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 .
Claims 1-2, 4-19 are currently pending. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-15, and 18-19 are objected to. Claims 7-9 and 16-17 are rejected. Claim 10 is objected to and has not been further treated on the merits.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 06, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s request for interview is acknowledged. Examiner attempted to contact Applicant on February 18, 2026 to schedule an interview via telephone, but the call was not answered and no response to the message left has been received. The current interview request is considered denied, since attempts to schedule the interview have failed.
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 6 of the response, filed February 06, 2026 with respect to the objection of Claim 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive, since the request to reconsider does not resolve the issues present. To assist with resolving the issue, the Office provides the following elaboration of multiple dependency:
MPEP 608.01(n) provides guidance regarding the proper usage of multiple dependent claims. Examples of proper recitation are provided in MPEP 608.01(n), A. Two of the requirements are that a multiple dependent claim must (A) refer to other claims in the alternative only (B) reference only one set of features. Examples of improper multiple dependent claims that fail these requirements are in MPEP 608.01(n), B, 1 and MPEP 608.01(n), B, 3. Claim 10 of this application fails these two requirements. It requires both Claim 1 and Claim 7 rather than recitation in the alternative. It also refers to a blade and method, which are different features and statutory categories.
In this specific instance, the Office suggests one of two ways to resolve the multiple dependency issues. Note that these are merely suggestions of many possible fixes and it is up to Applicant to decide how to resolve this.
Split Claim 10 into two claims. The claim may be rewritten to have Claim 10 depend upon Claim 1 and new claim dependent upon Claim 7. However, this would change the intended scope of Claim 10.
Rewrite Claim 10 to include all of one claim so that it is no longer dependent upon multiple claims. For example, instead of the “method according to claim 7” the claim may fully incorporate all the text of claim 7 explicitly so that it would only depend upon Claim 1. This would retain the intended scope of Claim 10.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 6-7 of the response, filed with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. The rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Note that the amendment to Claim 16 introduced new issues detailed below. Claim 17 remains unamended.
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 7 of the response, filed with respect to the rejections of Claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive, since the request to reconsider does not resolve the issues present. 35 U.S.C. 112(d) requires a dependent claim to include all the limitations of a claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 as recited only includes the reinforcement of Claim 1. Claim 1 is directed to a blade comprising a reinforcement. Thus, Claim 7 must clearly incorporate the blade of Claim 1, not just the reinforcement of the blade.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 7-9 of the response, filed February 06, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant explains how Vetters et al. (US 2018/0119549 A1) fails to teach the amended limitations. Particularly, the characterization of the outer skins. The Office agrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only and cannot reference to two sets of claims to different features. See MPEP § 608.01(n), particularly part B, 1 and B, 3. Accordingly, the Claim 10 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, Lines 7-8 recite “the first skin and the second skin together from the outermost layer of the blade”. The “from” is believed to be a typographical error of “form”.
Claims 2, 4-9, 11-19 are subsequently objected to for their dependencies upon a previously objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 16-17 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 16, Line 1 recites “wherein a binder is a polymer”. It is unclear how this further defines the structure of the blade since there is no context for said binder’s relation to the blade. Note that the claim depends upon Claim 14 while a binder is appropriately introduced in Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 17, Line 2 recites “preferably comprised”. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
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.
Claims 7-9 are 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 7, the preamble recites a “method for manufacturing the reinforcement of the blade according to claim 1”. However, Claim 1 is in reference to a “blade of a turbomachine” which comprises “reinforcement”. Thus, Claim 7 is rejected for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, since it appears to only incorporate the reinforcement of the blade rather than all of the blade of Claim 1.
Claims 8-9 are subsequently rejected for their dependencies upon Claim 7.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-15, and 18-19 are objected to.
Claims 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior art, Vetters et al. (US 2018/0119549 A1) does not expressly teach the first skin and the second skin together form the outermost layer of the blade as claimed. As noted above in the response to arguments, Applicant’s arguments filed February 06, 2026 properly explains how this distinguishes the structure of Vetters from the claimed invention. Pg. 13, Lines 1-11 of the Specification for the instant application filed October 01, 2024 detail the reinforcement provides a compromise between stiffness and mass to improve the mechanical strength of the blade compared to increasing the thickness of the composite outer skins. Lines 21-15 elaborate the stacking of plies provides simple manufacturing, and having a desired rigidity helps contribute to the overall stiffness of the blade to sufficiently limit risks of buckling and improving frequency placement.
Claims 2, 4-6, and 11-19 subsequently depend upon Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745