DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillan (US 20060216154) in view of Stiesdal (US 20130199043).
McMillan teaches a method for manufacturing a composite material part (Fig. 4) comprising three-dimensional weaving ([0041]) a three-dimensional structure (80, 82) inherently having a longitudinal axis and a layer of braided threads at a predetermined angle relative to the longitudinal axis around the woven structure ([0036]).
McMillan teaches braiding a sleeve which is placed on the structure, but McMillan does not specifically teach “braiding…around the structure”.
Stiesdal teaches providing a core and braiding a structure around the core ([0055]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the Stiesdal step into McMillan because McMillan teaches/suggests a braided sleeve on a core, and Stiesdal provides a braided sleeve within the scope of the McMillan teaching/suggestion. In light of the fact that McMillan uses a braided sleeve and Stiesdal would arrive at a braided sleeve, there would be a reasonable expectation of success. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that braiding a sleeve on a core would have been an obvious substitution for placing a braided sleeve on a core as already taught by McMillan. McMillan provides a base process which differs by the use of a braided sleeve instead of the claimed braiding around the structure. However, the substituted step (braiding around the structure) is taught by Stiesdal, and one could have substituted the braiding for the braided sleeve and the results would have been predictable (a braided sleeve on the structure is still the result).
As to claim 3, McMillan teaches RTM of the final structure. In the combination with Stiesdal above, the McMillan RTM would be performed after the Stiesdal braiding. As to claim 10, McMillan teaches carbon or glass fibers ([0035]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillan (US 20060216154) in view of Stiesdal (US 20130199043), and further in view of Folsom (US 20130343898). McMillan and Sitesdal teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 2, McMillan is silent to resin transfer molding the woven structure prior to the braiding.
Folsom teaches forming a dry spar structural layer (206) and resin transfer molding ([0026]) that structure before proceeding to apply an outer layer (218).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate this order of steps from Folsom into McMillan since this is the application of a known technique (RTM at an intermediate stage of manufacturing) to McMillan’s existing method. The Folsom process is a known technique applicable to the similar composite blade of McMillan and one would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded the predictable result that the resin would be applied directly to the interior dry spar structural layer ensuring full impregnation of the interior dry spar structural layer.
Claims 4-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillan (US 20060216154) in view of Stiesdal (US 20130199043), and further in view of Seeram (US 6,287,122). McMillan and Stiesdal teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 4-8 and 12, McMillan and Stiesdal are silent to the subject matter of these claims.
However, Seeram teaches in the field of functionally graded fiber-reinforced composite material (1:5-10), braiding threads using a braiding machine where the angle of braiding can be changed continuously in order to control the degree of stiffness along the length of the article (2:5-9). Therefore, the angle of braiding (or predetermined angle of the braiding threads in the instant claims) represents a result effective variable that the ordinary artisan would have optimized in order to achieve a particular or graded stiffness in a resulting fiber-reinforced composite material.
Specifically as to claim 4, Stiesdal already teaches “at least one outer layer” ([0022]) which suggests braiding two or more outer layers. One optimizing the braiding angle consistent with the Seeram teaching would have arrived at different predetermined angle of the braiding threads in the layers to optimize the stiffness through the thickness of the article.
Specifically as to claims 5-8 and 12, one optimizing the braiding angle in the McMillan/Stiesdal process consistent with the Seeram teaching would have arrived at a predetermined angle of the braiding threads between 15 (or 45) and 75 degrees and varying over the length of the article in order to optimize the stiffness along the length of the article. McMillan already teaches a woven structure with multiple segments (root, aerofoil or blade) and Seeram provides the ability to optimize the stiffness for these portions of the McMillan article.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Seeram into McMillan motivated by providing the ability to achieve a particular or graded stiffness in the McMillan article. There was a reasonable expectation of success since McMillan (alone or with Stiesdal) already provides a braided outer layer and Seeram is specifically applicable to a braided layer.
Claims 4-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillan (US 20060216154) in view of Stiesdal (US 20130199043), and further in view of Nakagawa (US 20200071863). McMillan and Stiesdal teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 4-8 and 12, McMillan and Stiesdal are silent to the subject matter of these claims.
However, Nakagawa teaches a braiding technique where the angle of the braided yarns can be adjusted along the length of the article (Fig. 6) in order to provide high rigidity and superior vibration damping. Therefore, the braid angle (or predetermined angle of the braiding threads in the instant claims) represents a result effective variable that the ordinary artisan would have optimized in order to optimize rigidity and vibration damping.
Specifically as to claim 4, Stiesdal already teaches “at least one outer layer” ([0022]) which suggests braiding two or more outer layers. One optimizing the braiding angle consistent with the Nakagawa teaching would have arrived at different predetermined angle of the braiding threads in the layers to optimize rigidity and vibration damping through the layers.
Specifically as to claims 5-8 and 12, one optimizing the braiding angle in the McMillan/Stiesdal process consistent with the Nakagawa teaching would have arrived at a predetermined angle of the braiding threads between 15 (or 45) and 75 degrees (Nakagawa [0022]; [0030]) and varying over the length of the article in order to optimize the rigidity and vibration damping along the length of the article. McMillan already teaches a woven structure with multiple segments (root, aerofoil or blade) and Nakagawa provides the ability to optimize the rigidity and vibration damping for these portions of the McMillan article.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Nakagawa into McMillan motivated by providing the ability to achieve a particular or graded rigidity and vibration damping in the McMillan article. There was a reasonable expectation of success since McMillan (alone or with Stiesdal) already provides a braided outer layer and Nakagawa is specifically applicable to a braided layer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillan (US 20060216154) in view of Stiesdal (US 20130199043), and further in view of Homma (US 5,100,713). McMillan and Stiesdal teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 9, McMillan and Stiesdal collectively teach a woven structure comprising warp threads and weft threads, but is silent to first threads and second threads having the claimed characteristics.
However, Homma teaches woven structures formed of an equivalent to warp threads (24) and an equivalent to weft threads including first threads (22) and second threads (23) where the second threads (23) are depicted as finer and having a smaller number than the first threads (Fig. 4, Fig. 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Homma structure into McMillan motivated by increasing/decreasing the thickness of portions of the article (see Homma Fig. 6). There was a reasonable expectation of success since both references are directed to reinforced composites.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed April 10, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of a 3D fabric is ideal for a thick part subjected to a tension bending stress, while the braid provides circumferential fibers that reinforce the part against torsion. Applicant acknowledges that McMillan discloses a three-dimensional weaving of a structure having a longitudinal axis, McMillan does not disclose braiding at a predetermined angle relative to the longitudinal axis directly around the woven structure. Applicant argues that Stiesdal does not disclose three-dimensional weaving of a structure and Stiesdal’s triaxial braiding around a flexible core cannot be considered three-dimensional braiding.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position. McMillan teaches applying a braided outer wrap with fibers arranged with a predetermined angle relative to the longitudinal axis for control of torsional vibration modes ([0036]). There is no teaching in McMillan away from a braiding process performed over the three-dimensionally woven structure as disclosed in Stiesdal. In addition to the rationale provided in the rejection (which does not appear to be specifically addressed), it should also be noted Stiesdal states that the benefit of a braiding process performed around an elongate core is that surrounding an elongate core with a textile braid and arranging this structure in a mold avoids the labor intensive and time consuming process of manually arranging a large number of individual layers or sheets of material in the mold ([0009]). To the extent that McMillan teaches arranging a braided wrap around a core, Stiesdal appears to teach an improvement directly applicable to McMillan for avoiding the same labor intensive and time consuming process of manually arranging the braided wrap with respect to the core in McMillan. Both references are processes for fabricating turbine blades. The Examiner views this as a strong combination and does not believe that a preponderance supports allowance of claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights