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 § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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(s) 1-3 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulsen (US4110149 A).
Regarding claim 1, Poulsen discloses an apparatus for producing resin tubes (claim 2 lines30-33), the apparatus comprising: a hollow supporting structure (see figure 1, 21) around an outside of which an endless carrier strip (21) is windable in a plurality of adjacent windings to form a mould (mandrel) on which a resin material is applied to an outside (column 2 lines 30-35);
and return head (66) for supporting the carrier strip after leaving the supporting structure and for feeding the carrier strip into an interior of the supporting structure the return head comprising
a return head disk (36) extending perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the supporting structure (66 a and 66B):
brackets (70) fixed to the return head disk
cylinders (68) respectively fixed to the return head disk by the brackets; and variable-length elements respectively (figure 7 shows retracted while figure 6 shows extended so therefore the return desks are capable of variable length elements) comprising:
pistons (64) respectively configured to move in the cylinders in a radial direction with respect to an axis that extends through the interior of the supporting structure, each of the pistons being configured to move between a radial inner position and a radial outer positions (figure 8 depicts the radial arms 64a-c with variable lengths); and
rollers (72) respectively arranged on the pistons at respective radial outer ends of the pistons.
Regarding claim 2, Poulsen disclose wherein the variable-length elements comprises pressure elements (compression spring 98) for pressing the carrier strip radially outwards (rollers 72) .
Regrading claim 3, Poulsen discloses wherein the variable-length elements comprise length adjustable support rods (adjustable shaft 58 column 3 lines 58-60).
Regarding claim 7, Poulsen discloses wherein the variable-length elements vary between preselected maximum and minimum distances depending on the radial distance between a carrier strip and a longitudinal axis of the supporting structure (figure 8 depicts the radial arms 64a-c with variable lengths. Regarding the functional language (e.g., the variable-length elements vary between preselected maximum and minimum distances depending on the radial distance between a carrier strip and a longitudinal axis of the supporting structure), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 8, Poulsen disclose wherein the variable-length elements exert forces on the carrier strip against the resin material and maintain a tension and a position of the carrier strip (compression springs 104 creates a tension (column 3 lines 54-55). Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 9, Poulsen discloses wherein the variable-length elements comprises pneumatic, spring, hydraulic, magnetic and/or mechanical actuators (column 3 lines 54-55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9/19/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754