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 .
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) 1-4 and 7-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR3081758 (English machine translation provided herewith) in view of Charlas et al (USP2021/0324747).
Regarding claim 1, FR3081758 teaches:
A method for manufacturing a vane (10) (FR3081758: figs 1) made of a composite material for a turbomachine the vane comprising a blade (12) comprising a pressure side and a suction side which extend from a leading edge (12a) to a trailing edge of the blade (FR3081758: a blade for an aircraft is injection resin transfer molded, wherein the blade has a leading edge and a trailing edge; fig 1), the method comprising:
a) arranging a preform (24) produced by three-dimensional fibre weaving in a mould (30) (FR3081758:3D weaved fibrous preform 20 is positioned in the mold 6; description of step E3; fig 1),
b) closing the mould and heating the mould, then injecting the polymerizable resin into the mould so that it impregnates the preform so as to form the blade after solidification (FR3081758:3D description of step E3; fig 1), wherein the mould is heated in a cycle comprising:
- an initial temperature rise from a temperature T1 to a temperature T2 (FR3081758: the mold starts at an ambient temperature of about 25C, which constitutes the claimed temperature T1 (Table 1 of FR3081758) and then the mold temperature is raised to the injection temperature of 155-165, which constitutes the claimed temperature T2 (claim 6 and description of steps E2 and E3 of FR3081758),
- a second temperature rise from the temperature T2 to a temperature T3 (FR3081758: after injection, the mold temperature is raised to a baking/polymerizing temperature, which constitutes the claimed T3; description of steps E3 and E5), and
- a second temperature maintenance stage T3 for a predetermined period (FR3081758: baking/polymerizingcooking is maintained for 30-80 minutes (claim 10 of FR3081758), and in that:
- the resin is injected in step b) during the second temperature rise (FR3081758: step E3 injection is performed before the mold is heated to the baking/polymerizing temperature T3; description of step E3 and E5).
.
However, FR3081758 does not teach the vane further comprising a metal shield (22) extending along the leading edge of the blade and a polymerizable adhesive (26) being interposed between the shield and the edge of the preform, wherein the shield being positioned on an edge of the preform intended to form the leading edge of the blade, and the temperature T2 is chosen so that Vc > K.Vr at this temperature, Vc being the viscosity of the adhesive, Vr being the viscosity of the resin, and K being a factor greater than or equal to 100. Charlas et al teach molding a composite blade by RTM, wherein the 3D weaved fibrous preform is adhesively fitted with a metal shield on the leading edge of the preform before the preform is placed within an injection mold; and inherently teaches performing the RTM at a temperature such that the adhesive used for fitting the metal shield to the preform does not become fluid during resin injection thus compromising the adherence of the metal shield to the preform. Since FR3081758 and Charlas et al are analogous with respect to forming a composite blade by RTM, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the metal shield and injection temperature awareness of Charlas et al into the process of FR3081758 in order to form a blade having a protected leading edge.
Regarding claim 2, FR3081758 teaches the mold being at 155C-165C during injection (claim 10 of FR3081758) but does not teach the claimed temperature. Mold temperature during injection is well-known in the molding art as an important molding parameter and the desired temperature would have been obviously and readily determined through routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Further, the claimed temperature is generally well-known in the molding art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to set the mold temperature during the step of injection of FR3081758 at the claimed temperature in order to ensure the resin is not primed for polymerization.
Regarding claim 3, FR3081758 appears to teach a rate of the temperature rise of 2.5C/minute (FR3081758: figure 3 shows starting temperature of about 25C at 0min and then 100C at 30mins, which equates to 2.5C/min).
Regarding claim 4, FR3081758 appears to teach a starting temperature of 25C, which is known to be ambient temperature (FR3081758: time 0min in figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, FR3081758 does not explicitly teach the claimed value of K, but it must be inherently taught since the adhesive of FR3081758 (modified) is not compromised by becoming fluid during resin injection.
Regarding claim 8, FR3081758 appears to teach a of 30 mins (FR3081758: figure 3 shows E3 starting at 105mins and then ending at 135mins, which equates to 30 mins).
Regarding claim 9, such is taught by FR3081758 (FR3081758: description of step E2).
Regarding claim 10, FR3081758 does not teach the preheated temperature of the resin being greater than the injection temperature of the mold. Since it is well-known in the injection molding art to preheat a resin temperature beyond the injection temperature of the mold in order to ensure fluidity of the resin during injection, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to preheat the resin of FR3081758 beyond the injection temperature of the mold of FR3081758 in order to ensure the resin maintains its fluidity during the injection step.
Regarding claim 11, FR3081758 teaches performing baking/polymerizing at a temperature of 175-185C (FR3081758: description of step E5).
Regarding claim 12, such is taught by FR3081758 (FR3081758: claim 10).
Regarding claim 13, FR3081758 teaches raising the temperature of the mold from the baking/polymerizing temperature 180C to a higher temperature of 200C and then priming the resin with its hardener (FR3081758: description of step E5).
Regarding claim 14, FR3081758 teaches raising the temperature of the mold from the baking/polymerizing temperature 180C to a higher temperature of 200C and then priming the resin with its hardener (FR3081758: description of step E5).
Regarding claim 15, FR3081758 appears to teach maintaining the higher temperature for about 30mins (FR3081758: the plateau above 200C on the Tm line; Fig 3), but does not teach the duration of between 1hr and 3hrs. The duration for holding a mold at a temperature is well-known in the injection molding art as an important molding parameter and the desired duration would have been obviously and readily determined through routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Further, the claimed duration is generally well-known in the molding art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to hold the mold of FR3081758 at the higher temperature for the claimed duration in order to ensure the resin with hardener is sufficiently primed.
Regarding claim 16, such is taught by FR2971178 (FR2971178: fig 3; the temperature of the mold maintained at 200C for about 30s constitutes the claimed first temperature maintenance).
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues FR2971178 does not teach the second temperature rise from the temperature T2 to a temperature T3 because the second temperature rise of FR2971178 includes a decrease in mold temperature below T2 before the mold temperature is raised to T3, which is above T2. This argument is misplaced since the open-ended nature of the instant claims do not exclude the decrease in mold temperature before raising to T3. The instant claims are not explicitly restricted to a direct rise in mold temperature from T2 to T3.
Applicant argues FR2971178 does not teach injecting the resin during the second temperature rise since the injection step of FR2971178 occurs when the mold temperature is at the decreased temperature before rising to T3. This argument is misplaced since the decrease in mold temperature before it is raised to T3 is a segment of the second temperature rise of FR2971178.
Applicant argues Charlas does not teach the claimed relationship between the adhesive viscosity and resin viscosity because Charlas does not teach resin being injected during the second temperature rise or just before the second temperature rise. Applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here, FR2971178 not Charlas was relied upon to teach the claimed step of injection, i.e. during the second temperature rise. Further, applicant is reminded FR2971178 (modified) teach the claimed relationship between the adhesive viscosity and resin viscosity because Charlas inherently teaches performing the RTM at a temperature such that the adhesive used for fitting the metal shield to the preform does not become fluid during resin injection thus compromising the adherence of the metal shield to the preform.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. FR2971178 teaches a blade molded by RTM. CN102463641 teaches a molding process including a staged heating cycle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMUND H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1204. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-4PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
EHL
/EDMUND H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights