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 filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, the applicant has argued, see page 7, lines 1-8, that claim 1 has been amended to state the thermoset resin adheres the shell to the one or more beams, and the element 21 of Amat is separated from the shell by the foam 19, and allowing adhesion would require destroying the foam and make the blade of Amat unfit for its intended purpose. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the foam is between the shell and the structural beam of Amat, the claim language does not state the shell is directly adhered to the one or more structural beams. In Amat, the resin indirectly adheres the shell to the structural beam. The claim language does not exclude the shell indirectly joining with the structural beam.
Regarding claim 5, the applicant’s arguments, seen page 7, line 9 through page 8, line 2, have been considered and are persuasive. Amat fails to teach the core is located between the one or more structural beams which have first and second beams. However, upon further search and consideration, US 2013/0287586 to Seminel teaches a blade comprising structural beams which form a U shape with a foam between the beams. A 103 rejection of claim 5 will be put forth below.
The corrections to claims are noted with appreciation. The objections and rejection of the claims have been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 17, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claims Status
Claims 1-16 are currently pending. Claims 11-15 stand withdrawn. Claims 1-10 and 16 will be examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9 recites “the one or more beams” and the word “structural” should be added before “beams” to be consistent with line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,313,230 to Amat in view of US 4,648,921 to Nutter.
In Reference to Claim 1
Examiner’s comment: the limitation “a thermoset resin injected into the shell fibrous material” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The act of “injecting” defines the process of making the product. From MPEP §2113, "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”
In the instant case, the claim requires a thermoset resin in the shell fibrous material.
Amat teaches:
A rotary blade (10) comprising:
one or more structural beams (central structural member 21) extending generally in a direction from a root end (not shown, see column 2, line 30) of the blade to a tip (40) of the blade;
a shell (28) enclosing the one or more structural beams and defining the outer shape of the blade,
wherein the one or more structural beams is made of a thermoplastic material (see column 2, lines 44-46) and the shell comprises a fibrous material (glass fibre or carbon fibre, see column 2, lines 62-64);
the blade further comprising:
a resin (not numbered, see column 3, lines 63-64) injected into the shell fibrous material to strengthen the shell, wherein the resin adheres the shell to the one or more structural beams (see column 2, lines 28-38 and Figures 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
296
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Amat fails to teach:
The resin which strengthens the shell is a thermoset resin.
Nutter teaches:
A rotary blade (propeller blade 10) comprising a shell (12) made of a fibrous material (fiber reinforced plastic, column 3, lines 28-29) and a thermoset resin (see column 3, lines 42) which strengthens the shell (see column 3, lines 26-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Amat by replacing the resin with a thermoset resin as taught by Nutter as both references are directed to rotary blades having shells made of fibrous materials, and which is a simple substitution which would yield a predictable result. In this case, the predictable result would be a shell formed of a fibrous material which is cured when heating a thermoset resin to allow the blade to have the desired material properties, such as strength.
In Reference to Claim 4#
Amat as modified by Nutter teaches:
The blade of claim 1, wherein the shell fibrous material comprises dry fibers (yarn 62 is a dry carbon, glass, or Kevlar fibre material, column 4, lines 28-31 of Amat). Amat teaches the trailing edge of the blade (32) is joined with stitches of yarn (62) (column 3, lines 53-55). The stitches of yarn are also a fibrous material (carbon, glass, or Kevlar fibres, see column 4, lines 28-31). Therefore, the examiner considers the yarn (62) to be part of the shell fibrous material, and the shell comprises the dry fibers.
In Reference to Claim 10#
Amat as modified by Nutter teaches:
The blade of claim 1, in combination with a flying vehicle (not shown). The blade of Amat is a propeller blade (column 1, lines 32-33), and propellers are used in flying vehicles. The examiner notes Amat also states propeller blades need a high damage tolerance capacity to prevent foreign object damage from bird impacts (column 1, lines 20-22).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,313,230 to Amat as modified by US 4,648,921 to Nutter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 9,840,921 to Petellaz.
In Reference to Claim 2
Amat as modified by Nutter teaches:
The blade of claim 1, wherein the one or more structural beams comprise a thermoplastic material (column 2, lines 44-46 of Amat).
Amat as modified by Nutter fails to teach:
The one or more structural beams comprise a fiber reinforced composite including reinforcing fibers.
Petellaz teaches:
A rotary blade (propeller blade having shank 20 and aerodynamic portion 21, column 11, lines 65-67) comprising a structural beam (spar) which comprises reinforcing fibers (unidirectional carbon fibers, column 9, lines 43-45). Petellaz states the blade has an aerodynamic portion which includes a membrane and a hollow casing, wherein the membrane includes a spar. The membrane is made of a composite material (column 9, lines 50-60). Petellaz defines a “composite material” as a solid synthetic heterogeneous material combining at least two phases, including at least one fibrous reinforcement and at least a matrix (column 9, lines 23-34). The matrix can be a thermoplastic (column 10, lines 8-13). The fibrous reinforcement can be a unidirectional fibre including carbon fibres (column 9, lines 35-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Amat as modified by Nutter by replacing the thermoplastic material of the one or more structural beams with a fiber reinforced composite including a thermoplastic material and reinforcing fibers as taught by Petellaz as both references are directed to rotary blades having structural beams, and for the purpose of achieving the desired material properties, such as mechanical strength, compressive strength, and torsional strength (column 9, lines 23-34 of Petellaz).
In Reference to Claim 3
Amat as modified by Nutter and Petellaz teaches:
The blade of claim 2, wherein the fibers include unidirectional carbon fibers (column 9, lines 43-45 of Petellaz).
In Reference to Claim 8
Amat as modified by Nutter teaches:
The blade of claim 1 comprising the blade which has the root end.
Amat as modified by Nutter fails to teach:
A root insert at the root end of the blade.
Petellaz teaches:
A rotary blade (propeller blade having shank 20 and aerodynamic portion 21, column 11, lines 65-67) comprising a root end (37) and a root insert (root pin 35) at the root end of the blade and a sleeve (34) around the root insert (see column 12, lines 58-60 and Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Amat as modified by Nutter by adding a root insert at the root end and sleeve around the root insert as taught by Petellaz as both references are directed to propeller blades, and for the purpose of maintaining the root insert in place using the sleeve while the root insert secures the blade against radial movement (column 7, lines 52-55 of Petellaz).
In Reference to Claim 9
Amat as modified by Nutter and Petellaz teaches:
The blade of claim 8 further comprising a sleeve (34 of Petellaz) around the root insert. The sleeve was added to the blade with the rejection of claim 8 for the purpose of maintaining the root insert in place.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,313,230 to Amat as modified by US 4,648,921 to Nutter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0287586 to Seminel.
In Reference to Claim 5
Amat as modified by Nutter teaches:
The blade of claim 1 comprising the one or more structural beams and a filler material (spar foam 19 of Amat) within the shell and forming a core located adjacent the one or more structural beams.
Amat as modified by Nutter fails to teach:
The one or more structural beams include first and second beams and the filler material is located between the one or more structural beams.
Seminel teaches:
A rotary blade (propeller blade 100) comprising one or more structural beams, where the one or more structural beams include a first beam (202) and a second beam (204), and a filler material (spar foam core 104) is located between the one or more structural beams (see and Figures 2 and 3A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Amat as modified by Nutter by replacing the linear structural beam with the one or more structural beam comprising a U-shaped beam as taught by Seminel as both references are directed to rotary blades having structural beams, and which is a simple substitution which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result is the rotary blade has U-shaped beams extending along the span of the blade which reduces the possibility of the filler material (foam 104) from cracking (paragraph 29 of Seminel). The filler material is located between the first and second beams.
In Reference to Claim 6
Amat as modified by Nutter and Seminel teaches:
The blade of claim 5, wherein the filler material is a foam material (19 of Amat) (column 2, lines 33-38 of Amat).
In Reference to Claim 16
Amat as modified by Nutter and Seminel teaches:
The blade of claim 6, wherein the foam material is a polyurethane material (column 2, lines 51-54 of Amat).
In Reference to Claim 7
Amat as modified by Nutter teaches:
The blade of claim 1 comprising the one or more structural beams.
Amat as modified by Nutter fails to teach:
The one or more structural beams comprise a U-shaped beam.
Seminel teaches:
A rotary blade (propeller blade 100) comprising one or more structural beams (spar 102 having structural layer 106 having insert 105, see paragraph 15) which comprise a U-shaped beam (Figure 3A embodiment of insert 105) (see paragraphs 22-23 and Figures 1 and 3A). Paragraph 23 describes the insert 105 as “C-shaped”, which the examiner considers to be “U-shaped” when viewed from a rotated perspective.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Amat as modified by Nutter by replacing the linear structural beam with the one or more structural beam comprising a U-shaped beam as taught by Seminel as both references are directed to rotary blades having structural beams, and which is a simple substitution which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result is the rotary blade has U-shaped beams extending along the span of the blade which reduces the possibility of the filler (foam 104) from cracking (paragraph 29 of Seminel).
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 JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745