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
Claims 1-8, 12-19, and 21-26 are pending. Claims 9-13, and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 14-19 have been withdrawn. Claim 26 is newly added.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, the Applicant’s position is that Carlson et al. (US 3762835, hereinafter: “Carlson”) does not disclose the preformed sheet since Carlson discloses “the wire mesh 20 is an open, porous structure (not a solid sheet)” (Page 6 of the Applicant’s Remarks filed on 06/16/2026). The Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s position; however, respectfully disagrees. The current presentation of claim 1 does not disclose that the preformed sheet is closed and solid. Therefore, the sheet 20 of Carlson meets the requirements of the preformed sheet as claimed by the Applicant in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21, the Applicant’s position is that the preformed sheet (20) of Carlson “does not form in part a suction side surface and a pressure side surface, such that the wire mesh 20 is not exposed” (Page 7 of the Applicant’s Remarks filed on 06/16/2026). The Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s position; however, respectfully disagrees. The current presentation of claim 1 does not disclose that the preformed sheet is the outermost layer which forms part of a suction side surface and the suction side surface. The preformed sheet (20 wire mesh) of Carlson is a part of the layers which make up the suction side surface and the pressure side surface (Fig. 1-12 of Carlson).
Therefore, the sheet 20 of Carlson meets the requirements of the preformed sheet as claimed by the Applicant in Claim 21.
Regarding the new claim 26, the Applicant’s position is that Carlson discloses uniform deposition; thus, does not disclose the different thickness of deposition as claimed in Claim 26. The Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s position; however, respectfully disagrees. As shown in the annotated Figure 4 of Carlson below, the y-direction is indicated as a horizonal when facing the page and the x-direction is indicated as a vertical direction when facing the page. The thickness of the deposition (22) measured along the x-direction is different on the left side (first side of Y-axis) than the right side (second side of Y-axis). The non-uniform cross-sectional geometry as claimed in Claim 26 is defined not as a non-uniform cross-sectional geometry airfoil but non-uniform deposit thickness from left side to the right side along the Y-axis.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 8 under Carlson et al. (US 3762835, hereinafter: “Carlson”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Karlen et al. (US 20210054750, hereinafter: “Karlen”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 21-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carlson et al. (US 3762835, hereinafter: “Carlson”).
In reference to Claim 1
Carlson discloses:
An airfoil (10) for an aircraft engine (“composite rotor blade, according to the present invention, for use in the low pressure, axial flow compressor or fan of a turbofan engine,” Col. 5, ll. 18-21), the airfoil defining a chordwise direction (as shown in annotated Figure 12 of Carlson), the airfoil comprising: a blade body (airfoil body of 10); and a leading edge protector (22, 20) operably coupled to the blade body (“First there is a subsurface wire mesh layer 20 (FIGS. 4 and 5) which is wrapped around the leading edge of the blade,” Col. 6,ll. 6-8), the leading edge protector comprising: a preformed sheet (20, Fig. 4) defining a nose portion (as shown in annotated Figure 4 of Carlson) and two flange portions (as shown in annotated Figure 4 of Carlson), wherein the nose portion and the flange portions are arranged along the chordwise direction, the preformed sheet further defining a defined point (as shown in annotated Figure 4 of Carlson) located on the nose portion, wherein an X-axis and a Y- axis (as shown in annotated Figure 4 of Carlson) are defined relative to the defined point; and a deposit (22, Col. 9, ll. 56-65; Fig. 4-12) operably coupled with the nose portion of the preformed sheet and extending from the nose portion and along the flange portions on opposing sides of the defined point in the X-axis direction. (Col. 5, ll. 18-68; Col. 6, ll. 1-68; Col. 7, ll. 1-68; Col. 8, ll. 1-68; Fig. 1-14).
(Col. 6, ll. 3-16, Carlson) To provide greatest protection capabilities for such filament composite blades, the present foreign object damage protection system comprises several layers of wire mesh. First there is a subsurface wire mesh layer 20 (FIGS. 4 and 5) which is wrapped around the leading edge of the blade. The subsurface mesh layer extends a short distance marginally along the suction surface or side of the blade from the blade tip to a point adjacent of the blade hub. On the pressure surface or side of the blade, the wire mesh angles or curves from the leading edge, at the hub, toward the trailing edge at the tip of the blade as will be evident from FIG. 1 where the subsurface wire mesh is shown with a nickel cladding 22.
(Col. 7, ll. 65-68; Col. 8, ll. 1-7, Carlson) Finally, the mesh layer is clad with nickel by electroplating. The electroplating is selectively controlled to deposit the nickel to a nominal thickness of 0.025 inches at the leading edge tapering to a nominal thickness of 0.005 inches at the trailing edges of the mesh layer. The silver gives a continuous conductive path over the subsurface mesh layer so that there will be a uniform deposition of nickel during the plating operation and a resulting smooth surface of the nickel cladding with little or no stress concentrations.
PNG
media_image1.png
641
1283
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Figure 4 of Carlson.
In reference to Claim 2
Carlson discloses:
The airfoil of claim 1, wherein the deposit defines a first thickness in the Y- axis direction, a second thickness in a positive X-axis direction, and a third thickness in a negative X-axis direction (as shown in annotated Figure 4 of Carlson).
In reference to Claim 6
Carlson discloses:
The airfoil of claim 2, wherein the first thickness is different from the second thickness and the third thickness (as shown in annotated Figure 4 of Carlson).
In reference to Claim 21
Carlson discloses:
The airfoil of claim 1, wherein the preformed sheet (20) forms in part a suction surface and a pressure surface of the airfoil (Fig. 1-12) since the preform sheet (20) is part of the layers which make up the suction side and pressure side surfaces.
In reference to Claim 22
Carlson discloses:
The airfoil of claim 1, wherein the preformed sheet (20) is of a metallic material. (Col. 8, ll. 20-25, Carlson).
In reference to Claim 23
Carlson discloses:
The airfoil of claim 1, wherein the preformed sheet is one of a titanium alloy, or steel. (Col. 8, ll. 20-25, Carlson).
In reference to Claim 26
Carson discloses:
The airfoil of claim 1, wherein the deposit (22) has a non-uniform cross-sectional geometry at the defined point such that a thickness of the deposit in the X-axis direction (as annotated in Figure 4 of Carlson) is different on a first side of the Y-axis (1st thickness in Y-axis direction as annotated in Figure 4 of Carlson) than a second side of the Y-axis (2nd thickness in Y-axis as annotated in Figure 4 of Carlson).
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 21-23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okabe et al. (US 20190277142, hereinafter: “Okabe”).
In reference to Claim 1
Okabe discloses:
An airfoil (20b, 20c, 50c) for an aircraft engine, the airfoil defining a chordwise direction, the airfoil comprising:
a blade body (23b, 23c, 23); and
a leading edge protector (10c) operably coupled to the blade body, the leading edge protector comprising:
a preformed sheet (14c) defining a nose portion (at 12c) and two flange portions (15c), wherein the nose portion and the flange portions are arranged along the chordwise direction (Fig. 10-11), the preformed sheet further defining a defined point (tip point of nose portion) located on the nose portion, wherein an X-axis (vertical direction as viewed in Figure 10-11) and a Y- axis (horizontal direction as viewed in Figure 10-11) are defined relative to the defined point; and
a deposit (11c) operably coupled with the nose portion of the preformed sheet and extending from the nose portion and along the flange portions on opposing sides of the defined point in the X-axis direction [0070]. [0038-0078] (Fig. 1-12).
[0070, Carlson] At the metal layer forming step S12, it is also possible to form the metal layer 10c using a vacuum treatment such as deposition or sputtering. In such a case as well, it is preferable to form the super-hard metal layer 11c, the hard metal layer 14c, and the soft metal layer 16c, in the order listed herein, in the same manner as when the metal layer 10c is formed by metal plating.
In reference to Claim 2
Okabe discloses:
The airfoil of claim 1, wherein the deposit defines a first thickness in the Y- axis direction (thickness of 11c in horizontal direction as viewed in Figure 10-11), a second thickness in a positive X-axis direction (thickness of 11c in upper vertical direction as viewed in Figure 10-11), and a third thickness in a negative X-axis direction (thickness of 11c in lower vertical direction as viewed in Figure 10-11).
In reference to Claim 6
Okabe discloses:
The airfoil of claim 2, wherein the first thickness is different from the second thickness and the third thickness. (Fig. 10-11).
In reference to Claim 8
Okabe discloses:
The airfoil of claim 1, wherein the preformed sheet (14c) is a solid metallic sheet, and wherein the preformed sheet is comprised of at least one of aluminum alloy, titanium alloy, nickel alloy, or steel.
[0065, Okabe] At the metal layer forming step S12, for example, as illustrated in FIG. 8, a Ni alloy plating layer that is to serve as the hard metal layer 14c is formed by soaking the combined first female mold 41 and second female mold 42 into a Ni alloy plating bath, so that the combination is applied with Ni alloy plating.
In reference to Claim 21
Okabe discloses:
The airfoil of claim 1, wherein the preformed sheet (14c) forms in part a suction surface and a pressure surface of the airfoil. (Fig. 10-11).
In reference to Claim 22
Okabe discloses:
The airfoil of claim 1, wherein the preformed sheet is (14c) one of a metallic material, a ceramic material, or a ceramic-matrix-composite.
[0065, Okabe] At the metal layer forming step S12, for example, as illustrated in FIG. 8, a Ni alloy plating layer that is to serve as the hard metal layer 14c is formed by soaking the combined first female mold 41 and second female mold 42 into a Ni alloy plating bath, so that the combination is applied with Ni alloy plating.
In reference to Claim 23
Okabe discloses:
The airfoil of claim 1, wherein the preformed sheet (14c) is of a nickel alloy. [0065].
In reference to Claim 26
Okabe discloses:
The airfoil of claim 1, wherein the deposit (11c) has a non-uniform cross-sectional geometry at the defined point such that a thickness of the deposit in the X-axis direction (vertical direction as viewed in Figure 10-11) is different on a first side of the Y-axis (left side of the horizontal direction as viewed in Figure 10-11) than a second side of the Y-axis (right side of the horizontal direction as viewed in Figure 10-11).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (US 3762835, hereinafter: “Carlson”) in view of Niergarth et al. (US 20220282670, hereinafter: “Niergarth”).
In reference to Claim 7
Carlson discloses:
The airfoil of claim 1. Carlson discloses the airfoil is a fan blade of an aircraft engine (“composite rotor blade, according to the present invention, for use in the low pressure, axial flow compressor or fan of a turbofan engine,” Col. 5, ll. 18-21)
Carlson is silent on the fan blade being a fan blade of an unducted aircraft engine.
Niergarth teaches an unducted aircraft engine comprising a fan blade (152) [0035] (Fig. 1).
Based on the teaching of Carlson and Niergarth, 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 airfoil of Carlson to be utilized as a fan blade of an unducted aircraft engine as taught by Niergarth for the purpose of using the airfoil in a well-known environment.
Claims 3-5 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (US 3762835, hereinafter: “Carlson”) in view of Das et al. (US 20110129351, hereinafter: “Das”).
In reference to Claim 3
Carlson discloses:
The airfoil of claim 2. Carlson discloses the first thickness, the second thickness, and the third thickness are defined by varying thickness of deposition of nickel via electroplating relative to the defined point.
(Col. 7, ll. 65-68; Col. 8, ll. 1-7, Carlson) Finally, the mesh layer is clad with nickel by electroplating. The electroplating is selectively controlled to deposit the nickel to a nominal thickness of 0.025 inches at the leading edge tapering to a nominal thickness of 0.005 inches at the trailing edges of the mesh layer. The silver gives a continuous conductive path over the subsurface mesh layer so that there will be a uniform deposition of nickel during the plating operation and a resulting smooth surface of the nickel cladding with little or no stress concentrations.
Carlson is silent on the deposition of the first thickness, the second thickness, and the third thickness are defined by successive layers of a cold spray relative to the defined point.
Das teaches an airfoil having a leading edge protective strip made by the method of utilizing a cold spray deposition system to deposit the protective strip onto a leading edge of the composite airfoil (Abstract). In addition, Das teaches the thickness of the deposition layers can vary.
[0021, Das] Those skilled in the art will understand that the dimensions of the resulting deposit 50 can vary, however, in one embodiment, deposit 50 can have a thickness of from about 1.0 mm to about 2.0 mm, and in another embodiment about 1.3 mm. A plurality of layers of deposit 50 can be applied to build up MLE protective strip 28 to near net shape using motion control device 46 to control the placement and orientation of deposit stream 48. If needed, MLE protective strip 28 can be finished to final dimensions using conventional finishing techniques (e.g. machining).
Based on the teaching of Carlson and Das, 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 first thickness, the second thickness, and the third thickness of the deposit of Carlson by successive layers of a cold spray relative to the defined point as taught by Das for the purpose of using a well-known technique of depositing material onto the airfoil.
In reference to Claim 4
Carlson discloses:
The airfoil of claim 2. Carlson discloses the first thickness, the second thickness, and the third thickness are defined by varying thickness of deposition of nickel via electroplating relative to the defined point. (Col. 7, ll. 65-68; Col. 8, ll. 1-7, Carlson)
Carlson is silent on the deposit is formed from a plurality of layers of a cold spray.
Das teaches an airfoil having a leading edge protective strip made by the method of utilizing a cold spray deposition system to deposit the protective strip onto a leading edge of the composite airfoil (Abstract). Das teaches the deposit (50) is formed from a plurality of layers of a cold spray.[0021].
Based on the teaching of Carlson and Das, 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 first thickness, the second thickness, and the third thickness of the deposit of Carlson by successive layers of a cold spray relative to the defined point as taught by Das for the purpose of using a well-known technique of depositing material onto the airfoil.
In reference to Claim 5
Carlson as modified by Das discloses:
The airfoil of claim 4. Carlson as modified by Das teaches a first layer of the plurality of layers is positioned between a second layer of the plurality of layers and the preformed sheet.[0021-0022, Das].
[0021, Das] Those skilled in the art will understand that the dimensions of the resulting deposit 50 can vary, however, in one embodiment, deposit 50 can have a thickness of from about 1.0 mm to about 2.0 mm, and in another embodiment about 1.3 mm. A plurality of layers of deposit 50 can be applied to build up MLE protective strip 28 to near net shape using motion control device 46 to control the placement and orientation of deposit stream 48. If needed, MLE protective strip 28 can be finished to final dimensions using conventional finishing techniques (e.g. machining).
[0022, Das] The embodiments herein offer a variety of benefits over conventional MLE protective strip manufacturing technologies. More particularly, cold spray deposition allows the leading edge protective strip to be built up to near net shape, thereby reducing material input, material waste, and overall manufacturing time. Applying only the amount of material needed to complete the component conserves expensive raw materials, and material removal and finishing needs (e.g. machining) are drastically reduced. Additionally, because of the low temperature of operation, cold spray deposition will not degrade or alter the metallurgical properties of the MLE protective strip, or damage or burn the underlying composite substrate. Moreover, deposition of the MLE protective strip directly onto the composite airfoil can improve the bond therebetween when compared to adhesive methods currently practiced.
In reference to Claim 24
Carlson as modified by Das discloses:
The airfoil of claim 4. Das teaches the dimension of the deposit layers can vary [0021].
[0021, Das] Those skilled in the art will understand that the dimensions of the resulting deposit 50 can vary, however, in one embodiment, deposit 50 can have a thickness of from about 1.0 mm to about 2.0 mm, and in another embodiment about 1.3 mm. A plurality of layers of deposit 50 can be applied to build up MLE protective strip 28 to near net shape using motion control device 46 to control the placement and orientation of deposit stream 48. If needed, MLE protective strip 28 can be finished to final dimensions using conventional finishing techniques (e.g. machining).
Based on the teaching of Das, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify each layer of the plurality of layers to have a consistent thickness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In reference to Claim 25
Carlson as modified by Das discloses:
The airfoil of claim 4. Das teaches the dimension of the deposit layers can vary [0021].
Based on the teaching of Das, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify each layer of the plurality of layers to have a varied thickness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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 AYE SU MON HTAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-3:00pm 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, 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.
/AYE S HTAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights