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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 12/31/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 11-21, in the reply filed on 09/11/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that unity of invention exists, since the fibrous reinforcement 200 of Laurenceau, the applicant argues, is a single-piece envelope and thus does not disclose first and second outer skins, and since Schmitt discloses reinforcing fibers with lengths between 5-150mm (0.5-15 cm), not 1-15mm. This is not found persuasive because the reinforcement 200 of Laurenceau does comprise first and second outer skins (the first outer skin extends on the pressure side of the airfoil and the second outer skin extends on the suction side of the airfoil) connected at an outer end of the airfoil, and the fibers of Schmitt are within the claimed range of 1-15mm in length (the claimed range overlaps a range disclosed by the prior art; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 22-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/11/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “300” has been used to designate both “an engine assembly” (Page 6, Line 18) and “an added insert” (Page 2, Line 22). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “42” (Figure 3a). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “filler material” on Page 17, Lines 1-8 should read “filling material” to be consistent with the disclose on Page 16, Lines 19-36.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The comma at the end of Claim 12 should be a period.
“mixtures” in Claim 17, Line 1 should read “mixture”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-15 and 19 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the strip of prepreg" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 fails to disclose a strip of prepreg prior to the recitation of “the strip of prepreg”.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, Claim 13 is being treated as being dependent upon Claim 12, which does disclose a strip of prepreg.
Regarding claim 14, the word "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear whether the limitations of the epoxy resin being a PR520 resin and the solvent being acetone are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected due to its dependence upon rejected Claim 14.
Claim 19 discloses the limitations “a blade”, “a turbomachine”, “a first outer skin”, “a second outer skin”, “an outer end of the blade”, “a first inner end portion”, “a second inner end portion”, “an inner cavity”, “an opening”, “an inner end of the blade”, and “a reinforcement”. However, Claim 19 depends upon Claim 11, and Claim 11 already discloses each of these limitations.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, each of the limitations above is being treated as reciting “the” instead of “a/an”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US Publication No: 2019/0331127) in view of Warnken (US Patent No: 2,937,805).
Regarding Claim 11: Foster discloses a reinforcement (Figure 5, No. 168) for a blade (Figure 3, No. 160) of a turbomachine (Figure 1, No. 20), the blade comprising a first outer skin (Figures 4-5, No. 170) and a second outer skin (172) which are made of composite material (Paragraph [0051], Lines 1-2) connected to each other at an outer end of the blade (Figure 3; Paragraph [0050], Lines 1-3), the first skin comprising a first inner end portion (Figure 5), the second skin comprising a second inner end portion (Figure 5), the first inner end portion and the second inner end portion being spaced apart from each other in such a way as to delimit therebetween an inner cavity of the blade that opens into an opening at an inner end of the blade (Figure 5), the inner end being radially opposite the outer end (Figure 3), wherein the reinforcement (168) is adapted to be arranged in the inner cavity in such a way as to close the opening (Figure 5), and wherein the reinforcement comprises a mixture of cuts of at least one fiber (Paragraph [0051], Lines 2-5) and a tackifier (Paragraph [0063], Lines 8-9), the tackifier comprising an epoxy resin (Paragraph [0063, Lines 8-9). Foster, however, fails to disclose the cuts having lengths comprised between 1 mm and 15 mm.
Warnken teaches a blade (Figure 1, No. 10) with a component (13) comprising cuts of at least one fiber (Column 2, Lines 63-65), wherein the cuts have lengths comprised between 1-15 mm (Column 2, Lines 64-66).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the cuts of the fibers of Foster have lengths between 1-15 mm, as taught by Warnken, for the purpose of transferring the fibers well and giving the blade good strength (Column 2, Lines 64-67).
The limitation “solubilized in a solvent” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation; that is, the tackifier is made by solubilizing an epoxy resin in a solvent. Product-by-process claims are limited ONLY to the structure implied by the cited steps, NOT to the manipulation of the recited steps. It has been held that if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable, even though the prior product was made by a different process, and the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 12: Foster, as modified by Warnken, discloses the reinforcement according to Claim 11, wherein the cuts are obtained from a strip of prepreg comprising carbon fibers (Foster: Paragraph [0051], Lines 5-6 & Paragraph [0053], Lines 1-3).
Regarding Claim 13: Foster, as modified by Warnken, discloses the reinforcement according to Claim 12, wherein the strip of prepreg is recycled (Foster: Paragraph [0061], Lines 10-11 & Paragraph [0067], Lines 12-14).
Regarding Claim 19: Foster, as modified by Warnken, discloses the blade (160) of the turbomachine (20), comprising the first outer skin (170) and the second outer skin (172) which are made of composite material (Paragraph [0051], Lines 1-2) connected to each other at an outer end of the blade (Figure 3; Paragraph [0050], Lines 1-3), the first skin comprising the first inner end portion (Figure 5), the second skin comprising the second inner end portion (Figure 3), the first inner end portion and the second inner end portion being spaced apart from each other in such a way as to delimit therebetween the inner cavity of the blade that opens into the opening at the inner end of the blade (Figure 5), the inner end being radially opposite the outer end (Figure 3), the blade further comprising the reinforcement according to Claim 11, wherein the reinforcement has dimensions corresponding substantially to dimensions of the inner cavity at the opening (Figure 5), the reinforcement being arranged in the inner cavity in such a way as to close the opening (Figure 5).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster and Warnken as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kittleson (US Patent No: 9,026,796).
Regarding Claim 18: Foster, as modified by Warnken, discloses the reinforcement according to Claim 11; however, Foster fails to disclose the cuts having lengths comprised between 3 mm and 6 mm.
Kittleson teaches a blade (Figure 4, No. 400) with a reinforcement (Figures 1 & 4, No. 100) comprising cut fibers having a length between 3-6 mm (Column 2, Line 64).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the cuts of Foster, as modified by Warnken, with lengths between 3-6 mm, as taught by Kittleson, for the purpose of providing the reinforcement of the blade with the ability to operate at higher temperature and in harsher conditions (Column 1, Lines 17-22).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster and Warnken as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Kamiya (US Patent No: 10,914,176).
Regarding Claim 20: Foster, as modified by Warnken, discloses the blade according to Claim 19; however, Foster fails to disclose a filler material arranged in the inner cavity radially between the reinforcement and the outer end of the blade.
Kamiya teaches a blade (Figure 9, No. 200) comprising a filler material (60) arranged in an inner cavity between a reinforcement (40) and an outer end of the blade (Figure 9).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the blade of Foster, as modified by Warnken, with a filler material, as taught by Kamiya, for the purpose of preventing the generation of voids in the material surrounding the filler material, thus increasing the strength of the blade (Column 11, Lines 9-18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 would be allowable if rewritten 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, and Claims 15-17 and 21 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to disclose the reinforcement as claimed in Claim 11, wherein the tackifier comprises between 20% and 85% by mass of epoxy resin, wherein the mixture comprises between 65% and 85%, or approximately 75%, by mass of tackifier and between 15% and 35%, or approximately 25%, by mass of cut fiber. Evans (US Patent No: 5,843,354) discloses a blade comprising a prepreg system composed of about 30% by weight of epoxy resin (Column 4, Lines 15-17); however, the blade also comprises about 65% by weight of fibers, which is out of the claimed range, the fibers are not disclosed as being cut fibers, and the blade is not disclosed as having first and second skins or a reinforcement. The prior art fails to disclose a reinforcement as claimed in Claims 14, 16, and 17; therefore, Claims 14, 16, and 17 contain allowable subject matter (as do Claims 15 and 21, due to their dependence upon Claims 14 and 16, respectively).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L SEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-3564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-6 PM, every other Friday off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney 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.
/MICHAEL L SEHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745