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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 2/25/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior 112(b) rejection regarding “is molded”, in paragraph 3 of page 5 through paragraph 3 of page 6 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that it is clear as to what is required by the term. Respectfully, the arguments are not persuasive because:
page 8, line 27 to page 9, line 2 of spec filed 3/15/2024 appears to address a method for manufacturing a casing including placing a preform in a mold, including that the mold comprises an annular cavity, including injecting a resin which is subsequently polymerized (Applicant has highlighted all of this in his arguments), but does not define what is specifically required by the claimed term “is molded”;
page 9, lines 20 to 32 of spec filed 3/15/2024 appears to address a method for manufacturing a casing including placing a preform in a mold, including that the mold comprises an annular cavity, including injecting a resin which is subsequently polymerized (Applicant has highlighted some of this in his arguments), but does not define what is specifically required by the claimed term “is molded”;
As previously discussed in the office action mailed on 11/26/2025, Applicant appears to identify in the remarks filed on 10/29/2025, para 4 of page 11, that molding comprises physically shaping the piece. Then Applicant appears to identify in the same remarks that molding comprises polymerizing. It is unclear, for example, if the claimed term “is molded” requires both shaping and polymerizing, if the claimed term consists of shaping and polymerizing and nothing more, or something else. The original disclosure does not make this clear.
The claim remains indefinite because it remains unclear exactly what action or step is meant to be conveyed/required by the claimed term “is molded”, thus the related rejection is maintained.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 4 of page 6 through paragraph 3 of page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that Konigs does not disclose steps for manufacturing a casing. Respectfully, the arguments are not persuasive because Konigs discloses a casing apparatus (e.g., “Applicant agrees that Konigs (figs. 9-11 for example) discloses a casing” - Applicant’s remarks 1/21/2026 para 3 of page 6) and, because the apparatus is disclosed as existing, it is therefore disclosed as having been manufactured by a method.
Applicant’s Arguments are further directed (para 1 page 7) to “that it is improper to extract steps from a method described by Konigs at figures 7-8, which is directed only to the manufacture of segments 911, and apply them to the casing 100 (instead of the segments 911).” Respectfully, the arguments are not persuasive because nothing in the claim 1 rejection was explicitly mapped to Konig’s elements 911 or 100 as implied by Applicant, thus Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the actual rejection of claim 1. Since Konigs discloses each and every positively claimed limitation of claim 1, Konigs discloses Applicant’s claimed method for manufacturing a casing.
Applicant’s Arguments are further directed (para 2 page 7) to that Konigs’s axial abutment is only the ends of a segment 911 and not stops formed in the casing 100 intended to house this segment 911. Respectfully, the arguments are not persuasive because nothing in the claim 1 rejection was explicitly mapped to Konig’s elements 911 or 100 as implied by Applicant, thus Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the actual rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, Konigs’s disclosed axial abutment meets all of the requirements of Applicant’s axial abutment as claimed, including that the axial abutment is part of a method for manufacturing a casing, per the claim 1 preamble.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant's argument (para 2 page 7) that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “the at least one axial abutment is claimed as being part of a casing”) are not explicitly recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification and/or arguments are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is noted that the axial abutment is claimed as being part of a method for manufacturing a casing (per the preamble of claim 1) and that the axial abutment is not explicitly claimed as being part of a casing (this is not explicitly positively claimed by any limitation in the body of claim 1).
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, 10-11 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 4 recites the same limitation, suffering from the same deficiency, thus is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 2-4, 10-11 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).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
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