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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of response was received on 12/23/2025. Presently claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending. Claims 4-6, 10, and 12-14 are withdrawn. Claim 18 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the double patenting rejection for claim 19, a new double patenting rejection is issued herewith to correct a typographical error with respect to the previous double patenting rejection. Claim 19 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20, respectively, of U.S. Patent 12,410,716, see rejection below for further details.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claim 1 are persuasive. However, in light of Applicant’s amendments, a new 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection is made (see rejection below).
Since Applicant’s amendment did not necessitate a new grounds of rejection with respect to the double patenting rejection, a second non-final action is issued herewith.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20, respectively, of U.S. Patent 12,410,716.
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The present application (19/269134) claims are broader in at least one aspect and do not recite additional features claimed in the patented claim.
For claim 19:
Regarding the broadening aspect of the present application claims, the following comparison between the present application claims and the patented application claim highlights (see underlined features in the patented application claim) what elements have been excluded in the presentation of the present application claims.
U.S. Patent (12,410,716) claim 20
Present application (19/269,134) claim 19
An engine component for a turbine engine, the engine component comprising:
a composite structure having a composite structure outer wall, a composite structure edge, and a channel provided along the composite structure edge, the composite structure having a centerline extending from the composite structure edge; and
a cover structure encasing at least a portion of the composite structure outer wall, the cover structure including a main body and an extension, the main body extending along at least a portion of the composite structure outer wall, the extension received within the channel;
wherein:
the main body terminates at a main body distal end that is spaced a first centerline length axially aft from the composite structure edge, with respect to the centerline; and
the extension terminates at an extension distal end that is spaced a second centerline length axially aft from the composite structure edge, with respect to the centerline, the second centerline length being less than or equal to the first centerline length.
An engine component for a turbine engine, the engine component comprising:
a composite structure having a composite structure outer wall, a composite structure edge, and a channel provided along the composite structure edge, the composite structure having a centerline extending from the composite structure edge; and
a cover structure encasing at least a portion of the composite structure outer wall, the cover structure including a main body and an extension, the main body extending along at least a portion of the composite structure outer wall, the extension received within the channel;
wherein:
the main body terminates at a main body distal end that is spaced a first centerline length axially from the composite structure edge, with respect to the centerline; and
the extension terminates at an extension distal end that is spaced a second centerline length axially from the composite structure edge, with respect to the centerline, the second centerline length being less than or equal to the first centerline length.
Thus, it is apparent, for the broadening aspect, that the patented claim 20 includes features that are not in present application claim 19. Following the rationale in re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent of an application containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since the present application claim 19 is anticipated by the patented claim 20, with respect to the broadening aspect, then present application claim 19 is obvious over patented claim 20 with respect to the broadening aspect.
Further, with regard to dependent claim 20 of the present application, the claimed subject matter is found in patented claim 20.
Claim 21 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20, respectively, of U.S. Patent 12,410,716 in view of Wang et al. (CN115405564 with citations from translation cited in PTO-892 as NPL).
With respect to the additional features recited in present application claim 21, patented claim 20 fails to recite the limitation wherein the engine component is one of an airfoil or a fan casing. However, Wang et al. teaches of composite fan blades (i.e., an airfoil, [0004]), as discussed in the rejection for claim 1 below. Therein, the combination of the subject matter recited in the patented claim 20 and Wang et al. render claim 21 unpatentable under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN115405564 with citations from translation cited in PTO-892 as NPL).
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al. discloses an engine component for a turbine engine ([0001]), the engine component comprising:
a composite structure (composite fan blade, [0004]) having a composite structure outer wall (i.e., outer wall 16 or 17 as exemplarily shown in Fig. 2), a composite structure edge (i.e., edge 211 exemplarily shown in Fig. 2 and in Fig. 4), and a channel (i.e., channel, which is occupied by extension 22 exemplarily shown in Fig. 2) provided along the composite structure edge (i.e., in the embodiment shown in Fig. 4, the extension 22 extends from the edge 211 and therein, the material or edge of the composite structure forming the channel (not shown in Fig. 4) would be provided along the edge 211 such that the channel encloses extension 22), the composite structure having a centerline extending from the composite structure edge (i.e., centerline “B” extends from the continuous edge 211 as exemplarily shown in Fig. 2); and
a cover structure (26) encasing at least a portion of the composite structure outer wall (i.e., when assembled, the cover 26 encases the portion of the outer wall composite residing in the region 21 shown in Fig. 4), the cover structure including a main body (i.e., main body of cover 212) and an extension (22), the main body extending along the at least a portion of the composite structure outer wall (i.e., main body of 212 would extend along a portion of the composite structure outer wall residing in region 21 shown in Fig. 4) that is axially spaced from the composite structure edge (as shown in Fig. 4, the outer wall located on the inner side of 212 in region 21 is axially spaced to the right of the edge 211), with respect to the centerline B, the extension (22) received within the channel (i.e., the extension 22 in Fig. 4 would be located in the channel within the composite structure analogous to Fig. 2),
wherein at least a portion of the composite structure is located radially between the extension and a respective portion of the main body with respect to the centerline (as shown in Fig. 4, the portion of the composite structure residing in region 21 is radially located between the extension 22 and a portion of the main body 212 with respect to the centerline B).
Regarding claim 2, Wang et al. discloses wherein the main body (i.e., main body of cover 212) extends along at least a portion of the composite structure outer wall (i.e., outer wall extending along inner surface of 212 within region 21) that is axially spaced aft of the composite structure edge (as shown in Fig. 4, the portion of the main body of the cover 212 extends aft (i.e., to the right) of the composite structure edge (i.e., location of 211)).
Regarding claim 3, Wang et al. discloses wherein the main body (i.e., main body of cover 212) extends along at least a portion of the composite structure outer wall (i.e., outer wall extending along inner surface of 25 of the main body 212) that is axially spaced forward of the composite structure edge (as shown in Fig. 4, the portion of the main body of the cover (portion 25) extends forward (i.e., to the left) of the composite structure edge (i.e., location of 211)).
Regarding claim 15, Wang et al. discloses wherein the extension (22) includes a rectangular shape when viewed along a plane locally perpendicular to the composite structure edge and intersecting the extension (i.e., rectangular shape shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Wang et al. discloses wherein the cover structure (26) includes at least one of a metallic material or a plastic material (metal part includes titanium alloy, [0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein the engine component is an airfoil assembly having an airfoil portion extending between a root and a tip, and a midspan shroud extending from the airfoil assembly, the midspan shroud being the composite structure.
Claims 8-9 are allowable, as they are dependent on claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, Wang et al. discloses wherein the main body (212) extends a first centerline length axially with respect to the centerline (i.e., first axial length shown in Fig. 4); and the extension (22) extends a second centerline length axially with respect to the centerline (axial length of extension 22 shown in Fig. 4), but Wang et al. fails to disclose or suggest wherein the second centerline length being greater than or equal to 10% and less than or equal to 100% of the first centerline length. The second centerline length in Wang et al. is greater than the first centerline length.
Claim 17 is allowed, as indicated in the prior office action.
Claim 19 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein the main body terminates at a main body distal end that is spaced a first centerline length axially aft from the composite structure edge, with respect to the centerline; and the extension terminates at an extension distal end that is spaced a second centerline length axially aft from the composite structure edge, with respect to the centerline, the second centerline length being less than or equal to the first centerline length.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 5:00 pm EST alternating Fridays off.
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, COURTNEY HEINLE can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 01/13/2026