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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/16/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-15, 17-19 and 21-22 remain pending in the application.
The previous rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Lallo in view of Seminel and Uskert is moot in view of the amendments to claim 1. The rejection is withdrawn.
The Applicant broadly argues that Lallo fails to teach a “single, unitary skin” or a “single, continuous ply”. However, the claim only requires “a continuous layer of material that extends continuously”. The rejection below asserts that Lallo teaches this newly amended limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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 1-15, 17-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lallo et al. (US5248242) in view of Seminel et al. (US2019/0315451).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lallo teaches a composite airfoil for a turbine engine, the composite airfoil having an airfoil outer surface defining a pressure side (30) and a suction side (26), opposing the pressure side, which extend between a leading edge (28) and a trailing edge (38) in a chordwise direction, and from a root (12) to a tip (18) in a radial direction, the composite airfoil comprising: a spar core (generally 100) having a pressure surface (34) facing the pressure side, a suction surface (32) facing the suction side, with the pressure surface and suction surface extending between a fore end (generally 78), proximate the leading edge, and an aft end (generally 74), proximate the trailing edge, wherein at least the fore end, the aft end, and a tip end (extent of the spar shown in Fig. 1), proximate the tip, define a peripheral edge of the composite airfoil (see Fig. 2), the spar core comprising: a spar (32, 34); a support body (40) in contact with the spar; and a set of composite plies including: a first ply (70) facing the pressure surface having a first distal end (generally 71); and a second ply (66) facing the suction surface having a second distal end (generally 67); and a composite wrap (50, 52), wherein the composite wrap defines a continuous layer of material that extends continuously at least from the first distal end, across the peripheral edge, and to the second distal end (The composite wrap is composed of upper and lower skins that are pressure and heat treated to permanently bond together by strips 56, 58. After heat and pressure treatment, the excess strips are trimmed away to form the leading edge of the airfoil (see Col. 8 lines 38-57). Thus, the composite wrap is considered to be a continuous layer of material that extends continuously because the wrap functions as an uninterrupted barrier between the exterior and interior of the airfoil.)
Lallo fails to teach polymer matrix composite plies, wherein the composite wrap is a polymer matrix composite wrap.
In an analogous art, Seminel teaches a composite blade spar. Seminel teaches the use of a polymer matrix composite (see paragraphs [0012-0015]) to form the spar.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composite airfoil of Lallo and change the plies to be made from polymer matrix composite, and change the composite wrap to be a polymer matrix composite wrap as taught by Seminel to form the composite structures from an appropriate material for composite blades.
Regarding claim 2, Lallo as modified teaches the composite wrap and the set of polymer matrix composite plies define a skin (see Fig. 2. The wrap and plies together form the outer skin of the blade).
Regarding claim 3, Lallo as modified teaches adhesive (46, 48) between the skin and at least one of the spar or the support body.
Regarding claim 4, Lallo as modified teaches the skin includes a polymer resin (Seminel teaches an epoxy resin, considered a polymer resin, see paragraph [0015]) and one or more of glass fibers, carbon fibers, or aramid fibers (Lallo teaches fiber glass).
Regarding claim 5, Lallo as modified teaches the support body includes a first support body (62) coupled to a spar leading edge and a second support body (40) coupled to a spar trailing edge.
Regarding claim 6, Lallo as modified teaches the composite airfoil of claim 5, but fails to teach the first support body and the second support body comprise foam.
Seminel further teaches first and second support bodies (50, 60) formed from polymeric foam (see paragraph [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composite airfoil of Lallo and change the first support body and the second support body to comprise foam as taught by Seminel to provide a lightweight material appropriate for a rotor blade for the support bodies.
Regarding claim 7, Lallo as modified teaches the composite wrap overlies at least a portion of the pressure surface and at least a portion of the suction surface at the aft end of the spar core (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Lallo as modified teaches the composite wrap overlies at least a portion of the pressure surface and at least a portion of the suction surface at the fore end of the spar core (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Lallo as modified teaches the composite wrap overlies at least a portion of the pressure surface and at least a portion of the suction surface at the tip end of the spar core (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Lallo as modified teaches the composite wrap overlies at least a portion of the pressure surface and at least a portion of the suction surface at a root end proximate the root of the spar core (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Lallo as modified teaches the composite wrap includes multiple composite wraps having at least a first composite wrap (50) and a second composite wrap (52).
Regarding claim 12, Lallo as modified teaches the first composite wrap defines a portion of the leading edge of the composite airfoil and the second composite wrap defines a portion of the trailing edge (each composite wrap form portions of the leading and trailing edges by virtue of meeting at those edges) of the composite airfoil.
Regarding claim 13, Lallo as modified teaches the first composite wrap has a first end and the second composite wrap has a second end, wherein the first end and second end overlap (the overlap is generally shown near element 60, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Lallo as modified teaches the second composite wrap overlies the first composite wrap (the overlap is generally shown near element 60, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Lallo as modified teaches the composite wrap overlies the pressure surface, the fore end, the aft end, and at least a portion of the suction surface (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 17, Lallo as modified teaches the set of polymer matrix composite plies includes end portions (generally 67, 71), wherein the end portions are in contact with the composite wrap (the composite plies are in contact along their entire length).
Regarding claim 18, Lallo as modified teaches the turbine engine is an unducted turbine engine (Claim 1 requires a composite blade for a turbine engine (emphasis added). This is considered intended use and not given patentable weight. Thus, further limiting the turbine engine is not given patentable weight) and the composite airfoil is a blade of a set of circumferentially spaced fan blades or a vane of a set of stationary fan vanes (Lallo teaches a helicopter rotor, which is considered a fan).
Regarding claim 19, Lallo as modified teaches the spar contacts the support body at a portion of the spar that includes composite material (Lallo teaches the aft part of the spar is formed by composite splice 80).
Regarding claim 22, Lallo as modified teaches the composite wrap extends a first distance along the pressure side, and a second distance along the suction side, and the first distance is non-equal to the second distance (this is inherent in Lallo because the pressure and suction sides are different lengths according to the design of the airfoil to create lift).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lallo in view of Seminel and Foskey et al. (US10239604).
Regarding claim 21, Lallo as modified teaches the composite airfoil of claim 1, but fails to teach the composite wrap covers 10% to 90% of the peripheral edge.
In an analogous art, Foskey teaches a composite spar airfoil. Foskey teaches selectively wrapping the airfoil with a composite sheath (52), abrasion resistant wrap (56) and composite afterbody skin (62) to provide structural support and abrasion resistance in discreate locations on the airfoil (Col. 4 lines 45-67 and Col. 5 lines 1-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composite airfoil of Lallo and change it so that the composite wrap covers 10% to 90% of the peripheral edge as taught by Foskey to provide structural support and/or abrasion resistance in selected locations on the airfoil.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON A CORDAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0383. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
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, 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 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.
/CAMERON A CORDAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights