DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is CHRISTOPHER.LEGENDRE@USPTO.GOV.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 23 December 2025 with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are deemed to overcome the previous objection(s). However, after further examination, the examiner has discovered grounds for a new drawing objection, respectfully stated below.
Applicant’s amendments filed 23 December 2025 with respect to the claims have been fully considered. Any claim objections and/or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections not repeated herein are considered to be overcome by the amendments.
Examiner’s Comment
After further consideration, new provisional double-patenting rejections not necessitated by amendment are set forth below. Accordingly, finality of this Office action is withheld. The Office regrets any inconvenience to Applicant.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 7, line 20, “52” should be changed to --62--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, 7th line from bottom, --of the plies-- should be added after “same ply” (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1 and 2 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting of claims 7 and 8, respectively, of co-pending Application No. 18/875,062 (hereafter referred to as Gondre). This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
In reference to claim 1
Although claim 1 of the instant application is not identical to Gondre claim 7, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The application claim 1 is broader in at least one aspect.
Regarding the broadening aspect of the application claim 1, the following comparison between Gondre claim 7 and the application claim 1 underlines (see underlined features in Gondre claim 7) what elements have been excluded in the presentation of application claim 1.
Application claim 1
Gondre claim 7 (via claim 1)
1.A blade for a turbomachine fan, comprising a root configured to be attached to a fan disk and a vane capable of extending in an air flow
and defining a blade head opposite the root, a pressure side, a suction side, a leading edge and a trailing edge, the blade being elongated in a longitudinal direction extending from the root to the blade head, said longitudinal direction being substantially orthogonal to a chord direction extending from the leading edge to the trailing edge, the blade being composed at least in part of a structure made of composite material comprising a fiber reinforcement obtained by three-dimensional weaving and a matrix in which the fiber reinforcement is embedded, the fiber reinforcement comprising a plurality of intermingled plies, each ply being formed of warp yarns extending substantially orthogonally to the chord direction and weft yarns extending substantially orthogonally to the longitudinal direction, the warp yarns and weft yarns including incomplete yarns that each have a terminal end on the pressure side or the suction side, the pressure side and/or the suction side having ply drop lines each connecting the terminal ends of the incomplete yarns of a same ply,
wherein at least one of the ply drop lines includes a transverse portion,
including an apex portion, located between the root and 70% of a height of the blade, the or each transverse portion extending generally along a transverse direction substantially orthogonal to a local tangent to the warp yarns, the or each apex portion extending over at most 10% of a distance between the leading edge and the trailing edge measured parallel to the transverse direction.
A turbomachine fan blade comprising: a root configured to be attached to a fan disc, and an aerofoil able to extend in an air flow and defining a blade tip opposite the root, the blade having a pressure side, a suction side, a leading edge and a trailing edge, the blade being elongated in a longitudinal direction going from the root to the blade tip, said longitudinal direction being substantially orthogonal to a chord direction going from the leading edge to the trailing edge, the blade being composed at least in part of a structure made of composite material comprising a fibrous reinforcement obtained by three-dimensional weaving and a matrix in which the fibrous reinforcement is embedded, the fibrous reinforcement comprising a plurality of interwoven plies, each ply being formed of warp strands extending substantially orthogonally to the chord direction and weft strands extending substantially orthogonally to the longitudinal direction, the warp strands and the weft strands including incomplete strands each having a terminal end on the pressure side or on the suction side, the pressure side and the suction side each having ply drop lines each connecting the terminal ends of the incomplete strands of a same ply of the fibrous reinforcement (claim 1)
wherein the ply drop lines include at least one second ply drop line, said second ply drop line including a transverse portion situated between the root and 70% of the height of the blade, including an apex portion, the transverse portion extending overall in a transverse direction substantially orthogonal to the local tangent to the warp strands, the apex portion extending over at most 10% of a distance between the leading edge and the trailing edge measured parallel to the transverse direction (claim 7)
wherein the ply drop lines include at least one first ply drop line comprising a terminal portion which extends from the blade tip to 90% of a height of the blade, including at least one reinforced first ply drop line the terminal portion thereof extends overall in an extension direction forming an angle between 5 degrees and 85 degrees with a local tangent to the warp strands, the height being a distance from a root end of the blade to the blade tip in the longitudinal direction, the root being at the root end of the blade. (claim 1)
Thus, it is apparent, for the broadening aspect, that Gondre claim 7 includes features that are not in application claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has a patent containing a claim for a specific or narrow invention, applicant may not then obtain a patent for a second invention with a claim for a generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since application claim 1 is anticipated by Gondre claim 7, with respect to the broadening aspect, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 1 is obvious over Gondre claim 7 with respect to the broadening aspect.
In reference to claim 2
Application claim 2
Gondre claim 8
The blade of claim 1, wherein the or each transverse portion located between the root and 70% of the height of the blade extends over at most 10% of the distance between the leading edge and the trailing edge measured
parallel to the transverse direction.
The blade of claim 7, wherein the transverse portion situated between the root and 70% of the height of the blade extends over at most 10% of the distance between the leading edge and the trailing edge measured parallel to the transverse direction.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant is advised that a terminal disclaimer may not be used to overcome a "same invention" type double patenting rejection. In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 804.02.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting as being directed to the same invention as that set forth in claim 7 of co-pending Application No. 18/875,062 (Gondre). See In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528,163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). This is a provisional double patenting rejection because the claims have not in fact been patented.
In reference to claim 5
Application claim 5 (via claim 1)
Gondre claim 7 (via claim 1)
1.A blade for a turbomachine fan, comprising a root configured to be attached to a fan disk and a vane capable of extending in an air flow
and defining a blade head opposite the root, a pressure side, a suction side, a leading edge and a trailing edge, the blade being elongated in a longitudinal direction extending from the root to the blade head, said longitudinal direction being substantially orthogonal to a chord direction extending from the leading edge to the trailing edge, the blade being composed at least in part of a structure made of composite material comprising a fiber reinforcement obtained by three-dimensional weaving and a matrix in which the fiber reinforcement is embedded, the fiber reinforcement comprising a plurality of intermingled plies, each ply being formed of warp yarns extending substantially orthogonally to the chord direction and weft yarns extending substantially orthogonally to the longitudinal direction, the warp yarns and weft yarns including incomplete yarns that each have a terminal end on the pressure side or the suction side, the pressure side and/or the suction side having ply drop lines each connecting the terminal ends of the incomplete yarns of a same ply,
wherein at least one of the ply drop lines includes a transverse portion,
including an apex portion, located between the root and 70% of a height of the blade, the or each transverse portion extending generally along a transverse direction substantially orthogonal to a local tangent to the warp yarns, the or each apex portion extending over at most 10% of a distance between the leading edge and the trailing edge measured parallel to the transverse direction.
5. The blade of claim 1, wherein at least one of the ply drop lines comprises a terminal portion which extends from the blade head to a location that is up to 90% of the height of the blade from the root, the or each terminal portion extending generally in a direction of extension forming an angle comprised between 5 degrees and 85 degrees with a local tangent to the warp yarns.
A turbomachine fan blade comprising: a root configured to be attached to a fan disc, and an aerofoil able to extend in an air flow and defining a blade tip opposite the root, the blade having a pressure side, a suction side, a leading edge and a trailing edge, the blade being elongated in a longitudinal direction going from the root to the blade tip, said longitudinal direction being substantially orthogonal to a chord direction going from the leading edge to the trailing edge, the blade being composed at least in part of a structure made of composite material comprising a fibrous reinforcement obtained by three-dimensional weaving and a matrix in which the fibrous reinforcement is embedded, the fibrous reinforcement comprising a plurality of interwoven plies, each ply being formed of warp strands extending substantially orthogonally to the chord direction and weft strands extending substantially orthogonally to the longitudinal direction, the warp strands and the weft strands including incomplete strands each having a terminal end on the pressure side or on the suction side, the pressure side and the suction side each having ply drop lines each connecting the terminal ends of the incomplete strands of a same ply of the fibrous reinforcement (claim 1)
wherein the ply drop lines include at least one second ply drop line, said second ply drop line including a transverse portion situated between the root and 70% of the height of the blade, including an apex portion, the transverse portion extending overall in a transverse direction substantially orthogonal to the local tangent to the warp strands, the apex portion extending over at most 10% of a distance between the leading edge and the trailing edge measured parallel to the transverse direction (claim 7)
wherein the ply drop lines include at least one first ply drop line comprising a terminal portion which extends from the blade tip to 90% of a height of the blade, including at least one reinforced first ply drop line the terminal portion thereof extends overall in an extension direction forming an angle between 5 degrees and 85 degrees with a local tangent to the warp strands, the height being a distance from a root end of the blade to the blade tip in the longitudinal direction, the root being at the root end of the blade. (claim 1)
In regards to the recitation “the height being a distance from a root end of the blade to the blade tip in the longitudinal direction” in Gondre claim 7, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure indicates that the claimed “height” uses the same convention as in Gondre.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 6-14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone is (571)270-3364 and email is christopher.legendre@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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 Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711