CTNF 18/749,134 CTNF 73026 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11 March 2026 is acknowledged. Species election requirements of the Restriction Requirement mailed on 11 December 2025 are withdrawn. 08-06 AIA Claim s 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species or invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 March 2026 . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 3, 5, 6, and 8 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. Regarding Claim 3, it is unclear how to understand this required angle definition. Previous Claim 2 specifies an angle between arms, whereas this claim specifies that the angle is defined as that between the contact surfaces, which need not be that between the arms. Thus, it is unclear whether this claim is to understood as being further limiting of previous Claim 2 and, if so, how, in view of the re-definition. Regarding Claim 5, at line 3, it is unclear what is meant by “is reduced”. It is unclear what is the comparison of reduction that is to be made. Regarding Claim 6, at line 3, it is unclear whether “and” should read “or”. Regarding Claim 8, at line 2, it is unclear what is meant by “co-bonded”. The Specification at paragraph 47 appears to use this terminology to refer to molding the plate and both composite portions together simultaneously. It is noted that the claim appears to allow for co-bonding between one arm and respective composite portion. It is unclear whether the resulting article necessarily has plate and composite portions bonded to each other. It is unclear whether the terminology demands molding step. If this terminology permits one arm and respective composite portion being co-bonded, what does the “co” refer to. It is unclear what is required by this terminology and how it differs from simply “bonded”, if it does. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding Claim 3, to the extent that the angle being claimed is redefining what is claimed in previous Claim 2 and need not meet the requirements of previous Claim 2, it is of improper dependent form . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sadler USPA 2021/0207486. Sadler discloses composite component (12) for a gas turbine engine comprising a first composite portion (28), a second composite portion (30), and a metallic reinforcement plate (26) that connects the first composite portion and the second composite portion by a first arm (40) that at least partially overlaps the first composite portion (28) and a second arm (42) that at least partially overlaps the second composite component portion (30). See Sadler (Figures 3-5 and 8-11; and paragraphs 61-63, 86, and 87). Regarding Claims 2 and 4, the angle appears to be ca. 30 or 40 degrees (Figure 4). Regarding Claim 3, as shown in Figure 4, there are contact surfaces that face in claimed manner with angle therebetween. Regarding Claim 5, since “reduced” is not claimed in reference to any baseline, the claimed thickness feature can be considered taught whatever the thickness is. Regarding Claim 6, Sadler teaches that the composite is CMC (paragraphs 61, 86, and 87: “ceramic matrix composite”) . 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bloom USPA 2020/0158341. Bloom teaches gas turbine liner made of CMC (108; paragraph 31) having first composite portion (left side in Figure 3) and second composite portion (right side in Figure 3) that are connected by metal plate (118) having first arm (200) and second arm (202) which overlap the composite portions. Regarding Claim 5, since “reduced” is not claimed in reference to any baseline, the claimed thickness feature can be considered taught whatever the thickness is. Regarding Claim 9, there is mechanical attachment (170) . 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 5, 6-8, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Klein USPA 2014/0086753. Klein teaches gas turbine component (Figures 1, 5, and 6) formed of metal (Ti based alloy) plate (1; paragraph 55) having arms (5) which are bonded to Ti coated fiber bundles (8,9; paragraph 54 and 56) in depressions (7) that are diffusion welded to form MMC composite (paragraph 60) sandwiched by arms. Two fiber bundles are depicted, and so one can be associated with one arm and the other bundle with the other arm. Regarding Claim 5, since “reduced” is not claimed in reference to any baseline, the claimed thickness feature can be considered taught whatever the thickness is. Regarding Claims 7 and 8, the bundles are bonded and co-bonded to the metal and arms . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadler USPA 2021/0207486 in view of Cui USPA 2016/0326613. Sadler is relied upon as set forth above in the section 102 rejection over Sadler. Sadler does not teach that metal is nickel-based superalloy. Cui teaches that gas turbine components are made of nickel based superalloy in order to withstand high gas turbine temperatures (paragraph 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare the metallic material of Sadler from nickel based superalloy in order to confer high temperature heat resistance thereto. In doing so, component of claimed metal would be obtained . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloom USPA 2020/0158341. Bloom is relied upon as set forth above in the section 102 rejection over Bloom. Bloom may not exemplify claimed metallic alloy, but teaches Ni based superalloys and Co based superalloys are satisfactory (paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare metal plate in Bloom with suggested, effective alloy such as Ni based superalloy or Co based superalloy . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-6, 9, 11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson USPA 2021/0388767. Nelson teaches heat shield assembly for gas turbine engine formed of carrier (302) and tile (304), wherein the carrier has arms (308 and 310) that overlap the tile (330). The carrier has flange (344 and 346) that also overlap (328). Nelson teaches that carrier can be made of nickel based alloy [a CLAIM 11 and 13 feature] and that the tile can be CMC (paragraph 54) [a CLAIM 6 feature]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare respective components from suggested effective materials that Nelson has identified. Nelson characterizes mechanical joining (paragraph 78: “interlock”) [a CLAIM 9 feature]. Regarding Claims 2 and 4, the angle between arms is 90 degrees at the base. Regarding Claim 3, contact surfaces exist parallel to the base and normal to the base and so there is 90 degree angle between parallel surface on one arm and normal surface on another. Regarding Claim 5, since “reduced” is not claimed in reference to any baseline, the claimed thickness feature can be considered taught whatever the thickness is. Regarding Claim 14, Nelson shows channels (349), which characterizes a duct. Regarding Claim 15, the portion of heat shield at flange (near 354) is flange and the portion in center (near 352) is body. Regarding Claim 16, the flange structure is shown in Figure 22 with flanges (844, 846); the arms are depicted as extending along entire heat shield length. The heat shield junction (854) at the identified flange in Nelson can also be characterized as flanges as being claimed . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 10, 12, and 17 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. Regarding Claims 10, 12, and 17, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest the subject matter of these claims. Particularly, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest composite component having first and second composite portions with metallic reinforcement plate having first and second arms arranged in claimed configuration in the claimed context. For example, Nelson USPA 2021/0388767 renders obvious many claimed features for the reasons set forth above in the section 103 rejection based on Nelson, but Nelson fails to teach or suggest these features of Claims 10, 12, and 17. See Nelson (entire document). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET. 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, Humera N. Sheikh, can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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. /MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784 28 May 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/749,134 Page 2 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 18/749,134 Page 3 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 18/749,134 Page 4 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 18/749,134 Page 5 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 18/749,134 Page 6 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 18/749,134 Page 7 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 18/749,134 Page 8 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 18/749,134 Page 9 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 18/749,134 Page 10 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 18/749,134 Page 11 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 18/749,134 Page 12 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 18/749,134 Page 13 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 18/749,134 Page 14 Art Unit: 1784
Prosecution Insights