DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Subgroup F in the reply filed on 23 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amendments to claims 1 and 15 with respect to first and second parts now being first and second portions, and those newly presented limitation second portion not being made of a composite material in the previously presented prior art (Grimes et al) mapping. This is found persuasive because and the requirement for unity of invention is being withdrawn.
Claims 1-18 are pending and examined on the merits in the instant Office Action.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “The invention relates,” etc. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: first part and second part should be amended to be consistent with the claimed terminology first portion and second portion.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 recites “the first portion-portion” instead of “the first portion.”
Claim 6 recites “the airfoil with an aerodynamic profile” instead of “the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile” as in claims 2 and 3, for example.
Claim 8 recites “two metal shells” instead of “two metallic shells” as in claim 1, for example.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “blocking member” in claim 14 (interpreted as a screw, and equivalents thereof).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3, 6, 9 and 16-18 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 3 recites the limitation “over the portion of the first portion” and depends from claim 2 which recites “over at least a portion of the first portion”. It is not clear if claim 3 further limits claim 2 to include only one portion or is missing further potential portions and/or the whole first portion, thereby, rendering the claim indefinite. For claim terminology consistency and clarity purposes, the examiner recommends reciting “over the at least a portion of the first portion” in claim 3.
Claim 6 recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim), which may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “a rigid cellular material”, and the claim also recites “the rigid cellular material being preferably a polyurethane foam” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the leading edge”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim), which may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation “rigid cellular material”, and the claim also recites “the rigid cellular material preferably being a polyurethane foam” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the spar”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the spar”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Clarification and/or amendment is respectfully requested.
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, 7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimes et al – hereafter Grimes – (US 4,302,155 A) in view of Fabre et al – hereafter Fabre – (US 20130272893 A1) and Meon (US 2,017,505 A).
Regarding claim 1, Grimes teaches a propeller blade (Fig.2/3) comprising:
an airfoil with an aerodynamic profile (Fig.3), a part of the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile comprising a cavity (the interior of 36’),
a blade root (delimited by 74/76) intended to be linked to a variable pitch mechanism (not shown, note the abstract) of the blade, and
a spar comprising a core of composite material (34’) and a metallic shell (24’) attached to the core of composite material, on either side of the core of composite material, the core of composite material comprising a first portion (Annotated Fig.2) extending inside the cavity of the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile and a second portion (Annotated Fig.2) forming the blade root,
the metallic shell attached to the core of composite material extending over the second portion and continuing on the first portion inside the cavity of the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile (Annotated Fig.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
506
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Grimes does not explicitly teach the airfoil comprising a first fibrous reinforcement obtained by three-dimensional weaving and a first matrix in which the first fibrous reinforcement is embedded, a part of the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile comprising a cavity formed by a debinding of the first fibrous reinforcement, the spar comprising two metallic shells.
Fabre teaches a propeller blade (Fig.1-6, 10) comprising an airfoil (20) having a first fibrous reinforcement (101, 102) obtained by three-dimensional weaving and a first matrix (¶62-63) in which the first fibrous reinforcement is embedded, a part of the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile comprising a cavity (104a) formed by a debinding (104; ¶67, disconnection zone), for the purpose of providing a light weight blade (¶22) with improved resistance to impact (¶6) and reduced risk of delamination (¶8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the blade of Grimes such that the airfoil comprises a first fibrous reinforcement obtained by three-dimensional weaving and a first matrix in which the first fibrous reinforcement is embedded, a part of the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile comprising a cavity formed by a debinding of the first fibrous reinforcement, as taught by Fabre, for the purpose of providing a light weight blade with improved resistance to impact and reduced risk of delamination.
Meon teaches a propeller blade (Fig.1-3) having a metallic shell (5) which is formed by two metallic shells (5a/5ᵇ) which surround a blade root of a blade (3), for the purpose of allowing for easy assembly of the metallic shell (page 1 line 23-27).
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified blade of Grimes
such that the spar comprises two metallic shells, as taught by Meon, for the purpose of allowing
for easy assembly of the metallic shell.
Regarding claim 7, Grimes, Fabre and Meon further teach the two metallic shells attached to the core of composite material are not joined together (see Meon Fig.3, a gap is shown between metallic shells 5a and 5b).
Regarding claim 10, Grimes, Fabre and Meon further teach the first fibrous reinforcement is obtained by three-dimensional weaving of strands of carbon fibers (Fabre ¶65) and the first matrix comprises an epoxy resin (Fabre ¶91).
Regarding claim 11, Grimes, Fabre and Meon teach all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, do not explicitly teach the core of composite material of the spar comprises a second fibrous reinforcement obtained by three-dimensional weaving and a second matrix in which the second fibrous reinforcement is embedded.
Fabre further teaches a core of composite material (Fig.5-6, 200) comprising a second fibrous reinforcement obtained by three-dimensional weaving (¶73) and a second matrix (¶86, note a second matrix which can be of a different type to that of the first matrix) in which the second fibrous reinforcement is embedded.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the blade of Grimes, Fabre and Meon by having the core of composite material of the spar comprises a second fibrous reinforcement obtained by three-dimensional weaving and a second matrix in which the second fibrous reinforcement is embedded based on the further teachings of Fabre because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (core of Grimes) for another (core of Fabre) to obtain predictable results (providing a blade core that is lightweight and can sustain mechanical conditions during operation of a blade).
Claim(s) 6 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimes, Fabre and Meon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Graff et al – hereafter Graff – (US 5,222,297 A).
Regarding claim 11, Grimes, Fabre and Meon teach all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, do not explicitly teach a workpiece made of a rigid cellular material, the rigid cellular material being preferably a polyurethane foam, the workpiece being attached to the first portion and positioned in the cavity of the airfoil with an aerodynamic profile.
Graff teaches a blade (Fig.1-2) including and airfoil with an aerodynamic profile, a blade root (10), a spar assembly (40) and workpieces (42/44) made of a rigid cellular material, e.g., polyurethane foam (column 5 line 43-66); the workpieces being attached to a first portion of a blade cavity of the airfoil (Fig.1D/2); this configuration provides a lightweight cellular material filling the blade cavity of the airfoil helping provide a desired shape for the contour of the blade (column 5 line 43-66).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the blade of Grimes, Fabre and Meon by having a workpiece made of a rigid cellular material, the rigid cellular material being preferably a polyurethane foam, the workpiece being attached to the first portion and positioned in the cavity of the airfoil with an aerodynamic profile based on the teachings of Graff because this configuration provides a lightweight cellular material filling the blade cavity of the airfoil helping provide a desired shape for the contour of the blade.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-5, 8 and 12-13 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.
Claims 3, 9 and 16-18 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 to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The following claim limitations were not found in the prior art.
the blade root has an axisymmetrical shape around a pitch axis of the blade, and the first portion has a first thickness, measured in a plane passing through the pitch axis and an intersection point between a leading edge line of the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile and a stream limit chord line located between the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile and the blade root, which increases from the stream limit chord line to an interior of the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile over at least a portion of the first portion (as in the context of claim 2).
Grimes further teaches the blade root having an axisymmetrical shape around a pitch axis of the blade (Fig.2), however, with respect to the first thickness, Grimes discloses a decreasing thickness instead of the increasing thickness when measured as claimed.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
the first fibrous reinforcement comprises weft strands extending from a leading edge of the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile to a trailing edge of the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile and delimiting the debinding, the debinding being delimited upstream by a first interweaving between the weft strands and downstream by a second interweaving between the weft strands (as in the context of claim 4).
Fabre further teaches the first fibrous reinforcement comprises weft strands extending from a leading edge of the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile to a trailing edge of the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile and delimiting the debinding (Fig.3), however, does not explicitly teach the first and second interweaving delimiting the debinding at upstream and downstream respective locations.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
the first portion comprises facets and each of the two metal shells has facets able to be positioned in contact with the facets of the first portion, so as to define a relative positioning of each of the shells relative to the core of composite material (as in the context of claim 8).
Neither Grimes nor Moen teach the claimed first portion and metal shells facets configuration.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile has a first end connected to the blade root and a second end, opposite to the first end, and wherein the debinding of the first fibrous reinforcement forming the cavity in which the first portion is inserted extends from a first opening leading into the first end of the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile to a second opening leading into the leading edge of the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile (as in the context of claim 9).
Fabre teaches the airfoil with the debinding extending from a first opening leading into the first end (Fig.3/6), however, does not explicitly teach the debinding having a second opening leading into the leading edge of the airfoil.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
the second fibrous reinforcement comprises a plurality of layers of fibrous reinforcement stacked on one another, and arranged in such a manner that each layer of fibrous reinforcement of the plurality of layers of fibrous reinforcement has stiffnesses which decrease when the second fibrous reinforcement is followed from an interior of the second fibrous reinforcement to an outside of the second fibrous reinforcement (as in the context of claim 12).
Fabre discloses the second fibrous reinforcement comprises a plurality of layers of fibrous reinforcement stacked on one another, however, is silent about the stiffness decreasing from an interior to an outside claimed configuration.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
the blade root has an axisymmetric shape around a pitch axis of the blade, and the second portion of the core of composite material has a radial dimension, measured along a radial axis perpendicular to the pitch axis, which increases continuously then decreases continuously when the second portion of the core of composite material is followed along the pitch axis while moving away from the first portion, so as to form a hump (as in the context of claim 13).
Grimes further teaches the blade root having an axisymmetrical shape around a pitch axis of the blade (Fig.2), however, with respect to the radial dimension, Grimes does not teach the increase and then decrease claimed configuration. A potential modification of Grimes’ blade root to obtain the claimed configuration could render Grimes’ blade inoperable with respect to the variable pitch mechanism attachment.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
a method for manufacturing a blade comprising successive steps of: - producing a core of composite material comprising a first portion and a second portion, - attaching two metallic shells to the core of composite material, so that each of the two metallic shells extends over the second portion of the core of composite material and continue on the first portion, - producing a fibrous blank by three-dimensional weaving of fiber strands, the fibrous blank having a debinding forming a cavity, - forming the fibrous blank to obtain a preform with an aerodynamic profile, wherein forming the fibrous blank comprises inserting the first portion inside the cavity, - injecting a resin into a mold containing the first fibrous blank and the first portion to obtain a blade comprising an airfoil with the aerodynamic profile comprising a fibrous reinforcement and a matrix in which the fibrous reinforcement is embedded, the first portion extending inside the cavity of the airfoil with the aerodynamic profile, and the second portion of the core of composite material forming a blade root of the blade (as in the context of claim 15).
Grimes as modified by Fabre and Moen teach a method including the claimed steps, however, said steps are not disclosed in a method being successive steps in the order claimed required by the claim as the “successive” limitation is included in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL EDWARD WIEHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8648. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 7-4:30 EST.
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at (571) 272-4037. 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.
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights