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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3 July 2025, with respect to applicant’s request of allowance of new claim have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Newly presented claim 21 in currently indefinite and has been rejected under 35 USC 112, see below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3 July 2025, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejections under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3 July 2025, with respect to the claim rejections under nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejections under nonstatutory double patenting have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “extending through in inner portion of the conduit” (emphasis added). It appears the claim should recite “extending through an inner portion of the conduit”. 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 5, 8, 10-13, 16-17 and 21 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 5 recites “the internal cavity is filled with foam material” and depends from claim 2 which recites “the internal cavity does not include a forward weight positioned in the leading edge sheath” (emphasis added). It is not clear how an internal cavity that is supposed to not include a weight could also be filled with a foam material, i.e., a weight. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “a filler block holding the conduit in place within the internal cavity” and depends from claim 2 which recites “the internal cavity does not include a forward weight positioned in the leading edge sheath” (emphasis added). It is not clear how an internal cavity that is supposed to not include a weight could also include a filler block, i.e., a weight. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 21 recites “A spar installable in a rotor blade having a center of gravity, an aerodynamic center, and a shear center, the spar comprising: … wherein the spar is installable in the rotor blade such that the center of gravity of the rotor blade is aft of the aerodynamic center along a chordwise direction of the rotor blade and the shear center is forward of the aerodynamic center along the chordwise direction” (emphasis added). Note that claim 21 recites a spar being installable in a rotor blade in the preamble, i.e., the claim is directed to a spar being capable of being installed in a rotor blade; furthermore, the body of claim 21 recites specific limitations of a rotor blade, rendering the claim indefinite since it is not clear what are the metes and bounds of claim 21. A person of ordinary skills in the art would be able to interpret what the metes and bounds of the claim are in order to avoid infringement of a potential patent. It is not clear if claim 21 requires only the limitations directed to the claimed spar or the limitations directed to the combination of the spar and the rotor blade, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 10-13 and 16-17 depend from claim 21 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 14-15 and 18-20 are allowed.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 21 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.
Claims 10-13 and 16-17 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745