Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species II (FIG. 7-9) in the reply filed on 13 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and/or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 13 May 2026.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 13 May 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn by the Applicant.
Claims 1-14 are being considered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: NO 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cook et al (US 5392514), hereafter referred to as Cook.
Regarding Claim 1, Cook discloses the following:
An airfoil (10, FIG. 1-4) for a turbine engine, the airfoil (10, FIG. 1-4) comprising:
a composite core (the spar member 22 may be made of a high strength composite, having multiple layers of braided structural fiber, such as graphite, aramid, or fiberglass, Col. 4, lines 40-65; having the same construction as US 5,222,297, see Col. 4, lines 62-65) having a pressure sidewall (bottom of the 22, FIG. 2-4) and a suction sidewall (top of 22, FIG. 2-4) each extending between a core leading edge (left side of 20, FIG. 2 of US 5,222,297) and a core trailing edge (right side of 20, FIG. 2 of US 5,222,297); and
a leading edge protective wrap, comprising:
a trailing wrap (22) wrapped around (while Cook only shows the spar schematically, the details of the spar have been incorporated from US 5,222,297 which clearly shows the fiber wrap wrapping around at least the foam portion 20 of the core, as best seen in FIG. 2) the core leading edge (left side of 20, FIG. 2 of US 5,222,297) the core leading edge (left side of 20, FIG. 2 of US 5,222,297) and connected to the pressure sidewall (bottom of the 22, FIG. 2-4) and the suction sidewall (top of 22, FIG. 2-4) of the composite core (the spar member 22 may be made of a high strength composite, having multiple layers of braided structural fiber, such as graphite, aramid, or fiberglass, Col. 4, lines 40-65; having the same construction as US 5,222,297, see Col. 4, lines 62-65), the trailing wrap (22) having a pressure sidewall (bottom of the 22, FIG. 2-4) and a suction sidewall (top of 22, FIG. 2-4);
a leading wrap (continuous portion of 42; FIG. 4) having a pressure sidewall (bottom of the 42, FIG. 4) and a suction sidewall (top of 42, FIG. 4); and
a nose laminate (individual fabric plies 42; FIG. 4; Col. 4, lines 15-25, Col. 5, lines 0-15) disposed between the trailing wrap (22) and the leading wrap (continuous portion of 42; FIG. 4);
wherein the pressure sidewall (bottom of the 22, FIG. 2-4) of the leading wrap (continuous portion of 42; FIG. 4) is connected at least in part to the pressure sidewall (bottom of the 22, FIG. 2-4) of the trailing wrap (22) and at least in part to the nose laminate (individual fabric plies 42; FIG. 4; Col. 4, lines 15-25, Col. 5, lines 0-15),
wherein the suction sidewall (top of 22, FIG. 2-4) of the leading wrap (continuous portion of 42; FIG. 4) is connected at least in part to the suction sidewall (top of 22, FIG. 2-4) of the trailing wrap (22) and at least in part to the nose laminate (individual fabric plies 42; FIG. 4; Col. 4, lines 15-25, Col. 5, lines 0-15).
Regarding Claim 2, Cook discloses the following:
The airfoil (10, FIG. 1-4) of claim 1, further comprising:
a filler (resin that impregnates the fabric layers; see for example Col. 3, lines 30-35) positioned between at least one of:
the nose laminate (individual fabric plies 42; FIG. 4; Col. 4, lines 15-25, Col. 5, lines 0-15) and the pressure sidewall (bottom of the 42, FIG. 2-4) of the leading wrap (continuous portion of 42; FIG. 4), and
the nose laminate (individual fabric plies 42; FIG. 4; Col. 4, lines 15-25, Col. 5, lines 0-15) and the suction sidewall (top of 42, FIG. 2-4) of the leading wrap (continuous portion of 42; FIG. 4)(as seen in FIG. 4, the filler 26 is both between the nose laminate and the pressure and suction sides of the leading wrap).
Regarding Claim 4, Cook discloses the following:
The airfoil (10, FIG. 1-4) of claim 1,
wherein the leading wrap (continuous portion of 42; FIG. 4) has a leading edge, the trailing wrap (22) has a leading edge, and the leading edge of the leading wrap (continuous portion of 42; FIG. 4) is spaced from the leading edge of the trailing wrap (22).
Regarding Claim 5, Cook discloses the following:
The airfoil (10, FIG. 1-4) of claim 4,
wherein the leading edge of the leading wrap (continuous portion of 42; FIG. 4) is positioned upstream of the leading edge of the trailing wrap (22).
Regarding Claim 6, Cook discloses the following:
The airfoil (10, FIG. 1-4) of claim 4,
wherein the nose laminate (individual fabric plies 42; FIG. 4; Col. 4, lines 15-25, Col. 5, lines 0-15) is disposed between the leading edge of the leading wrap (continuous portion of 42; FIG. 4) and the leading edge of the trailing wrap (22).
Regarding Claim 7, Cook discloses the following:
The airfoil (10, FIG. 1-4) of claim 6,
wherein the nose laminate (individual fabric plies 42; FIG. 4; Col. 4, lines 15-25, Col. 5, lines 0-15) includes a first ply and a second ply, wherein the pressure sidewall (bottom of the 42, FIG. 2-4) of the leading wrap (continuous portion of 42; FIG. 4) is disposed on the first ply and the suction sidewall (top of 42, FIG. 2-4) of the leading wrap (continuous portion of 42; FIG. 4) is disposed on the second ply (the individual plies are disposed on both the pressure and suction sides of the leading wrap).
Regarding Claim 9, Cook discloses the following:
The airfoil (10, FIG. 1-4) of claim 1,
wherein the nose laminate (individual fabric plies 42; FIG. 4; Col. 4, lines 15-25, Col. 5, lines 0-15) is disposed between the pressure sidewall (bottom of the 42, FIG. 2-4) of the leading wrap (continuous portion of 42; FIG. 4) and the suction sidewall (top of 42, FIG. 2-4) of the leading wrap (continuous portion of 42; FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Cook discloses the following:
The airfoil (10, FIG. 1-4) of claim 1,
wherein the nose laminate (individual fabric plies 42; FIG. 4; Col. 4, lines 15-25, Col. 5, lines 0-15) forms at least a part of a leading edge radius of the airfoil (10, FIG. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 13, Cook discloses the following:
The airfoil (10, FIG. 1-4) of claim 1,
further comprising filler (resin that impregnates the fabric layers; see for example Col. 3, lines 30-35) disposed between the leading wrap (continuous portion of 42; FIG. 4), the trailing wrap (22), and the nose laminate (individual fabric plies 42; FIG. 4; Col. 4, lines 15-25, Col. 5, lines 0-15).
Regarding Claim 14, Cook discloses the following:
The airfoil (10, FIG. 1-4) of claim 13,
wherein the filler (resin that impregnates the fabric layers; see for example Col. 3, lines 30-35) is formed of at least one of a resin, an adhesive, composite tows, a 2D weave, a 3D weave, rolled fibers, and a preform.
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.
Claims 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al (US 5392514), hereafter referred to as Cook.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Cook discloses the following:
The airfoil (10, FIG. 1-4) of claim 1,
wherein the nose laminate (individual fabric plies 42; FIG. 4; Col. 4, lines 15-25, Col. 5, lines 0-15) has at least two plies, (claim 3);
Cook does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein at least one ply of the at least two plies of the nose laminate and the trailing wrap have the same thickness (claim 3); wherein the pressure sidewall of the trailing wrap is thicker than the pressure sidewall of the leading wrap (claim 12);
However the Examiner notes the following:
Cook discloses an airfoil having a nose laminate comprising at least 2 plies, a leading wrap, and a trailing wrap. In other words, Cook discloses the same claimed structure(s) as the Instant Application, except the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of: wherein at least one ply of the at least two plies of the nose laminate and the trailing wrap have the same thickness (claim 3); wherein the pressure sidewall of the trailing wrap is thicker than the pressure sidewall of the leading wrap (claim 12); provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as composite airfoil could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result, it appears Cook would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thicknesses of the leading wrap, trailing wrap, and nose laminate plies, as disclosed by Cook, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully specifically selecting specific ply thicknesses. (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Cook as modified teaches in the following:
wherein at least one ply of the at least two plies of the nose laminate (individual fabric plies 42; FIG. 4; Col. 4, lines 15-25, Col. 5, lines 0-15) and the trailing wrap (22) have the same thickness (claim 3); wherein the pressure sidewall (bottom of the 22, FIG. 2-4) of the trailing wrap (22) is thicker than the pressure sidewall (bottom of the 22, FIG. 2-4) of the leading wrap (continuous portion of 42; FIG. 4) (claim 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 11 would appear to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In combination with the other structures required by the independent claims, the inclusion of:
Regarding Claim 8:
wherein the nose laminate forms a butt joint with the leading edge of the trailing wrap;
Regarding Claim 10:
wherein the leading edge radius is formed in part by the nose laminate and in part by the leading wrap, wherein the pressure sidewall of the leading wrap and the suction sidewall of the leading wrap are not contiguous at the leading edge radius of the airfoil;
was not found or fairly taught by prior art and differentiated the claims from the closest prior art to Cook et al (US 5392514) or Graff et al (US 5222297).
The Examiner notes Cook is considered the closest prior art and does not teach the limitations as described above. Further, it appears there would be no reason to modify the prior art without the benefit of Applicant's disclosure and impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar airfoil arrangements see Pages 1-8.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights