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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-16 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected processes, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 15th, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on July 15th, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is 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.
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, 5-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen (US2007/0025859A1) in view of Hjelmgaard (WO2015/0177163A1).
With regards to claim 1, Jacobsen discloses a rotor blade including a plurality of first glass and/or carbon fibers angled between about 5 and about 35 degrees with respect to a pitch axis, and a plurality of second glass and/or fibers angled between about 95 and about 125 degrees with respect to a pitch axis, the robot blade including a resin bonded thereto (i.e., a functionalized fabric comprising a fiber fabric, the fiber fabric comprising a plurality of first fibers oriented in a first direction, and a plurality of second fibers oriented in a second direction, each of the first and second fibers comprising at least one of glass fibers and carbon fibers) (Jacobsen: para. [0001], [0024], and [0028]; claims 1, 4-5, and 8). The difference between the two fiber directions ranges from about 60 to about 120 degrees (i.e., with respect to a same pitch axis, the maximum angle difference is 125-5 = 120 degrees, and the minimum angle difference is 95-35 = 60 degrees), which overlaps the claimed range of 0 degrees to 90 degrees, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
Jacobsen does not appear to disclose the inclusion of a binder comprising a fluorescent material.
Hjelmgaard is directed to an analytical binder for shaped man-made vitreous fiber products such as those formed of glass fibers, the analytical binder comprising a fluorescent dye (Hjelmgaard – translation: page 3, lines 8-22; page 10, lines 10-26). Hjelmgaard teaches use of its fluorescent dye to monitor the production process of its product, and in particular, to allow for the detection of uncured areas or the detection of anomalies after production, such as agglomerated sections (Hjelmgaard: page 4, line 26 through to page 5, line 4; page 7, lines 7-16). Jacobsen and Hjelmgaard are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of shaped man-made vitreous fiber products, including those formed of glass fibers. Hjelmgaard is also reasonable pertinent to Applicant’s invention, in that it uses the same material for the same function (i.e., use of a fluorescent dye to allow for the detection of binder). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have formed the rotor blade of Jacobsen using the binder resin composition of Hjelmgaard in order to enable the rotor blade of Jacobsen to be cured with detection of uncured areas, and further, to allow for improved detection of overall production anomalies without destruction of the formed rotor blade (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 2, the dye of Hjelmgaard fluoresces in response to UV light (Hjelmgaard: page 13, lines 28-33).
With regards to claim 3, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected 0.001 to 1 wt. % fluorescent dye (i.e., by total amount of all materials) in order to achieve good fluorescence (Hjelmgaard: page 6, lines 17-20). This range overlaps the claimed range of up to about 5 wt. %, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
With regards to claim 5, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied 0.1 to 10% by weight of binder to the functionalized fabric (i.e., such that it constitutes 0.1 to 10% by weight binder), as this range constitutes the preferable range of Hjelmgaard from the viewpoint of bonding, and is also “general” in the art (i.e., is well-known in the art) (Hjelmgaard: : page 9, line 20 through to page 10, line 32). This range overlaps the claimed range of from about 0.1 wt. % to about 3.5 wt. %, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
With regards to claim 6, Hjelmgaard teaches that it is generally known to apply binder to mineral fibers at a set weight via spraying in order to achieve bonding (Hjelmgaard: page 9, line 20 through to page 10, line 32). Jacobsen teaches that the overall weight and thickness of the rotor blade and its components (i.e., including its resin) should not be made excessive, as an excessive weight can increase cost and outweigh any operational gains (Jacobsen: para. [0036]). Based on the combined teachings of Hjelmgaard and Jacobsen, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the areal weight (i.e., weight) of binder as result-effective, as it affects bonding and the overall weight and cost of the final rotor blade (see above discussion). Further, Hjelmgaard, in addition to describing binder weight adjustment as known, also provides an avenue for routine experimentation (i.e., noting that the amount of binder applied can be adjusted via spraying) (see above discussion). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the areal weight of binder, as the amount of binder is a result-effective variable, and further, since determining the amount of binder is recognized as routine to a person of ordinary skill.
With regards to claim 8, the present specification does not describe which additional components may be present with respect to the phrase “consisting essentially of”. Therefore, the phrase “consisting essentially of” is treated as equivalent to “comprising”. As best understood, the binder comprises the fluorescent material (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 9, the first fibers and the second fibers are both glass fibers (see above discussion).
Claims 1, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen in view of Wei et al (US2010/0305239A1).
With regards to claim 1, Jacobsen discloses a rotor blade including a plurality of first glass and/or carbon fibers angled between about 5 and about 35 degrees with respect to a pitch axis, and a plurality of second glass and/or fibers angled between about 95 and about 125 degrees with respect to a pitch axis, the robot blade including a resin bonded thereto (i.e., a functionalized fabric comprising a fiber fabric, the fiber fabric comprising a plurality of first fibers oriented in a first direction, and a plurality of second fibers oriented in a second direction, each of the first and second fibers comprising at least one of glass fibers and carbon fibers) (Jacobsen: para. [0001], [0024], and [0028]; claims 1, 4-5, and 8). The difference between the two fiber directions ranges from about 60 to about 120 degrees (i.e., with respect to a same pitch axis, the maximum angle difference is 125-5 = 120 degrees, and the minimum angle difference is 95-35 = 60 degrees), which overlaps the claimed range of 0 degrees to 90 degrees, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
Jacobsen does not appear to disclose the inclusion of a binder comprising a fluorescent material.
Wei is directed to engineered cross-linked thermoplastic particles for interlaminar toughening of military aerospace vehicles, the cross-linked thermoplastic particles comprising a fluorescent dye (Wei: abstract; para. [0003], [0013], [0026], and [0142]). Wei teaches the inclusion of its particles in order to provide resistance to microcracking and improved toughness, and further, Wei teaches incorporation of its fluorescent dye for the purpose of measuring microcracking (i.e., microcracks become visible under a microscope due to the fluorescent dye) (Wei: para. [0142]). Wei additionally teaches use of its material for laminating carbon fiber rich plies (i.e., use with carbon fiber materials, such as those of Jacobsen) (Wei: para. [0023]). Jacobsen and Wei are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of carbon fiber materials for use in aerospace applications. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included the fluorescent binder of Jacobsen in the rotor blade of Jacobsen, in order to improve the microcrack resistance and toughness of the rotor blade of Jacobsen, while also enabling the detection of microcracks via fluorescence (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 7, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected an acrylic resin for the binder, in order to enable crosslinking via unsaturated groups (Wei: para. [0034]). Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have selected an epoxy-acrylate for the binder, since such materials are disclosed as known in the art and useful and/or desirable (Wei: para. [0051]).
With regards to claim 11, the binder comprising fluorescent material is in the form of particles (see above discussion).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen in view of Hjelmgaard as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Xie et al (US2010/0028644A1).
With regards to claim 10, Jacobsen and Hjelmgaard teach a functional fabric as applied to claim 1 above (see above discussion). Jacobsen and Hjelmgaard appear silent as to a non-crimp fabric, and the inclusion of stitching yarn which maintains the first and second fibers in their respective orientations.
Xie is directed to a non-crimp fabric comprising a plurality of layers of unidirectional fibers oriented at different directions, wherein the non-crimp fabric includes stitching used to anchor the plurality of layers of unidirectional fibers (i.e., maintains first and second fibers at respective orientations) (Xie: para. [0008], [0017], and [0020]). In particular, the fibers may be glass fibers (i.e., the same fibers as those of Jacobsen and Hjelmgaard) (see above discussion; Xie: para. [0017]). The use of such stitching and non-crimp fabric results in improved conformability when applied to a mandrel (i.e., improved moldability), and further, such material has reduced distortion when tension is applied (Xie: para. [0003]-[0004]). Jacobsen, Hjelmgaard, and Xie are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of oriented glass fabrics. A person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have selected the fabric configuration of Xie (i.e., non-crimp, and stitched to maintain fiber orientations) in order to allow for improved conformability during molding, in addition to reduced distortion (see above discussion).
Examiner’s Note
Claim 4 is objected to, and noted as allowable if rewritten in independent form, for the following reasons.
The closest prior art of record are Jacobsen (US2007/0025859A1), Hjelmgaard, (WO2015/0177163A1), and Wei et al (US2010/0305239A1).
Jacobsen recites the inclusion of a resin, but Jacobsen provides no guidance as to the selection of a resin. The Examiner notes, however, that the fabric composite of Jacobsen is used to form a rotor blade of an aircraft (within the art, the claimed Tg range of up to about 75⁰C is not particularly high, nor associated with particular strength or durability, which Jacobsen prioritizes).
Neither Hjelmgaard nor Wei alleviate these deficiencies of Jacobsen (i.e., providing a resin with the claimed Tg range which also has the properties, such as strength and durability, necessary for a rotor blade). Moreover, neither Hjelmgaard provide further obviate use of such resin with a fluorescent dye.
Hjelmgaard, in multiple locations, prescribes additional prior art references which can be consulted to determine its desired binder resins, none of which have the claimed glass transition temperature. Hjelmgaard further requires its system to be cured, and Hjelmgaard discloses curing temperatures of about 200C to about 300C (i.e., temperatures above the glass transition temperature). It is noted that a polymer material which is solid at such temperatures (at least as required by Jacobsen and Hjelmgaard) would preclude the claimed glass transition temperature.
Wei expressly advocates for high glass transition temperature materials, which have a Tg of at least 180⁰C in order to achieve its improved interlaminar toughness and crack resistance. Wei is considered to teach away from the claimed range.
In totality, the claimed glass transition range is not obvious in view of Jacobsen, Hjelmgaard, and Wei.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights