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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 8/04/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior 112(b) rejection regarding “is molded”, in paragraph 5 of page 6 through paragraph 1 of page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that new claim 12 clarifies the term. The argument is not persuasive because claim 12 does not clarify the term as all previous arguments, presented in the response to arguments of the previous office action, still apply. Thus the related rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments are further directed towards that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the groove recited in claim 3, wherein Applicant provides no specific reasons; the arguments are not persuasive because there are no specific reasons.
Applicant’s arguments are further directed towards that Konigs does not disclose filling/injecting the annular groove with resin. These arguments are not persuasive because Konigs discloses that the composite fabric 61 comprises resin (e.g. para 0066) wherein the fabric is placed into the cavity, and a broadest reasonable interpretation of “fill” may be e.g. “to add a foreign substance to” something or e.g. “to put something into [something] to capacity or to a desired level” per https://www.thefreedictionary.com/fill, and a broadest reasonable interpretation of “inject” may be e.g. “to introduce into something forcefully” per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inject. Such interpretations are entirely commensurate with Konigs’s disclosure.
Regarding the new claims, please see the action below for any relevant details.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 10 line 28 recites the term “review” which should probably be --receive--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner’s note: The previous claim interpretation(s) (identified in the office action mailed on 07/31/2025) made under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) regarding the term(s): “heated and held by means of a system” in claim 1; “flanging device” in claim 4; is/are maintained.
Examiner’s note: Regarding the term “flanged”, as identified in claim 4 for example, in paragraph 5 of page 11 through paragraph 3 of page 12 of Applicant’s Remarks filed 10/29/2025, Applicant’s remarks are directed towards that the term “flanged” as used by the application means “secured" or “clamped” and does not mean the typical meaning of “flanged” which is a structure such as a projecting rim, collar, or ring (e.g., https://www.dictionary.com/browse/flange).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-13 is/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 1 (line 18) recites the limitation “is molded” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear exactly what action or step is meant to be conveyed/required. The specification provides no basis from which to assess the metes and bounds of the claim term, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to assess the metes and bounds of the claim term. The scope of the recitation of "molded" is not understood. Molding is a general process. Is this meant to convey/require a step of physically shaping the axial abutment means and/or the preform? Curing? Something else? This is unclear.
Claim 2 (line 2) recites the limitation “the form” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- a form --.
Claim 13 (line 2) recites the limitation “the form” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- a form --.
Claim 12 (line 10) recites the limitation “the overmolding” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- an overmolding --.
Claim 12 (line 10) recites the limitation “said resin of the envelope” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- said resin --. This change is also to be consistent with how Applicant uses the term throughout the claim set. Note that the term “the resin of the envelope” in claim 12 line 14 should then also be rewritten as -- the resin -- in order to avoid subsequent issues.
Claim(s) 2-4, 10-13 is/are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20140367920 A1 (hereinafter Konigs).
Regarding claim 1, Konigs discloses:
A method for manufacturing a casing for an aircraft turbine engine, the method comprising:
- a first step of manufacturing an annular envelope (composite fabric 61; Fig 7) extending around an axis A (axis of rotation of fabric 61; Fig 7) and comprising at least one intermediate section (section between the two vertical ends in Fig 7) configured to receive an annular cartridge (25; Fig 7) made of an abradable material (abstract: “piece 25 of abradable material”),
during which an annular preform of axis A of the annular envelope, made of a composite material comprising three-dimensionally woven fibers (para 0066: “weave”, “composite fabric 61 comprises fibres impregnated with thermosetting resin”; para 0071: “the composite fabric 61 undergoes preforming in a mold that is separate from the mold 81”), is placed in a mold (81; Fig 7) that comprises an annular cavity (82; Fig 7) configured to complementarily receive the preform,
then during which a resin is injected into said cavity and the resin is subsequently polymerized (para 0074: “cause polymerisation of the resin(s) with which the composite fabric 61 is impregnated”),
- a second step during which at least one axial abutment (Annotated Fig 7a) is arranged projecting from a first internal annular surface (radially inner surface of 61 in Fig 7) of the at least one intermediate section of the envelope, at a first end of said at least one intermediate section (Fig 7 shows this),
- a third step during which the annular cartridge is arranged inside the annular envelope in contact with the at least one axial abutment, covering the first internal annular surface (Figs 7 and 8 show all this),
- a fourth step of bonding the annular cartridge to the first internal annular surface, during which the casing is heated (para 0074 identifies temperature, autoclave) and held by means of a system present at least in part inside the casing (Figs 7 and 8 show such a system, comprising of various elements such as, e.g., 71, 81),
wherein the second step takes place simultaneously with the first step (Figs 7 and 8 show this),
and during said second step, said at least one axial abutment is molded with the preform in the mold (Figs 7 and 8 show this).
Also, regarding “heated and held by means of a system”, in paragraph 7 of page 9 through paragraph 2 of page 10, and also paragraphs 2-3 of page 11, of Applicant’s Remarks filed 10/29/2025, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that these terms refer to elements which are well known and common knowledge in the art as prior art or in prior art and do not encompass inventiveness. It is noted that a statement by an applicant made during prosecution identifying prior art is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness (MPEP 2129).
PNG
media_image1.png
371
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 7a
Regarding claim 2, Konigs discloses:
the at least one axial abutment molded with the preform is in the form of an annular bead (“a projecting rim, band, or molding” per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bead) of axis A (Fig 7 shows this).
Regarding claim 3, Konigs discloses:
the mold used during said first and second steps comprises
an outer annular shell (71; Fig 7) of axis A and an inner annular shell (81; Fig 7) of axis A between which the cavity is delimited,
and the inner shell comprises an annular groove (Annotated Fig 7a, wherein the highlighted portion is depressed relative to material on either side of it) of axis A which opens into the cavity and which is configured to be filled with resin when the resin is injected into the cavity (Fig 7 shows all this),
the resin forming said bead after polymerization of the resin and demolding (the limitation scope is directed to that the bead is formed; Konigs is directed towards the same).
Regarding claim 4, Konigs discloses:
during the third step, the annular cartridge is flanged (secured) inside the annular envelope by means of at least one removable flanging device (e.g., 71; Fig 8).
Also, regarding “flanging device”, in paragraph 7 of page 9 through paragraph 2 of page 10, and also paragraphs 2-3 of page 11, of Applicant’s Remarks filed 10/29/2025, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that these terms refer to elements which are well known and common knowledge in the art as prior art or in prior art and do not encompass inventiveness. It is noted that a statement by an applicant made during prosecution identifying prior art is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness (MPEP 2129).
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.
Claim(s) 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konigs in view of US 20150192140 A1 (Derclaye).
Regarding claim 10, Konigs discloses:
An aircraft turbine engine (para 0001) comprising the casing manufactured according to the manufacturing method of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Konigs may not explicitly disclose:
The aircraft turbine engine is a dual-flow aircraft turbine engine.
However, Derclaye, in the same field of endeavor, aircraft engines, teaches:
In Fig 1 a dual-flow aircraft turbine engine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Konigs to include Derclaye’s teachings as described above, having the aircraft turbine engine be a dual-flow aircraft turbine engine, in order to leverage the particular characteristics of a dual-flow aircraft turbine engine for particular applications such as use on commercial airplanes, as one having ordinary skill in the art would understand.
Regarding claim 11, Konigs as modified above discloses:
the casing is a fan casing (Konigs abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim(s) 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 12, Konigs discloses:
the mold used during said first and second steps comprises
an outer annular shell (71; Fig 7) of axis A and an inner annular shell (81; Fig 7) of axis A between which the cavity is delimited,
and the inner shell comprises an annular groove (Annotated Fig 7a, wherein the highlighted portion is depressed relative to material on either side of it) of axis A which opens into the cavity and which is configured to be filled with said resin when said resin is injected into the cavity (Fig 7 shows all this),
in order to form said at least one axial abutment after polymerization of the resin and demolding (the axial abutment is fully formed obtaining its final properties after polymerization and demolding, same as Applicant’s),
Konigs does not disclose:
and wherein the annular groove receives a ring before the injection of said resin, then the ring is covered with said resin in the annular groove when said resin is injected into the cavity, said at least one axial abutment resulting from the overmolding of the ring with the preform with said resin of the envelope, or the annular groove does not receive a ring before the injection of said resin, and the annular groove is only filled with said resin when said resin is injected into the cavity, said at least one axial abutment being made entirely and solely from the resin of the envelope.
At this time, the prior art of record does not fairly disclose, teach, or suggest the missing limitation(s) as described above such that a modification would be possible in order to arrive at the claimed invention. One would not be motivated to modify Konigs’s structure such that it would read on Applicant’s claim without improper hindsight from Applicant’s disclosure. The claim is therefore deemed to be allowable over the prior art.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and is therefore allowable over the prior art for at least that reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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 at 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights