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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to drawing, specification, and claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing, specification, and claim objections of 8/27/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 132(a) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) rejections of 8/27/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and some of the rejections were overcome, however, under further consideration the remaining issues fall under a claim objection and are in the updated claim objection section below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the retaining section (shear web and spar caps) being fused with the skin. The prior art of Simpson et al. US 20060249626 teaches the shear web being and spar caps being fused within the shell of the blade in figure 9a.
The rejection is made final necessitated by amendment and updated below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendel et al. US 20180080432 in view of Simpson et al. US 20060249626.
Bendel discloses a hollow structure 20 made of a resin, comprising: a skin portion 1, 21 forming an outer surface of the hollow structure; a retaining section 2, 23, 24 and another retaining section 3, 25, 50, and supporting the skin portion from the inside thereof; and an unnumbered space defined within and by the hollow structure; wherein at least one of the retaining sections is configured such that, the following features may be drawn: in a cross section (referred to as a “cross section 1” for convenience) wherein cross section 1 is circumscribed by a rectangle having short sides and long sides and defining a minimum area, said cross section 1 taken by cutting the hollow structure along a plane passing through a midpoint of a line segment, which is defined as the shortest line segment from a point of joining and connecting a face of joining including the point of joining to the opposed face of joining, and being perpendicular to the line segment, a straight line crosses the skin portion and the retaining section at three or more points, the straight line being parallel to a straight line (referred to as a “straight line 1” for convenience) connecting each midpoint of each of the short sides of the rectangle defined to circumscribe the cross section, as seen in the figures below (claim 1).
However, Bendel is silent as to a retaining section fused without forming a physical interface with the skin portion.
From the same field of endeavor, Simpson teaches: a retaining section 882,820 in figure 9A fused without forming a physical interface (paragraph [0167]) with the skin portion 802, 830.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Bendel’s retaining sections to be fused with the skin as taught by Simpson to better secure the spar to the skin (paragraph [0167]) (claim 1).
The hollow structure comprises a fiber-reinforced resin layer on the outer surface of the structure, as it is made of plural layers (paragraph [0051]) (claim 2).
A propeller blade comprises the hollow structure, and the following features may be drawn: at least one of the retaining sections is configured such that a face (referred to as a “cross section 2” for convenience) dividing a pressure surface side adjacent “1” and a suction surface side adjacent “21” is parallel to the cross section 1, and such that a very slightly offset straight line passing through the blade tip and the blade root on the cross section 2 crosses the skin portion and the retaining section at three or more points, and is parallel to the straight line 1. The blade of Bendel et al. has all of the claimed structure, and functions as a propeller blade as seen in the figures below (claim 3).
At least one of the retaining sections has a bent portion bent in a chordwise direction as seen in the figures below (claim 4).
Two or more of the retaining sections are provided (claim 6).
Note the annotated figures below.
PNG
media_image1.png
642
987
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1125
927
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
880
639
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendel in view of Simpson, and further in view of Bettermann US 20120141285.
Bendel et al. discloses a propeller blade substantially as claimed as set forth above, but does not disclose that the thickness of the skin portion is 15 mm or less and 0.2 mm or more.
Bettermann shows a blade 10 having a skin made of fiber composite material formed by portions 12-1 and 12-2, having thicknesses of 12.9 mm and 11.3 mm, respectively, as an acceptable thickness which is able to withstand stresses during operation. Note paragraphs [0072] and [0073], for example.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the propeller blade of Bendel et al. such that the front portion 22 has a thickness of 12.9 mm and the rear portion 21 has a thickness of 11.3 mm, as taught by Bettermann, as an acceptable thickness which is able to withstand stresses during operation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 COURTNEY D HEINLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00am-5:00pm).
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at (571) 272-4037. 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.
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights