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 .
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation “the U-shape preforms” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete in claims 1 and 5 reference to U-shape preform(s) and insert therein reference to U-shape element(s) to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitations for purposes of examination.
The term “mostly” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mostly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “for at least one of the first and second U-shape elements each of the first and second branches comprises a first section that extends from the central part, a second section that extends from the first section as far as a free end of the first or second branch, and an inclined section connecting the first and second sections”. The limitation “at least one of” is unclear and confusing as the claim further requires both the first and second U-shape elements comprise the sections, i.e. “wherein the first sections of the first and second branches of the first and second U-shape elements are spaced by a first distance, the second sections of the first and second branches being spaced by a second distance greater than the first distance, and wherein the first sections of the first and second branches of the second U-shape element are positioned between the second sections of the first and second branches of the first U-shape element and connected to said second sections”. It is suggested to delete “at least one of” to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadsworth et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0113001) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0044430).
Regarding claim 1, Wadsworth discloses a method of obtaining a grid of blades of an aircraft thrust reversing device, the grid of blades including at least first and second longitudinal walls oriented in a longitudinal direction and blades positioned between the first and second longitudinal walls, connected to the latter and oriented in a transverse direction, the method comprising the steps of: producing U-shape elements (elements 30), one for each blade, each U-shape element including a central part (vane 32) corresponding to one of the blades, a first branch (flange 38) corresponding to at least a part of the first longitudinal wall and a second branch (flange 42) corresponding to at least a part of the second longitudinal wall, the central part and the first and second branches forming only one and the same part, and, assembling the U-shape elements/preforms by connecting the first branches of the various U-shape elements/preforms to one another in such a manner as to form the first longitudinal wall and connecting the second branches of the various U-shape elements/preforms to one another in such a manner as to form the second longitudinal wall, and wherein at least one U-shape element/preform has an interior face with no undercut (Figures 1A-1C and Paragraphs 0039-0046).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “wherein the step of producing U-shape preforms comprises, prior to a compression phase and for at least one U-shape preform, a draping phase during which layers of fibers are positioned on a first mold shaped like the interior face of the U-shape preform”, Wadsworth teaches each element/preform formed of thermoplastic composite shaped into a U-shape without expressly teaching the method of shaping. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of shaping thermoplastic composite into a shape such as a U-shape element/preform for an aircraft (any structural component such as for an engine nacelle) that prior to a compression phase is a draping phase during which layers of fibers (plurality of composite plies 104 comprising fiber-reinforced thermoplastic matrix) are positioned on a first mold (tool 200) shaped like the interior face of the U-shape element/preform to be formed including to form the element/preform and mitigate or avoid the occurrence of uncontrolled wrinkling as evidenced by Lee (Figures 4, 5, 13, 16, and 38-45 and Paragraphs 0062-0063, 0067, 0087-0089, 0101-0104, 0106, 0111, 0143, and 0150). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Wadsworth further comprise wherein the step of producing U-shape elements/preforms comprises, prior to a compression phase and for at least one U-shape element/preform, a draping phase during which layers of fibers are positioned on a first mold shaped like the interior face of the U-shape element/preform to conventionally and predictably produce the U-shape elements/preforms including (as reinforced and) to mitigate or avoid the occurrence of uncontrolled wrinkling as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Lee.
Regarding claim 5, during the producing step as taught by Wadsworth as modified by Lee the U- shape element/preform is compressed between the first mold (tool 200) and at least one matching mold (vacuum bag 224 and/or a caul plate (not shown see paragraph 0143)).
Regarding claim 7. during the draping phase taught by Wadsworth as modified by Lee, at least one layer of fibers (plurality of composite plies 104) is positioned in such a manner as to extend over the central part and at least over one of the first and second branches (see Figures 4, 5, 13, 16, and 38-45 of Lee).
Regarding claim 10, (for at least one of) the first and second U-shape elements taught by Wadsworth each of the first and second branches comprises a first section that extends from the central part, a second section that extends from the first section as far as a free end of the first or second branch, and an inclined section (curved section) connecting the first and second sections, wherein the first sections of the first and second branches of the first and second U-shape elements are spaced by a first distance, the second sections of the first and second branches being spaced by a second distance greater than the first distance, and wherein the first sections of the first and second branches of the second U-shape element are positioned between the second sections of the first and second branches of the first U-shape element and connected to the second sections (see Figure 1C).
Regarding claim 11, for at least one U-shape element taught by Wadsworth as modified by Lee the central part comprises a first part forming a body of a blade and a second part substantially perpendicular to the first part forming a flange of the blade (see Figures 1A-1C).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, for at least one U-shape element taught by Wadsworth as modified by Lee the central part comprises a first part (comprising a first ply of the plurality of composite plies 104) forming a body of a blade and a second part (comprising a second ply of the plurality of composite plies 104) substantially perpendicular to the first part forming a flange of the blade wherein the second part (second ply) extends over all the central part and at least partially along at least one of the first and second branches.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadsworth and Lee as applied to claims 1, 5, 7, and 10-12 above, and further in view of Shigenari et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0001630).
Regarding claims 2-4, Wadsworth as modified by Lee above further teach wherein each U-shape element is a U- shape preform made of a composite material, wherein the step of producing includes for at least one U-shape preform at least one compression phase and heating (Paragraphs 0105 and 0149 of Lee). Wadsworth does not expressly teach at least one curing or polymerization phase during which the U-shape preform is compressed and at least partially cured or polymerized. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of producing U-shape preform (formed of thermoplastic composite) the at least one compression phase further includes curing the heated U-shape preform by cooling on the mold to set the final shape as evidenced by Shigenari (Paragraphs 0087, 0094, 0109 and 0116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the step of producing including for at least one U-shape preform at least one compression phase and heating as taught by Wadsworth as modified by Lee further include at least one curing phase during which the U-shape preform is compressed and totally cured by cooling on the mold (i.e. wherein each U-shape preform is partially cured and then totally cured during the producing step which necessarily first comprises a phase of partial curing followed by a phase of final curing being carried out subsequently to first partial curing and no later than during the assembling step) to set the final shape as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Shigenari.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadsworth and Lee as applied to claims 1, 5, 7, and 10-12 above, and further in view of Rubin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0175572).
Regarding claim 6, Wadsworth as modified by Lee above teach all of the limitations in claim 6 except for a specific teaching of the orientation direction of the fibers in the layers of fibers. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the layers of fibers in a shaped element/preform (e.g. U-shape) are unidirectional or non-uniform and at 0 degrees, rotated 90 degrees, etc. of any directional orientation depending upon the particular application and to affect mechanical properties of the element/preform as evidenced by Rubin (Figures 16 and 21 and Paragraphs 0037, 0041, 0042, 0059, 0066, 0068, 0078, and 0079). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention during the draping phase as taught by Wadsworth as modified by Lee the layers of fibers are positioned in such a manner as to have fibers mostly oriented in the transverse direction at a level of the central part and fibers mostly oriented in the longitudinal direction at a level of each of the first and second branches (the claim limitations rejected in as much as they are currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) as it is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the layers of fibers are unidirectional and at 0 degrees or rotated 90 degrees (or of any directional orientation) depending upon the particular application and to affect mechanical properties of the element/preform as evidenced by Rubin.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadsworth and Lee as applied to claims 1, 5, 7, and 10-12 above, and further in view of Gerard (FR 2947869 and see also the machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Wadsworth as modified by Lee above teach all of the limitations in claim 8 and including wherein for each U-shape element the first and second branches are spaced by a distance apart that is substantially constant over a length of the first and second branches. Wadsworth as modified by Lee do not expressly teach wherein the distances apart separating the first and second branches of the various U-shape elements decrease from one end to the other of the grid of blades so as to be able to form the first and second longitudinal walls by respectively stacking the first and second branches of the various U-shape elements. Wadsworth obtains the grid of blades by stacking the first and second branches of the various U-shape elements without be limited to any particular manner for stacking the first and second branches of the various U-shape elements. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to stack by the distances apart separating the first and second branches of the various U-shape elements decrease from one end to the other of the grid of blades as evidenced by Gerard (Figures 3a and 3b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the distances apart separating the first and second branches of the various U-shape elements as taught by Wadsworth as modified by Lee decrease from one end to the other of the grid of blades so as to be able to form the first and second longitudinal walls by respectively stacking the first and second branches of the various U-shape elements as a simple substitution of one known manner of stacking for another to yield predictable results as evidenced by Gerard.
Regarding claim 9, the first and second branches of the various U-shape elements taught by Wadsworth as modified by Lee and Gerard have free ends provided with filler inserts (50) situated at a level of one end of the grid of blades (Figures 5A, 5B, and 10 and Paragraph 0045).
Claims 1-5, 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruckenberg (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0032663) in view of Lee and optionally further Wadsworth. Additionally, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruckenberg in view of Wadsworth and Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Kruckenberg discloses a method of obtaining a grid of blades of an aircraft thrust reversing device, the grid of blades including at least first and second longitudinal walls oriented in a longitudinal direction and blades positioned between the first and second longitudinal walls, connected to the latter and oriented in a transverse direction, the method comprising the steps of: producing U-shape elements (vanes 404, 406), one for each blade, each U-shape element including a central part (airfoil portion 408, 414) corresponding to one of the blades, a first branch (first longitudinal portions 410, 416) corresponding to at least a part of the first longitudinal wall and a second branch (second longitudinal portions 412, 418 wherein the portions extend at least one of forward or aft relative to the airfoil portion, paragraph 0047, and considered to teach wherein the portions extend only one of forward or aft relative to the airfoil portion and form U-shape elements or optionally for claim 1 and specifically for claim 10, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the elements/preforms taught by Kruckenberg are U-shape by the longitudinal portions extend only one of forward or aft relative to the airfoil portion and form a U-shape as is consistent with that taught by Kruckenberg and further as a conventional and predictable shape for each element/preform as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as expressly shown by Wadsworth, described above in full detail) corresponding to at least a part of the second longitudinal wall, the central part and the first and second branches forming only one and the same part, and, assembling the U-shape elements/preforms by connecting the first branches of the various U-shape elements/preforms to one another in such a manner as to form the first longitudinal wall and connecting the second branches of the various U-shape elements/preforms to one another in such a manner as to form the second longitudinal wall, and wherein at least one U-shape element/preform has an interior face with no undercut (Figure 5 and Paragraphs 0047-0049, 0052, 0055-0057, 0061, 0072, and 0073).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “wherein the step of producing U-shape preforms comprises, prior to a compression phase and for at least one U-shape preform, a draping phase during which layers of fibers are positioned on a first mold shaped like the interior face of the U-shape preform” and in claims 2-4, Kruckenberg teaches each element/preform formed of thermoset or thermoplastic fiber reinforced composite, such as prepreg, shaped into a U-shape and cured prior to assembling such as by compression molding without describing the molding (Paragraphs 0055-0057, 0061, 0068, 0072, and 0073). It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of shaping thermoset or thermoplastic composite, such as prepreg, into a shape such as a U-shape element/preform for an aircraft (any structural component such as for an engine nacelle) that prior to a compression phase is a draping phase during which layers of fibers (plurality of composite plies 104 comprising fiber-reinforced thermoset or thermoplastic matrix) are positioned on a first mold (tool 200) shaped like the interior face of the U-shape element/preform to be formed including to form the element/preform and mitigate or avoid the occurrence of uncontrolled wrinkling during the compression phase and curing during which the preform is compressed and cured as evidenced by Lee (Figures 4, 5, 13, 16, and 38-45 and Paragraphs 0062-0063, 0067, 0087-0089, 0101-0106, 0111, 0143, and 0150). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Kruckenberg as optionally modified by Wadsworth further comprise wherein the step of producing U-shape elements/preforms comprises, prior to a compression phase and for at least one U-shape element/preform, a draping phase during which layers of fibers are positioned on a first mold shaped like the interior face of the U-shape element/preform to conventionally and predictably produce the U-shape elements/preforms by compression molding including to mitigate or avoid the occurrence of uncontrolled wrinkling as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Lee and to further include the step of producing including for at least one U-shape preform at least one compression phase and at least one curing phase during which the U-shape preform is compressed and totally cured (i.e. wherein each U-shape preform is partially cured and then totally cured during the step of producing which necessarily first comprises a phase of partial curing followed by a phase of final curing being carried out subsequently to first partial curing and no later than during the assembling step) as further directed to by Kruckenberg and Lee wherein the preform is cured prior to the assembling step.
Regarding claim 5, during the producing step as taught by Kruckenberg as modified by Lee and optionally further Wadsworth the U-shape element/preform is compressed between the first mold (tool 200) and at least one matching mold (vacuum bag 224 and/or a caul plate (not shown see paragraph 0143)).
Regarding claim 7. during the draping phase taught by Kruckenberg as modified by Lee and optionally further Wadsworth, at least one layer of fibers (plurality of composite plies 104) is positioned in such a manner as to extend over the central part and at least over one of the first and second branches (see Figures 4, 5, 13, 16, and 38-45 of Lee).
Regarding claim 10, (for at least one of) the first and second U-shape elements taught by Kruckenberg as modified by Wadsworth and Lee each of the first and second branches comprises a first section that extends from the central part, a second section that extends from the first section as far as a free end of the first or second branch, and an inclined section (curved section) connecting the first and second sections, wherein the first sections of the first and second branches of the first and second U-shape elements are spaced by a first distance, the second sections of the first and second branches being spaced by a second distance greater than the first distance, and wherein the first sections of the first and second branches of the second U-shape element are positioned between the second sections of the first and second branches of the first U-shape element and connected to the second sections (see Figure 1C of Wadsworth).
Regarding claim 11, for at least one U-shape element taught by Kruckenberg as modified by Lee and optionally further Wadsworth the central part comprises a first part forming a body of a blade and a second part substantially perpendicular to the first part forming a flange of the blade (see Figure 5).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, for at least one U-shape element taught by Kruckenberg as modified by Lee and optionally further Wadsworth the central part comprises a first part (comprising a first ply of the plurality of composite plies 104) forming a body of a blade and a second part (comprising a second ply of the plurality of composite plies 104) substantially perpendicular to the first part forming a flange of the blade wherein the second part (second ply) extends over all the central part and at least partially along at least one of the first and second branches.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruckenberg and Lee and optionally further Wadsworth as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 11, and 12 above, and further in view of Rubin.
Regarding claim 6, Kruckenberg as modified by Lee and optionally further Wadsworth above teach all of the limitations in claim 6 except for a specific teaching of the orientation direction of the fibers in the layers of fibers. Rubin is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention during the draping phase as taught by Kruckenberg as modified by Lee and optionally further Wadsworth the layers of fibers are positioned in such a manner as to have fibers mostly oriented in the transverse direction at a level of the central part and fibers mostly oriented in the longitudinal direction at a level of each of the first and second branches (the claim limitations rejected in as much as they are currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) as it is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the layers of fibers are unidirectional and at 0 degrees or rotated 90 degrees (or of any directional orientation) depending upon the particular application and to affect mechanical properties of the element/preform as evidenced by Rubin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights