CTFR 18/897,399 CTFR 90892 FINAL REJECTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Amendment The Amendment filed 03/12/2026 has been entered. Claim 17 has been cancelled. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-16, 19-21 remain pending in the application . Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/08/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Fromonteil (US 2020/0040742 A1, previously cited) . Regarding independent claim 1 , Fromonteil discloses an airfoil assembly 100 (Fig. 1A-1B) comprising: an airfoil portion 110 (vane body, Para. 0029) having an outer wall extending between a root 110b (inner end) and a tip 110a (outer end) in a spanwise direction DL (Fig. 1A), and between a leading edge 111 and a trailing edge 112, the outer wall defining an interior of the airfoil portion (an interior containing a metal reinforcement spar 200, Fig. 1A-1B, Para. 0029-30); and a spar 200 (“ metal reinforcement ”) coupled to the airfoil portion (the airfoil portion is injection molded around the spar, (Fig. 3-5, Para. 0034-36) and extending into the interior (Fig. 1A-1B), the spar 200 extending outwardly from the root 110b and outside of the interior with respect to the airfoil portion (Fig. 1A, the spar has an integral fastener base 150 that extends out of the airfoil portion to couple the airfoil assembly to an inner platform 130, Para. 0030, “ the vane 100 includes metal reinforcement 200 that defines integrally as a single part both a longitudinal core 210 and also, the inner fastener base 150 connected to the inner end 210b of the core 210 that coincides with the inner end 110b of the vane body 110 …”), the spar comprising a spar centerline (Fig. 1A-1B, implicit, a centerline parallel with the longitudinal direction DL), a spar body 210 defining a perimeter surface (longitudinal core 210 having a central spar 211, leading edge portion 214, and curved portion 212, Fig. 2A-2B), and a plurality of pockets 213, 215, 216 (openings) provided within the spar body (Fig. 2A-2B, Para. 0030), each pocket of the plurality of pockets forming a respective cavity within the spar body (Fig. 2A-2B, each opening 213, 215, 216 forms a cavity in the spar body as shown). Regarding claim 3 , Fromonteil discloses the airfoil assembly of claim 1, wherein at least one pocket of the plurality of pockets 213, 215, 216 is a through-pocket extending through the spar body between at least two respective openings provided along the perimeter surface (Fig. 2A-2B, the pockets extend through the entire spar body from one side of the body to the opposite side, thus forming two openings on opposite sides of the perimeter surface). Regarding claim 4 , Fromonteil discloses the airfoil assembly of claim 3, wherein the at least two respective openings are provided along radially opposing sides of the perimeter surface, with respect to the spar centerline (Fig. 2A-2B, the openings extend across from one side of the perimeter surface to the opposite side, thus forming two respective openings as shown). Regarding claim 6 , Fromonteil discloses the airfoil assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pockets include: a first pocket 213 including at least one respective opening provided along the perimeter surface (Fig. 2A-2B); a second pocket 215 separate from the first pocket, the second pocket having at least one respective opening provided along the perimeter surface (Fig. 2A-2B); and the first pocket and the second pocket being a partial through-pocket, or a through-pocket (Fig. 2A-2B, they are both through-pockets). Regarding claim 8 , Fromonteil discloses the airfoil assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pockets include a first pocket 213 and a second pocket 215, with a volume of the first pocket being larger than a volume of the second pocket (Fig. 2A-2B, pocket 213 is clearly larger than pocket 215), and the first pocket 213 is provided axially closer to the root of the airfoil portion (the root side 210b of the spar, coincident with the root 110b of the airfoil portion, Fig. 1A, 2B), with respect to the spar centerline, than the second pocket (Fig. 2B, the first pocket 213 is adjacent the root of the airfoil portion and inner fastener base 150, whereas the second pocket 215 is on the opposite end of the spar along the spar centerline). Regarding claim 9 , Fromonteil discloses the airfoil assembly of claim 1, and Thompson further teaches, wherein the plurality of pockets includes a first pocket 213 (or 216) and a last pocket 215, the first pocket 213/216 being a pocket of the plurality of pockets provided axially nearest the root 150 (Fig. 2A, 2B, both pockets 213 or 216 are close to the root 150 and could be construed as the first pocket), the last pocket 215 being a pocket of the plurality of pockets provided axially farthest the root (Fig. 2A-2B, closer to the outer fastener base 140), with a respective volume of each pocket of the plurality of pockets serially decreasing in size from the first pocket to the last pocket (Fig. 2A-2B, the volume of the first pocket 213/216 is clearly larger than the “last” pocket 215; particularly, the pockets 215 & 216 are serially arranged along a spanwise direction of the spar, and serially decrease in size from the root to the tip sides of the spar). Regarding claim 10 , Fromonteil discloses the airfoil assembly of claim 1, wherein: the spar 210 includes an interior portion provided within the interior of the airfoil portion (Fig. 1A-1B, the spar centerbody is an “interior portion” since it is within the airfoil body), the interior portion extending a spar interior length in the spanwise direction DL (Fig. 1A-1B, 2A-2B); the plurality of pockets 213, 215, 216 extend a pocket extension length with respect to the spar centerline (Fig. 2A-2B, the pockets occupy a lengthwise portion of the spar as shown), the pocket extension length being defined as a total axial distance that the plurality of pockets inhabit along the spar (Fig. 2A-2B); and the pocket extension length is greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 100% of the spar interior length (Fig. 2A-2B, clearly, the pocket extension length is between 0.1% and 100% of the spar interior length). Regarding claim 12 , Fromonteil discloses the airfoil assembly of claim 1, wherein the airfoil portion 110 extends between the root 110b and the tip 100a a span length in the spanwise direction DL (Fig. 1A-1B), and the spar 210 extends between 30 to 100 percent of the span length, inclusive of endpoints (Fig. 1A-1B, the spar extends 100% across the span length of the airfoil portion from the root to the tip as shown). Regarding claim 13 , Fromonteil discloses the airfoil assembly of claim 1, wherein at least one pocket of the plurality of pockets includes a filler material 530 (Fig. 6, the pockets are filled with a resin material 530 that is provided from an injection molding process, Para. 0034-35) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 12, 16, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kray (US 2023/0036022 A1) in view of Wilson (US 2006/0120869 A1) . Regarding independent claim 1 , Kray discloses an airfoil assembly 100 (“ rotor blade ”) comprising: an airfoil portion 100/102 (“ blade body ”) having an outer wall extending between a root 104 and a tip 106 in a spanwise direction R (Fig. 2), and between a leading edge 112 and a trailing edge 114, the outer wall defining an interior of the airfoil portion (Fig. 3, for a spar 120 to be contained therein, Para. 0059) ; and a spar 120 coupled to the airfoil portion and extending into the interior (Fig. 3-5), the spar comprising a spar centerline (Fig. 4-5, extending in the spanwise direction), a spar body 122/142, 152 (“ spar elongate body ”) defining a perimeter surface (implicit, Fig. 3, 4, 5), and a plurality of pockets 124/144,154 (“ notches ”) provided within the spar body (Fig. 4-6, Para. 0063-65), each pocket of the plurality of pockets forming a respective cavity within the spar body (Para. 0064, each pocket 124 forming a U-shaped cavity on the spar body, or having any other shape or size t create a “ weakened geometric feature ”). Kray fails to disclose the spar extending outwardly from the root and outside of the interior with respect to the airfoil portion. Wilson teaches an airfoil assembly 10 (Fig. 1) having an airfoil portion 48 (a “ shell ”, Para. 0028, Fig. 1) extending between a root 88 and a tip 84 (Fig. 1-3) and having an interior (“ hollow ”, Para. 0028, Fig. 1-3), a spar 12 coupled to the airfoil portion extending into the interior (Fig. 1-3), the spar extending outwardly from the root and outside of the interior with respect to the airfoil portion (Fig. 1-3, Para. 0026, the spar 12 has a “ downwardly extending portion 18 that fairs into a rectangularly shaped projection 26 that is adapted to fit into the attachment 20 ”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the assembly of Kray, the spar extending outwardly from the root and outside the interior with respect to the airfoil portion, as taught by Wilson, in order to provide the airfoil assembly with an attachment portion of the spar that can secure the airfoil assembly to the airfoil platform and consequently the rotor disk of the engine (Wilson Para. 0026). An airfoil assembly spar having a portion extending outward from the root to secure the assembly to a rotor disk is well-known in the art (see further examples: Nealon US 5,403,161 A; Rudling US 8,696,317 B2; Fromonteil cited above) Regarding claim 2 , Kray in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 1, and Kray further teaches wherein at least one pocket 124 of the plurality of pockets is a partial through-pocket having a respective opening provided along the perimeter surface (Fig. 4-6, the pockets are formed as “notches” on the spar body, and hence are “partial-through” in that they do not penetrate all the way through the spar body). Regarding claim 6 , Kray in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 1, and Kray further teaches wherein the plurality of pockets include: a first pocket 124, 144 including at least one respective opening provided along the perimeter surface (Fig. 4-5, for instance a pocket 124 at one end of the spar 120); a second pocket 124, 144 separate from the first pocket (Fig. 4-5, for instance, a pocket 124 on an opposite end of the spar 120 from the first pocket), the second pocket having at least one respective opening provided along the perimeter surface (each pocket 124 has a respective opening as shown); the first pocket and the second pocket being a partial through-pocket, or a through-pocket (Para. 0064, the pockets are all partial through pockets). Regarding claim 7 , Kray in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 1, and Kray further teaches wherein the first pocket 124 and the second pocket 124 are each partial through-pockets (Fig. 4-6); and the at least one respective opening of the first pocket is provided on a radially opposing side of the perimeter surface from the respective opening of the second pocket, with respect to the spar centerline (Fig. 6, pockets 124 are on opposed sides of the spar body as shown, hence on radially opposing sides of the perimeter surface). Regarding claim 10 , Kray in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 1, and Kray further teaches wherein: the spar 120 includes an interior portion provided within the interior of the airfoil portion (Kray Fig. 4-5), the interior portion extending a spar interior length in the spanwise direction R; the plurality of pockets 124 extend a pocket extension length with respect to the spar centerline (Fig. 4-5), the pocket extension length being defined as a total axial distance that the plurality of pockets inhabit along the spar (Fig. 4-5); and the pocket extension length is greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 100% of the spar interior length (Fig. 4-5, clearly the pockets 124 inhabit a span of the spar interior length that is between 0.1-100% of the spar interior length as shown). Regarding claim 12 , Kray in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 1, and Kray further teaches wherein the airfoil portion 100 extends between the root 104 and the tip 106 a span length in the spanwise direction (Fig. 1, 4, 5), and the spar 120 extends between 30 to 100 percent of the span length, inclusive of endpoints (Fig. 4-5, clearly the spar 124 extends a length greater than 30% of the span length, but just short of 100%, of the airfoil portion as shown). Regarding claim 16 , Kray in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 1, and Kray further teaches wherein the spar 120 is a composite preform including the plurality of pockets 124 (Para. 0060-62) . Regarding claim 19 , Kray in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 1, and Kray further teaches a turbine engine 10 (Fig. 1) comprising: an engine core having a compressor section 26, a combustion section 28, and a turbine section 30 in serial flow arrangement (Fig. 1, para. 0051), the engine core defining a rotor 18, 40, 48 and a stator 38, 46 (fan rotor, compressor rotors and stators, and turbine rotors and stators, Para. 0051, Fig. 1); a fan section 12 coupled to the rotor 18 (Fig. 1, Para. 0050); and the airfoil assembly 100 of claim 1 provided within at least one of the engine core or the fan section (Para. 0055, “ a rotor blade 100 in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, which may be incorporated into the engine 10 in place of any of the fan rotor blades 20, the compressor rotor blades 40, and/or the turbine rotor blades 48 ”). Regarding claim 21 , Kray in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 1, and Kray further teaches wherein a size and a placement of the plurality of pockets 124, 144, 154 along the spar 120, 140, 150 creates a predetermined location 126 (“ frangible portion ”) where fragmentation will occur if an external force is applied to the airfoil assembly that causes the spar to break (Para. 0067, “ notches 124 are sufficiently deep to form frangible portions 126 whereby sufficient force, e.g., a breaking force, applied to a frangible portion 126 will c ause spar 120 to fracture at the frangible portion 126 ”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kray in view of Wilson, further in view of Jain (US 2020/0102853 A1) Regarding claim 5 , Kray in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein at least one pocket of the plurality of pockets is an internal pocket that is provided entirely within the spar body. Jain teaches an airfoil assembly having a body 35 with a plurality of pockets 60 (“ fracture structure ” with “ elongated chambers ” 62, 72, Fig. 3-6, Para. 0032-36), wherein the pockets are an internal pocket that is provided entirely within the body (Fig. 3-4, Para. 0032-36, the chambers 62, 72 are entirely enclosed within the body material of the body as shown, to create regions of decreased thickness of the body to promote fracturing of the body). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the assembly of Kray in view of Wilson at least one pocket that is an internal pocket provided entirely within the spar body, based on the teachings of Jain, in order to provide an additional “fracture structure” disposed entirely within the spar body that can provide for detachment of the airfoil tip in the event the tip of the airfoil assembly contacts an outer annular surface of the casing surrounding the airfoil assembly (Jain Para. 0032-36), or due to contact with any other force that may cause a failure of the body. Jain already teaches a spar body having geometric features that promote fracturing at predetermined locations, and discusses that the spar may have other “ weakened geometric features ” to define a “ frangible portion ” of the spar (analogous to the “ fracture structure ” of Jain). One skilled in the art, based on the teachings of Jain, would recognize that an internal pocket could be used as one of these “weakened geometric features”, and could incorporate such a pocket for similar benefit in the spar of Kray (for instance, in defining a predetermined fracture point near the tip of the airfoil assembly as taught by Jain) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kray in view of Wilson, further in view of Jain (US 2020/0116043 A1, henceforth Jain ‘043) . Regarding claim 11 , Kray in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the pocket extension length is greater than or equal to 1% and less than or equal to 10% of the spar interior length. Kray does discuss that the number of pockets on the spar may vary based on desired fracture control (“ any number of notches 124 … may be used ”), as well as the location D1 of the pocket also variable based on where the fracture is desired (Para. 0063-66). Jain ‘043 teaches an airfoil assembly 16 including a body 62, having a frangible portion 94 formed along a span of the airfoil, the frangible portion having a length 84 that is at least 10% (or between 3% and 15%) of the span of the airfoil from the tip 66 in order to create a tip break- off point (Fig. 3, Para. 0041-42, “ the frangible airfoil portion 94 may extend along at least 10% of the span from the airfoil tip 66, such as along a chordwise direction C at one point along spanwise …”). Consequently, based on teachings in Kray and Jain ‘043, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the frangible portion length (e.g. the pocket extension length of Kray, the frangible line location in Jain) is recognized is a result-effective variable, since such a variable has a direct effect on where a predetermined fracturing of the airfoil will occur. It has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie , 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, it has been held that “[W] here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation ." See In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the assembly of Kray in view of Wilson to discover the optimal pocket extension length, such as 10% as taught in Jain ‘043, in order to create a predetermined fracture/break/liberation point along the span of the airfoil assembly, for instance near a tip of the airfoil assembly as taught by Jain ‘043 (Jain ‘043 Para. 0041-42) as well as controlling the number of pieces the airfoil assembly will break into (Kray Para. 0063-66). While Jain ‘043 does not explicitly discuss a spar body having pockets and utilizes a different manner of creating fracture/frangible locations along an airfoil body, the teachings of where to locate the frangible location and the extension of the frangible portion along the length/span of the airfoil is applicable to the teachings of Kray, since both desire to create weak-points along the airfoil to create predetermined fracture locations . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kray in view of Wilson, further in view of Hrubec (US 2021/0310417 A1) . Regarding claim 20 , Kray in view of Wilson teaches the turbine engine of claim 19, and Kray further teaches wherein the fan section 12 includes a set of external fan blades 20 (Fig. 1, Para. 0050, 0053), the airfoil assembly 100 being provided within the set of external fan blades (Para. 0055, “ FIG. 2 is a side elevation view of a rotor blade 100 in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, which may be incorporated into the engine 10 in place of any of the fan rotor blades 20 , the compressor rotor blades 40, and/or the turbine rotor blades 48 ”) or the set of external fan vanes. Kray in view of Wilson fails to teach a set of external fan vanes. Hrubec teaches a turbine engine 20 (Fig. 1) having a set of external fan blades 21 and a set of external fan vanes 31 (Fig. 1, Para. 0036-37, 0041-42). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the engine of Kray in view of Wilson to incorporate a set of external fan vanes, as taught by Hrubec, in order to provide vanes for the fan exhaust that can impart a counteracting swirl to the fluid, reducing the degree of swirl to the fan flow downstream to improve efficiency (Hrubec Para. 0042) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 7,794,197 B2, previously recited) in view of Wilson . Regarding independent claim 1 , Thompson discloses an airfoil assembly (Abstract, Fig. 1) comprising: an airfoil portion 1 having an outer wall 14 (Fig. 2, 3,Col. 3, ln. 22-24, “ A wrap of carbon fibre composite material 14 covers the aerofoil and the entire aerodynamic surface of the blade ”) extending between a root 3 and a tip (Fig. 1) in a spanwise direction, and between a leading edge 2 and a trailing edge 4, the outer wall defining an interior of the airfoil portion (Fig. 2 & 3); and a spar 8 (titanium metal core) coupled to the airfoil portion and extending into the interior (Fig. 1-3), the spar comprising a spar centerline (implicit, Fig. 1), a spar body 8 defining a perimeter surface (Fig. 3), and a plurality of pockets 10A-10F provided within the spar body (Fig. 1, 2, Col. 2 ln. 59-Col. 3, ln. 4), each pocket of the plurality of pockets forming a respective cavity within the spar body (Id. the pockets form the cavities as shown). Thompson fails to disclose the spar extending outwardly from the root and outside of the interior with respect to the airfoil portion. Wilson teaches an airfoil assembly 10 (Fig. 1) having an airfoil portion 48 (a “ shell ”, Para. 0028, Fig. 1) extending between a root 88 and a tip 84 (Fig. 1-3) and having an interior (“ hollow ”, Para. 0028, Fig. 1-3), a spar 12 coupled to the airfoil portion extending into the interior (Fig. 1-3), the spar extending outwardly from the root and outside of the interior with respect to the airfoil portion (Fig. 1-3, Para. 0026, the spar 12 has a “ downwardly extending portion 18 that fairs into a rectangularly shaped projection 26 that is adapted to fit into the attachment 20 ”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the assembly of Thompson, the spar extending outwardly from the root and outside the interior with respect to the airfoil portion, as taught by Wilson, in order to provide the airfoil assembly with an attachment portion of the spar that can secure the airfoil assembly to the airfoil platform and consequently the rotor disk of the engine (Wilson Para. 0026). An airfoil assembly spar having a portion extending outward from the root to secure the assembly to a rotor disk is well-known in the art (see further examples: Nealon US 5,403,161 A; Rudling US 8,696,317 B2; Fromonteil cited above) Regarding claim 3 , Thompson in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 1, and Thompson further teaches wherein at least one pocket of the plurality of pockets is a through-pocket extending through the spar body 8 between at least two respective openings provided along the perimeter surface (Fig. 2, Col. 3, ln. 6-7, “ the cavities taper from the pressure side 7 towards the suction side 6 ”, the cavities extend through the spar body from an opening on the pressures ide 7 to the suction side 6 as shown). Regarding claim 4 , Thompson in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 3, and Thompson further teaches, wherein the at least two respective openings are provided along radially opposing sides of the perimeter surface, with respect to the spar centerline (Fig. 2, the openings of the at least one packet that is a through-pocket are on opposite sides of the spar body and thus on radially opposing sides of the perimeter surface). Regarding claim 8 , Thompson in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 1, and Thompson further teaches, wherein the plurality of pockets 10A-10F include a first pocket 10F and a second pocket 10A, with a volume of the first pocket being larger than a volume of the second pocket (Fig. 1, the first pocket is larger than the second pocket as shown), and the first pocket 10F is provided axially closer to the root 3 of the airfoil portion, with respect to the spar centerline, than the second pocket 10A (which is closer to the top of the airfoil body as shown). Regarding claim 9 , Thompson in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 1, and Thompson further teaches, wherein the plurality of pockets 10A-10F includes a first pocket 10F and a last pocket 10A, the first pocket being a pocket of the plurality of pockets provided axially nearest the root 3, the last pocket being a pocket of the plurality of pockets provided axially farthest the root (Fig. 1), with a respective volume of each pocket of the plurality of pockets serially decreasing in size from the first pocket to the last pocket (Fig. 1, the volume/size of each pocket generally decreases in size from the first pocket to the last pocket as shown). Regarding claim 10 , Thompson in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 1, and Thompson further teaches, wherein: the spar 8 includes an interior portion provided within the interior of the airfoil portion (Fig. 1-3, the main body of the spar itself which is interior to the airfoil body outer wall 14), the interior portion extending a spar interior length in the spanwise direction (Fig. 1, the length of the spar as shown that would fit into the airfoil body); the plurality of pockets 10A-10F extend a pocket extension length with respect to the spar centerline (Fig. 1, the length of the spar occupied by the pockets as shown), the pocket extension length being defined as a total axial distance that set of pockets (interpreted as all the pockets) inhabit along the spar (Fig. 1); and the pocket extension length is greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 100% of the spar interior length (Fig. 1, the “ pocket extension length” is clearly greater than 0.1% and is less than 100% of the spar interior length). Regarding claim 12 , Thompson in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 1, and Thompson further teaches, wherein the airfoil portion extends between the root 3 and the tip a span length in the spanwise direction (Fig. 1), and the spar 8 extends between 30 to 100 percent of the span length, inclusive of endpoints (Fig. 1, the spar 8 extends the length of the airfoil portion as shown, since the airfoil portion outer wall 14 is formed by a wrap layer applied to the spar 8). Regarding claim 13 , Thompson in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 1, and Thompson further teaches, wherein at least one pocket of the plurality of pockets includes a filler material (Col. 2, ln. 64-67, “ The cavities 10a to 10f contain a material having a lower density than the ribs. The material is a metallic foam or sponge, or even a polymeric foam or a composite material. The material provides strength to resist crushing loads.”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fromontiel in view of Chinta (US 2023/0313687 A1, previously cited) . Regarding claim 14 , Fromonteil discloses the airfoil assembly of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of pockets having at least two pockets with varying filler materials. Chinta teaches an airfoil assembly 200 (Fig. 2, 5) having a spar 202 and at least two pockets/cavities 230 (Para. 0044, 0051) with varying filler materials (Para. 0051, different regions 250 have different foam reinforcement structures 242 that may vary in geometry, material, thickness, orientation, etc. based on the location in the airfoil assembly 200;Para. 0057, “ each region 250 of airfoil 212 may include a foam reinforcement structure 242 that is similar to or different that other regions 250 of the same airfoil 212 ”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the assembly of Fromonteil such that the at least two pockets have varying filler materials, as taught by Chinta, in order to meet specific strength and stiffness requirements at different locations in the airfoil, while improving durability, weight reduction, minimizing blade deformation, debonding, failure or other operational degradation (Chinta Para. 0024-25, 0051, 0057) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 14 & 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Wilson, further in view of Ganiger (US 11,753,942 B1) Regarding claim 14 , Thompson in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of pockets having at least two pockets with varying filler materials. Ganiger teaches an airfoil assembly having a body 62 with a plurality of pockets 102 (“ cavities ” Fig. 4; cavities made up of sets 110, 120, 130), wherein at least some of the plurality of pockets include filler materials 106, 108 (“ inclusions ” made of varying materials, Col. 6, ln. 13-27) to define varying stress paths through the airfoil body (Col. 6, ln. 28-45), and wherein the plurality of pockets having at least two pockets with varying filler materials 115, 125, 135 (the cavities 110, 120, 130 are grouped based on their different filler materials 108 (Col. 6, ln. 59-Col. 7, ln. 20, ln. 21-42). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the airfoil assembly of Thompson in view of Wilson such that at least two pockets have varying filler materials, such as taught by Ganiger, in order to help define a stress path through the body of the airfoil and consequently define frangible regions of the airfoil where the airfoil will fracture/break/liberate portions at predefined locations by manipulating the regional elasticity of the airfoil via having different pockets/sets of pockets be filled with materials having different characteristics (Ganiger Col. 6, ln. 28-58, Col. 6, ln. 59-Col. 7, ln. 20, ln. 21-42, Col. 9, ln. 51-Col. 1, ln. 14). Thompson already teaches an airfoil body having a plurality of filled pockets to control breaking of the airfoil (Col. 4, ln. 35-58, Col. 5, ln. 20-47), and by selecting different filler materials for the different pockets, how the breaking of the airfoil occurs during an impact event can be controlled/predicted. Regarding claim 15 , Thompson in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein at least one other pocket of the plurality of pockets does not include the filler material. Ganiger teaches an airfoil assembly having a body 62 with a plurality of pockets 102 (“ cavities ” Fig. 4; cavities made up of sets 110, 120, 130), wherein at least some of the plurality of pockets include filler materials 106, 108 (“ inclusions ” made of varying materials, Col. 6, ln. 13-27) to define varying stress paths through the airfoil body (Col. 6, ln. 28-45), and where in at least some other pockets do not include the filler material (Col. 10, ln. 3-14, “ some of the cavities in a plurality of cavities may be unfilled, e.g., empty and/or without any of the one or more materials 108 ”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the airfoil assembly of Thompson in view of Wilson, such that at least one other pocket of the plurality of pockets does not include filler material, as taught by Ganiger, in order to help define a stress path through the body of the airfoil and consequently define frangible regions of the airfoil where the airfoil will fracture/break/liberate portions at predefined locations by manipulating the regional elasticity of the airfoil (Ganiger Col. 6, ln. 28- 58, Col. 9, ln. 51-Col. 1, ln. 14). Thompson already teaches an airfoil body having a plurality of filled pockets to control breaking of the airfoil (Col. 4, ln. 35-58, Col. 5, ln. 20-47), and by selecting the filler materials of the pockets (or lack of filler material), how the break-up of the airfoil occurs during an impact event can be controlled/predicted . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fromonteil in view of Cosby (US 2015/0361798 A1, previously cited) . Regarding claim 18 , Fromonteil discloses the airfoil assembly of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the respective cavity is an ovoid. Cosby teaches a fan blade having cavities 76 & 86 that are ovoid/elliptical in shape (Fig. 4A-4B) used for weight reduction, wherein the oval/elliptical shape is used to reduce stress concentrations (Para. 0043-45, 0048). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the assembly of Fromonteil such that the respective cavity is an ovoid, as taught by Cosby, in order to improve weight reduction of the airfoil assembly while also reducing stress concentrations (Cosby Para. 0043-45, 0048). The cavities of Fromonteil are already shown as an elongate shape, and one skilled in the art would be motivated to discover and apply known shapes that would best optimize weight reduction, structural strength, and stress concentration, such as an elongate ovoid shape as taught in Cosby . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Wilson, further in view of Cosby . Regarding claim 18 , Thompson in view of Wilson teaches the airfoil assembly of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the respective cavity is an ovoid. Cosby teaches a fan blade having cavities 76 & 86 that are ovoid/elliptical in shape (Fig. 4A-4B) used for weight reduction, wherein the oval/elliptical shape is used to reduce stress concentrations (Para. 0043-45, 0048). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the assembly of Thompson such that the respective cavity are an ovoid, as taught by Cosby, in order to improve weight reduction of the airfoil assembly while also reducing stress concentrations (Cosby Para. 0043-45, 0048). The cavities of Thompson are already shown as an elongate shape, and one skilled in the art would be motivated to discover and apply known shapes that would best optimize weight reduction, structural strength, and stress concentration, such as an elongate ovoid shape as taught in Cosby. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16, 18-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection that was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections, at the appropriate locations. Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record on the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure for disclosing prior art examples of airfoil assemblies with spars having a root portion, and airfoil assemblies having frangible sections along the span of the airfoil. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 ALAIN CHAU whose telephone number is (571)272-9444. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571 272 7118. 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. /ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 2 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 3 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 4 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 5 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 6 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 7 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 8 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 9 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 10 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 11 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 12 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 13 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 15 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 16 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 17 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 18 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 19 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 20 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 22 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/897,399 Page 23 Art Unit: 3741
Prosecution Insights