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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final rejection in response to the amendments and arguments filed 12/04/2025. Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are currently pending with claim 1 amended. Claim 3 has been canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to arguments examiner agrees that the combination of the prior art, in the last rejection, does not teach all the limitations of the claim 1 as amended. However, the prior art US Patent 3,784,322 to Erich et al. teaches the use of incisions (Fig. 1, 12 for instance) arranged in a curved line along at least a leading edge of a blade. See rejection to follow.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2006161669 to Nudeshima et al. (Nudeshima, and based on English Machine Translation) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0238378 to Conover et al. (Conover) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0376353 to Takebe et al. (Takebe ‘353) in view of US Patent 7,008,689 to Hawkins et al. (Hawkins) and in view of US Patent 3,784,322 to Erich et al. (Erich).
In Reference to Claim 1
Nudeshima discloses a rotor blade (Figs. 1 and 2, 1 for instance) comprising at least:
a component [A] (2 for instance) constituting a skin which is a surface layer of the rotor blade (see figure 2 for instance, see also ¶ [0023]); and
a component [B] (3 for instance) constituting a core which is an interior of the skin (see figure 2 for instance, see also ¶ [0022]),
wherein the component [B] is enclosed in the component [A] at least in a cross-section (see figures 1-2) taken at the center between a central axis at the time of rotation (right end of 1 in figure 1 for instance) and a tip of the rotor blade (left end of 1 in figure 1 for instance):
wherein the component [A] is a continuous fiber base material including continuous reinforcing fibers and a matrix resin (see ¶ [0011]);
wherein the component [B] is a porous body including reinforcing fibers and a resin (see ¶ [0011], which is capable of including reinforcing fibers for instance, see ¶ [0006]).
Nudeshima does not explicitly teach “... the reinforcing fibers having a mass mean fiber length of 1 mm or more and 15 mm or less, and wherein at least in the cross-section taken at the center between the central axis of rotation and the tip of the rotor blade, excluding 5 mm each from a leading edge and a trailing edge of the rotor blade, the component [B] has an incision or convexo-concave part having a depth of 0.1 mm or more extending over at least 50% or more in the longitudinal direction of the rotor blade and arranged in a curved line along either shape of the leading edge or trailing edge, and the component [A] covers the incision or convexo-concave part ....”
Regarding the limitation “... the reinforcing fibers having a mass mean fiber length of 1 mm or more and 15 mm or less ...”: Conover is related to a fiber reinforced composite system having a first component constituting a skin (Fig. 2, 18 and 20 for instance) and a second component constituting a core (12 for instance) disposed between the first component, as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the second component includes reinforcing fibers and a resin (see ¶ [0011], [0012], [0019]), and wherein the reinforcing fibers has a mass mean fiber length of 1 mm or more and 15 mm or less (¶ [0013], 5mm to 25mm and as overlapping the claimed range for instance, see MPEP 2144.05(1) regarding obviousness of claimed ranges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Nudeshima wherein the component [B] (of Nudeshima) is a porous body including reinforcing fibers and resin (as taught by Nudeshima and Conover) and the reinforcing fibers has a mass mean fiber length of 1 mm or more and 15 mm or less (as taught by Conover), so as to use an art known technique (of using reinforcing fibers in a porous core structure and of a certain length as taught by Conover) into the system of Nudeshima and predictably form a component having a porous core.
Regarding the limitation “... wherein at least in the cross-section taken at the center between the central axis of rotation and the tip of the rotor blade, excluding 5 mm each from a leading edge and a trailing edge of the rotor blade, the component [B] has an incision or convexo-concave part having a depth of 0.1 mm or more extending over at least 50% or more in the longitudinal direction of the rotor blade and arranged in a curved line along either shape of the leading edge or trailing edge, and the component [A] covers the incision or convexo-concave part ...”: Takebe ‘353 is related to the adjoining of fiber reinforced composites components, including a first component (Fig. 9, 31 for instance) and a second component (32 for instance), having fiber reinforcement and resin, as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein at least in a cross-section the second component (32) has an incision or convexo-concave part (concave and convex portions of 32 for instance) having a depth of 0.1 mm or more (¶ [0092], between 0.1mm and 0.3mm for instance) extending over at least 50% or more in the longitudinal direction of the components (the connection of all the first component 31 and second component 32 extends the in entirety thus extends at least 50%), and the first component (31) covers the incision or convexo-concave part (of 32 as seen in figure 9).
Hawkins is related to the connection of reinforcing components in a blade (abstract and figure 4), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein reinforcing incisions (the holes of component 24 for instance) is disposed in the blade excluding a distance each from a leading edge (38) and a trailing edge (40).
Erich is related to the joining of a two components (1 and 11 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches an incision (Fig. 1, 12 for instance) extending over in a longitudinal direction of a rotor blade (along 5 of blade 1 for instance) and arranged in a curved line along shape of a leading edge (along 9 for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Nudeshima wherein at least in the cross-section taken at the center between the central axis at the time of rotation and the tip of the rotor blade (of Nudeshima), excluding close to each from a leading edge and a trailing edge (as taught by Hawkins) of the rotor blade (of Nudeshima), the component [B] (of Nudeshima) has an incision or convexo-concave part having a depth of 0.1 mm or more (as taught by Takebe ‘353) extending over at least 50% or more (as taught by Takebe ‘353 as would in the connection of components in Nudeshima) in the longitudinal direction of the rotor blade (of Nudeshima) and arranged in a curved line along either shape of the leading edge or trailing edge (incisions arranged in a curve along leading edge as taught by Erich), and component [A] (of Nudeshima) covers the incision or convexo-concave part (as taught by Takebe ‘353, as 31 covers 32), so as to use an art known technique (of reinforcing connection of components of a composite structure as taught by Takebe ‘353, further reinforcing connections not including the leading or trailing edge of a rotor blade as taught by Hawkins, and the arrangement of incisions along a leading edge as taught by Erich for instance), into the composite structure of Nudeshima and predictably improve the connection between the components of the composite structure.
Regarding the claimed limitations “excluding 5 mm each from a leading edge and a trailing edge of the rotor blade”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (a distance from a leading or trailing edge as taught by Hawkins), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nudeshima such as to exclude 5 mm each from a leading edge and a trailing edge of the rotor blade because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In Reference to Claim 4
Nudeshima, as modified by Conover, Takebe ‘353, Hawkins and Erich, discloses the rotor blade according to claim 1, wherein at least in the cross-section taken at the center between the central axis of rotation and the tip of the rotor blade (of Nudeshima for instance), wherein an outer layer (Nudeshima, 2 for instance), excluding close to (as taught by Hawkins, see claim 1 above) each from a leading edge and a trailing edge of the rotor blade (of Nudeshima), the component [B] (of Nudeshima) has convexo-concave parts having depths or heights of 0.05 mm or more (as taught by Takebe ‘353, see claim 1 above for instance) over at least 50% or more in the longitudinal direction of the rotor blade (over a majority of blade system of Nudeshima as in the system as taught by Takebe ‘353), and the convexo-concave parts have the component [A] getting therein (as taught by Takebe ‘353, portions of 31 in 32 in figure 9 for instance). It is not explicitly taught “... 5mm each from a leading edge and a trailing edge of the rotor blade ....”
Regarding the claimed limitations “excluding 5 mm each from a leading edge and a trailing edge of the rotor blade”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (a distance from a leading or trailing edge as taught by Hawkins), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nudeshima such as to exclude 5 mm each from a leading edge and a trailing edge of the rotor blade because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In Reference to Claim 5
Nudeshima, as modified by Conover, Takebe ‘353, Hawkins and Erich, discloses the rotor blade according to claim 1, wherein at least in the cross-section taken at the center between the central axis of rotation and the tip of the rotor blade (of Nudeshima, see figures 1 and 2), a mean void ratio of the porous portion of the component [B] (Nudeshima, 3 for instance, see also page 12) is in a range of 10 vol% or more and 97 vol% or less (as further taught by Conover, ¶ [0012]), and wherein the porous portion is optimizable (Nudeshima, page 12), but does not explicitly teach “... as for mean void ratios of the porous portions in three portions having the same volume, divided at least by planes orthogonal to a straight line connecting a leading edge and a trailing edge, a maximum mean void ratio differs from a minimum mean void ratio by 3 vol% or more ....”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Nudeshima, wherein at least in the cross-section taken at the center between the central axis of rotation and the tip of the rotor blade (of Nudeshima), a mean void ratio of the porous portion of the component [B] (of Nudeshima) is in a range of 10 vol% or more and 97 vol% or less (as taught by Conover, ¶ [0012]), and wherein the porous portion is optimizable (as taught by Conover), so as to use an art known technique (of using a porous core structure as taught by Conover) into the system of Nudeshima and predictably form a component having a porous core and with sufficient strength.
Regarding the claimed limitations “as for mean void ratios of the porous portions in three portions having the same volume, divided at least by planes orthogonal to a straight line connecting a leading edge and a trailing edge, a maximum mean void ratio differs from a minimum mean void ratio by 3 vol% or more”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the optimization of the porous core as taught by Conover for instance), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nudeshima such that a mean void ratios of the porous portions in the three portions having the same volume, divided at least by planes orthogonal to a straight line connecting a leading edge and a trailing edge, the maximum mean void ratio differs from the minimum mean void ratio by 3 vol% or more because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In Reference to Claim 10
Nudeshima, as modified by Conover, Takebe ‘353, Hawkins and Erich, discloses the rotor blade according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing fibers constituting the component [B] comprises monofilaments, and are randomly dispersed in the porous body (as taught by Conover, ¶ [0012], randomly dispersed fibers for instance).
In Reference to Claim 11
Nudeshima, as modified by Conover, Takebe ‘353, Hawkins and Erich, discloses the rotor blade according to claim 1, except explicitly, “... wherein a specific flexural stiffness expressed as Ec1/3·p-1 is within a range of 3 or more and 20 or less, where Ec indicates a flexural modulus of the component [B] and p indicates a density of the component [B] ....”
However, Conover does teach that a core may be formed of various porosity with various densities and that that core may be formed of any number of fiber materials and resins (see ¶ [0012], [0019]) and thus the flexural modulus of the core may be optimizable.
Therefore, regarding the claimed limitations “wherein a specific flexural stiffness expressed as Ec1/3·p-1 is within a range of 3 or more and 20 or less, where Ec indicates a flexural modulus of the component [B] and p indicates a density of the component [B]”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the optimizability of a core material as taught by Conover), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nudeshima wherein a specific flexural stiffness expressed as Ec1/3·p-1 is within a range of 3 or more and 20 or less, where Ec indicates a flexural modulus of the component [B] and p indicates a density of the component [B] because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In Reference to Claim 13
Nudeshima, as modified by Conover, Takebe ‘353, Hawkins and Erich, discloses an air mobility (Nudeshima ¶ [0002], aircraft, helicopters or ships for instance) using the rotor blade (Nudeshima Fig. 1, 1 for instance) according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2006161669 to Nudeshima et al. (Nudeshima, and based on English Machine Translation) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0238378 to Conover et al. (Conover) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0376353 to Takebe et al. (Takebe ‘353) and in view of US Patent 7,008,689 to Hawkins et al. (Hawkins) and in view of US Patent 3,784,322 to Erich et al. (Erich) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 89/09336 to Jeronimidis9 et al. (Jeronimidis).
In Reference to Claim 2
Nudeshima, as modified by Conover, Takebe ‘353, Hawkins and Erich, discloses the rotor blade according to claim 1, wherein at least in the cross-section taken at the center between the central axis of rotation and the tip of the rotor blade (a cross-section as seen in figure 2 of Nudeshima for instance), but does not teach “... a component [C] is placed as a reinforcing layer having a thickness different from that of the component [A], the reinforcing layer is placed over at least 50% or more in the longitudinal direction with respect to a zone from the central axis to the tip of the rotor blade, and the component [B] is anchored along a step part having a different thickness: wherein component [C] is a continuous fiber base material including continuous reinforcing fibers and a matrix resin ....”
Jeronimidis is related to a rotor blade having a first component constituting a skin (Fig. 4, 22 for instance) and a second component constituting a core (21 for instance) disposed between the first component, as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a third component (23 and 24 as a [C] component for instance) is placed as a reinforcing layer having a thickness different from that of the first component (22 for instance), the reinforcing layer is placed over at least 50% or more in the longitudinal direction with respect to a zone from the central axis to the tip of the rotor blade (page 4, ll 20-26, 23 and 24 as extending the span of the blade for instance), and the second component] (21 for instance) is anchored along a step part having a different thickness (as seen in figure 4): wherein the third component is a fiber base material including reinforcing fibers and a matrix resin (page 4, ll 20-26, reinforcing fiber composted for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Nudeshima wherein at least in the cross-section taken at the center between the central axis at the time of rotation and the tip of the rotor blade (of Nudeshima), a component [C] (a third component as taught by Jeronimidis) is placed as a reinforcing layer having a thickness different from that of the component [A] (component of Nudeshima with different in thickness and component [C] as taught by Jeronimidis), the reinforcing layer is placed over at least 50% or more in the longitudinal direction with respect to a zone from the central axis to the tip of the rotor blade (as taught by Jeronimidis), and the component [B] (of Nudeshima as the second component as taught by Jeronimidis) is anchored along a step part having a different thickness (as taught by Jeronimidis); wherein component [C] is a continuous fiber base material including continuous reinforcing fibers and a matrix resin (material as taught by Nudeshima and the component [C] capable of being a same material as taught by Jeronimidis), so as to use an art known technique (of using additional reinforcing components in a rotor blade as taught by Jeronimidis) into the system of Nudeshima and predictably form the rotor blade.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2006161669 to Nudeshima et al. (Nudeshima, and based on English Machine Translation) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0238378 to Conover et al. (Conover) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0376353 to Takebe et al. (Takebe ‘353) and in view of US Patent 7,008,689 to Hawkins et al. (Hawkins) and in view of US Patent 3,784,322 to Erich et al. (Erich) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 7,056,576 to Johnson (Johnson).
In Reference to Claim 6
Nudeshima, as modified by Conover, Takebe ‘353, Hawkins and Erich, discloses the rotor blade according to claim 1, except, “... further comprising a component [D] constituting a continuous part connecting the component [A], at least in the cross-section taken at the center between the central axis of rotation and the tip of the rotor blade: wherein component [D] is a continuous fiber base material including continuous reinforcing fibers and a matrix resin ....”
Johnson is related to a fiber reinforced composite structure with a fist component of a skin (Fig. 3, 51a and 51b for instance) surrounding a second component of a core (52 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the system comprises a third component constituting a continuous part (53 for instance) connecting the first component (51a and 51b), the third component being a continuous fiber base material including continuous reinforcing fibers and a matrix resin (see col 3, ll 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Nudeshima to comprise a component [D] constituting a continuous part (a third component as taught by Johnson for instance) connecting the component [A] (of Nudeshima as the third component of Johnson connect the first component of Johnson), at least in the cross-section taken at the center between the central of rotation and the tip of the rotor blade (of Nudeshima); wherein component [D] is a continuous fiber base material including continuous reinforcing fibers and a matrix resin (as taught by Johnson), so as to use and art known technique (of using further components in a composite structure as taught by Johnson) into the system of Nudeshima and predictably improve the structural integrity of composite structure.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2006161669 to Nudeshima et al. (Nudeshima, and based on English Machine Translation) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0238378 to Conover et al. (Conover) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0376353 to Takebe et al. (Takebe ‘353) in view of US Patent 7,008,689 to Hawkins et al. (Hawkins) in view of US Patent 3,784,322 to Erich et al. (Erich) and in view of US Patent 7,056,576 to Johnson (Johnson) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US Patent 5,789,061 to Campbell et al. (Campbell).
In Reference to Claim 7
Nudeshima, as modified by Conover, Takebe ‘353, Hawkins, Erich and Johnson, discloses the rotor blade according to claim 6, wherein the component [B] (Nudeshima, 3 for instance) is anchored along a shape of component [D] (as 52 is formed about 53 as taught by Johnson), except, “... wherein in the component [D], a bonding part with the component [A] constituting the skin of the rotor blade has a continuously varying thickness, a curvature R at which the thickness varies is formed with a radius of 1 to 100 mm, and the component [B] is anchored along a shape formed with the curvature R ....”
Campbell is related to a fiber reinforced composite structure with a fist component of a skin (Fig. 1, 10 for instance) with a connected second component (14 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein in the second component (14 for instance), a bonding part (16 for instance) with the first component constituting the skin (10) has a continuously varying thickness (from 10 to 16 for instance), a curvature R (18 for instance) at which the thickness varies is formed with a radius (of 18 for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Nudeshima wherein in the component [D] (of Nudeshima as modified by Johnson), a bonding part (as taught by Campbell) with the component [A] constituting the skin of the rotor blade (of Nudeshima) has a continuously varying thickness (as taught by Campbell), a curvature R at which the thickness varies is formed with a radius (as taught by Campbell), and the component [B] (of Nudeshima) is anchored along a shape formed with the curvature R (as taught by Johnson for instance), so as to use an art known technique (of the use of an internal stiffer formed in conjunction with a core as taught by Johnson and radius of such stiffener as taught by Campbell) into the system of Nudeshima and predictably form the composite structure and for suitable operation.
Regarding the claimed limitations “radius of 1 to 100 mm”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (a radius between connected parts as taught by Campbell), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nudeshima such that the radius is of 1 to 100 mm because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2006161669 to Nudeshima et al. (Nudeshima, and based on English Machine Translation) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0238378 to Conover et al. (Conover) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0376353 to Takebe et al. (Takebe ‘353) and in view of US Patent 7,008,689 to Hawkins et al. (Hawkins) and in view of US Patent 3,784,322 to Erich et al. (Erich) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0047879 to Foskey et al. (Foskey).
In Reference to Claim 8
Nudeshima, as modified by Conover, Takebe ‘353, Hawkins and Erich, discloses the rotor blade according to claim 1, except, “... comprising at least a hollow part of more than 1 mm, at least in the cross-section taken at the center between the central axis at the time of rotation and the tip of the rotor blade ....”
Foskey is related to a rotor blade comprising a first component of a skin (Fig. 2A, 212 and 215 for instance) and a second component of a core (214 and 208 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches the rotor blade comprising at least a hollow part (interior of 201 for instance), at least in the cross-section taken at the center between the central axis at the time of rotation and the tip of the rotor blade (root and tip of the rotor blade for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Nudeshima to comprise at least a hollow part (as taught by Foskey), at least in the cross-section taken at the center between the central axis at the time of rotation and the tip of the rotor blade (of Nudeshima), so as to use an art known technique (of forming a rotor blade having a hollow part as part of a composite of a skin and core as taught by Foskey) into the system of Nudeshima and predictably form a composite suitable for use as a rotor blade.
Regarding the claimed limitations “hollow part of more than 1 mm”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (a hollow part as taught by Foskey), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nudeshima such that the hollow part of more than 1 mm because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In Reference to Claim 9
Nudeshima, as modified by Conover, Takebe ‘353, Hawkins, Erich and Foskey, discloses the rotor blade according to claim 8, wherein an internal reinforcing layer of a component [E] is further placed in the hollow part: wherein the component [E]: a continuous fiber base material including continuous reinforcing fibers and a matrix resin (the form and construction of 201 as taught by Foskey for instance, ¶ [0027]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2006161669 to Nudeshima et al. (Nudeshima, and based on English Machine Translation) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0238378 to Conover et al. (Conover) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0376353 to Takebe et al. (Takebe ‘353) and in view of US Patent 7,008,689 to Hawkins et al. (Hawkins) and in view of US Patent 3,784,322 to Erich et al. (Erich) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0303824 to Takebe et al. (Takebe ‘824).
In Reference to Claim 12
Nudeshima, as modified by Conover, Takebe ‘353, Hawkins and Erich, discloses the rotor blade according to claim 1, except, “... wherein some of the reinforcing fibers constituting the component [B] penetrate a part of the component [A], and the maximum penetration length is 5 µm or more ....”
Takeda ‘824 is related adjoining components in a fiber reinforced composite, including a first component (Fig. 1, 3 for instance, see ¶ [0060]) and a second component (2 for instance, see ¶ [0060]), having fiber reinforcement and resin, as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein some of the reinforcing fibers constituting the second component (fibers 4 of component 2 for instance) penetrate a part of the first component (3 for instance), and the maximum penetration length is 5 µm or more (¶ [0060], more that 1mm for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Nudeshima wherein some of the reinforcing fibers constituting the component [B] (of Nudeshima) penetrate (as taught by Takebe ‘824) a part of the component [A] (of Nudeshima and fibers of 2 penetrate 3 as taught by Takebe ‘824), and the maximum penetration length is 5 µm or more (as taught by Takebe ‘824), so as to use an art known technique (of connecting fiber reinforced composites and using the penetration or fibers of one component into another as taught by Takebe ‘824) into the system of Nudeshima and predictably improve the bond between the components.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as cited in the Notice of References Cited, are cited to show connection of rotor blade structures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 7 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, Nathaniel E Wiehe can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
/WAYNE A LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745