DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on December 1, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Cook discloses a fabric shell, but does not disclose fabrication of a fibrous preform or an insertion step.
This is not found persuasive. First, a fabric shell is always a fibrous preform. Second, the article claims (claim 13, claim 14) are product (by-process) claims which are drawn to a structure and do not necessarily include a step of inserting within their claim scope. In this view, the structure of the article in claims 13 and 14 and the structure existing at the end of claim 1 is the only common technical feature, and this is clearly shown by Cook’s Figs. 2-4, especially after Cook’s impregnating with curable resin and curing (3:30-40). Alternatively, the Examiner maintains that a core is inserted into a fibrous preform when the fabric shell is wrapped around the core, at most Applicant’s argument represents an obvious matter of the order of steps (making fibrous preform and placement of core). Alternatively still, the references below confirm that any shared technical features in claim 1 do not represent a special technical feature. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-12 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. The following claims contain exemplary language which make it unclear whether the stated feature is required:
Claim 1: “in particular”
Claim 8: “in particular”
Claim 9: “in particular”
Claim 12: “in particular”
Other claims are rejected by dependence on claim 1.
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 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coupe (US 20130017093) in view of Robrecht (US 20190077111).
As to claims 1 and 12, Coupe produces a composite part that could be used as a propeller of a turboprop propeller or turbomachine blade. Coupe further teaches a step of producing a preform (Fig. 5, blank 100) that will form an outer skin. Coupe provides a core (140) which is rigid ([0070]) and forms a framework for the final part. Coupe inserts the core (140) into the fibrous preform (Fig. 1). Coupe places the preform and core in a mold ([0070]), injects matrix resin into the fibrous preform ([0070]), and heats to polymerize the resin ([0071]).
The Examiner interprets “in particular a hollow rigid core” to be a claim limitation despite being preceded by exemplary language. While Coupe teaches that the core has “cells” ([0073]), Coupe does not specifically teach a “hollow…core”.
Robrecht teaches a hollow core for a sandwich component comprising a plurality of closed cells ([0011]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Robrecht core into Coupe because (a) Coupe teaches/suggests a core having closed cells ([0073]) and Robrecht provides a core having closed cells ([0011]) within the scope of the Coupe teaching/suggestion, or alternatively, (b) one considering Coupe’s process and the Robrecht core would have recognized the Robrecht core for a sandwich component to be an obvious interchangeable substitute for the similar core already provided in the (sandwich) structure of Coupe. In either case, a reasonable expectation of success in light of the similar purpose of the Coupe and Robrecht cores.
As to claim 2, Coupe provides a rigid core having a shape generally equivalent to the shape of the part to be produced (Fig. 1). As to claim 3, in the combination set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, Robrecht’s core has a wall/sidewall (Fig. 3, item 40,41) enclosing a cavity. Even if Robrecht’s Fig. 3 does not teach full enclosing a cavity, Robrecht’s Figs. 5 and 9 teach or suggest that the cavity can be fully enclosed. As to claims 4-6, Robrecht teaches that the core can comprise PEEK ([0014]), which is a thermoplastic polyaryletherketone within the meaning of claims 4 and 6. Since Coupe provides an epoxy matrix resin (Applicant’s resin can also be epoxy) and Robrecht already provides a polyaryletherketone core, the conditions of claim 5 are met. As to claims 7 and 8, Robrecht provides a core which comprises cell walls which meet the claimed stiffener(s) and is formed in a single operation of additive manufacturing (Figs. 1-3). As to claim 10, Coupe teaches adjusting the part to the desired dimensions at least by trimming ([0072]). As to claim 11, Couple already teaches a step interpreted to meet insertion of a spar (Fig. 5, item 150) into the rigid core (142-143), and one would have found it obvious to also provide this step in combination with Robrecht.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coupe (US 20130017093) in view of Robrecht (US 20190077111), and further in view of Van Auken (US 4,214,932). Coupe and Robrecht teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 9, Coupe is silent to applying an adhesive to the outer surface of a core.
Van Auken teaches providing a core, cleaning the core, and applying an adhesive to the outer surface of the core (6:40-44).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Van Auken steps into the modified Coupe process motivated by improving the bond between the core and the fibrous material of Coupe. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success since Coupe already provides an elongated core and fiber material, and Van Auken applies an adhesive between an elongated core and a fibrous material.
Pertinent Prior Art
Hinds (US 3,028,292) is pertinent for its teaching of a hollow core (13) presumed to be rigid inside of a fiber preform (15). Kamov (US 3,967,996), Braley (US 8,753,091), Martinelli (US 4,278,401), Sakala (US 20190195073), and Euler (US 4,213,739) also show hollow cores. Brand (US 4,335,182), Rubio (US 4,383,955), Le Balc’h (US 4,935,277) and McCarthy (US 4,268,571) show foam cores in composite blades. Other pertinent references include Marsal (US 20110318513) and Schibsbye (US 20120003101).
Conclusion
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