Claim 4, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the blade of claim 1, wherein the second structure is a different shape than the first structure (para. 0051, 0056).
Regarding Claim 5, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the blade of claim 4, wherein the second structure is honeycomb shaped 262 and the first structure is cross-cube shaped (see Fig. 5, para. 0056).
Regarding Claim 6, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the blade of claim 1, wherein the internal lattice structure is formed from a sheet of material (para. 0024), the first set and the second set is formed by folding and cutting of the sheet of material.
The following limitation “the first set and the second set is formed by folding and cutting of the sheet of material” is considered a product-by-process limitation, and as the determination of patentability is based on the product itself, the structure disclosed anticipates/renders obvious the claimed structure as the disclosed structure appears to be the same or similar to that claimed, see MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 7, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the blade of claim 1, wherein the first unit cells are a first material and the second unit cells are a second material (para. 0051).
Regarding Claim 8, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the blade of claim 1, wherein the outer surface is a first material, and the internal lattice structure is a second material different than the first material (para. 0051).
Regarding Claim 9, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the blade of claim 1, wherein the inner cavity includes a first region and a second region (see Fig. 5), the internal lattice structure is in the first region of the inner cavity, and a filler material 240 is in the second region of the inner cavity, the second region being a non-latticed region (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 12, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the blade of claim 1, wherein the first unit cells of the first set form a complex 3D structure (para. 0046, 0048), the complex 3D structure configured based on one or more of the at least one environmental factor impacting the airfoil (para. 0048).
Claim 13 recites “an airfoil.” Chinta teaches such an airfoil, as will be shown.
Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) an airfoil, comprising: an outer skin 210 defining an internal cavity 230; and an internal lattice structure 242 in the internal cavity including: a first latticed region 250 including at least two adjacent first unit cells (Fig. 5) having a first structure (para. 0057); and a second latticed region 250 including at least two second unit cells (Fig. 5) having a second structure different than the first structure (para. 0051, 0057).
Regarding Claim 14, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the airfoil of claim 13, wherein the internal cavity includes a non-latticed region (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 15, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the airfoil of claim 14, further including filler material 240 in the non-latticed region.
Regarding Claim 16, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the airfoil of claim 15, wherein the filler material is one of foam or polyurethane (para. 0045).
Regarding Claim 17, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the airfoil of claim 13, wherein the first structure is smaller than the second structure (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 18, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the airfoil of claim 13, wherein the first structure is a different shape than the second structure (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 19, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the airfoil of claim 13, wherein the first latticed region and the second latticed region are formed from one sheet of material (para. 0024), the first unit cells and the second unit cells formed by folding and cutting of the sheet of material.
The following limitation “first unit cells and the second unit cells formed by folding and cutting of the sheet of material” is considered a product-by-process limitation, and as the determination of patentability is based on the product itself, the structure disclosed anticipates/renders obvious the claimed structure as the disclosed structure appears to be the same or similar to that claimed, see MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 20, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the airfoil of claim 13, wherein the first unit cells of the first latticed region form a complex 3D structure (para. 0046), the complex 3D structure configured based on at least one environmental factor impacting the airfoil (para. 0048).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinta in view of Welch (US 20180038385).
Regarding Claim 10, Chinta teaches (Figs. 1-5) the blade of claim 1, wherein the internal lattice structure is a first internal lattice structure.
However, Chinta does not teach wherein the spar includes a second internal lattice structure.
Welch teaches (Figs. 1-3) a blade comprising a spar 106, wherein the spar includes a second internal lattice structure (80, see para. 0039).
Welch further teaches such a spar with a lattice structure may be vibrationally tuned and damped and may increase and impact resistance of the fan blade.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Welch to the blade of Chinta to have the spar includes a second internal lattice structure, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to blades. Doing so would result in a vibrationally tuned and damped and increased impact resistance of the fan blade, as recognized by Welch.
Regarding Claim 11, Chinta, as modified with Welch in Claim 10 above, teaches (Welch Figs. 1-3) the blade of claim 10, wherein the second internal lattice structure is integrally formed with the first internal lattice structure (see Welch Fig. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (571) 270-3508. 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).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights