3111DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4 is 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.
As to claim 4, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “higher than or equal to 0.5”, and the claim also recites “higher than or equal to 0.5” and “in particular higher than or equal to 0.7” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsal (US 20180036914) in view of Johnston (US 4,976,587).
As to claim 1, Marsal teaches a method for manufacturing a blade (Fig. 8). Marsal teaches a first fiber preform weaving preparation step (Fig. 6, item 10) which forms a spar with a core (Fig. 1, item 1). Marsal teaches arranging the first fiber preform in a mold ([0051]), performing a first resin injection step, and polymerization/curing step ([0052]) which would result in vitrification of the resin. Marsal teaches positioning a second fiber preform (4) around the core of the spar (Fig. 1) and performing a second resin injection step (Fig. 6, item 51) by injecting the resin into the preform of the body of the blade ([0051]). A second polymerization/curing step after the second resin injection step would have been obvious in order to cure the polymer ([0052]) into the desired blade structure (Fig. 8).
Marsal does not specifically teach a partial polymerization step performed on the spar.
Johnston teaches a method for manufacturing a blade which includes a step of partial curing of a spar (10:42-43) which would necessarily lead to partial vitrification of a first resin, which is then incorporated directly into an assembled blade (10:44-45) and curing is then completed (12:56).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Johnston partial polymerization step into Marsal motivated by (a) preserving the Marsal preform in a flexible state (using partial polymerization) during the placement of the Marsal first fiber preform in the Marsal second resin injection step, or (b) improving the bond between the resin in the first resin injection step and second resin injection step. A reasonable expectation of success would be present in light of the similar structure of the Johnston and Marsal processes.
As to claims 2, 3, and 10, Marsal teaches a first resin and second resin not disclosed as being different. Although Marsal is silent to epoxy, Johnston teaches that a blade may be formed from an epoxy resin (12:4-5) which is a thermosetting resin, as an obvious interchangeable substitute resin.
As to claim 5, Johnston teaches that resin can be partially cured (partial polymerization) by applying heat to an unspecified temperature (12:56-57), and therefore the particular partial polymerization temperature represents a result effective variable necessary to produce the desired result. One would have arrived at the claimed partial polymerization temperature below the nominal curing temperature by optimizing the curing temperature. Alternatively, Johnston teaches that curing can be completed at room temperature for some resins (12:57) which would obviously below the nominal polymerization temperature.
As to claims 6 and 7, Marsal teaches a first resin and second resin not disclosed as being different. When the first resin and second resin are the same, the nominal polymerization temperature for the two resins would be the same and have a difference of 0°C.
As to claims 8, 9, and 11, Marsal teaches spar and blade fiber-containing preforms which form a composite blade after incorporating resin.
Claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsal (US 20180036914) in view of Johnston (US 4,976,587), and further in view of Hartman (US 20060089068).
As to claim 4, Marsal and Johnston are silent to partial polymerization to a crosslinking ratio higher than or equal to 0.7.
Hartman provides a composite article with an epoxy or polyester binder ([0011]) which has a degree of cure of between 50-100 percent ([0012]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Hartman degree of cure into the Marsal/Johnston process because Johnston teaches/suggests at least partial polymerization without discussion of a particular level or degree of cure, and Hartman provides a partial polymerization or degree of cure interpreted to be within the scope of Johnston. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because the Hartman degree of cure would prevent resin from flowing out of the composite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Graff (US 5,222,297), Anderson (US 20160032939), Cook (US 5,392,514), Carvalho (US 20100290913), and Coupe (US 2013/0017093) are pertinent to the claimed invention.
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