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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, in the reply filed on 7/10/25 is acknowledged. Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-11 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.
Throughout the claims, the applicant repeatedly alternates between singular and plural terms when identifying portions of the composite part. This creates multiple antecedent basis and indefiniteness issues. Some examples are as follows:
In claim 1 –
“at least one flange component”; “the flange component” and “flange component or components”
“at least one composite tubular body portions” and “the portion of portions of the tubular body”
“at least one first wall”; “the first wall” and “the first and second walls”.
Further issues are identified below. The applicant fails to make a one-to-one association between the claimed parts. The applicant MUST use consistent language when identifying the same components throughout the claims.
Claim 1 recites “the flange component comprising a second wall”. It’s not clear if “the flange component” is associated with the previously recited “at least one flange component”.
Claim 1 recites “ complementary to the first wall”. It’s not clear if “the first wall” is associated with the previously recited “at least one first wall”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flange component or components" in multiple locations. It’s not clear if “the flange component or components” are associated with the previously recited “at least one flange component” or “the flange component” (see above).
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the portion or portions of tubular body such that each second wall is in contact with each corresponding first wall". The limitation “the portion or portions of the tubular body lacks proper antecedent basis. The limitation “each second wall” lacks antecedent basis because the claim previously recites only one second wall. The limitation “each corresponding first wall” is indefinite it’s not clear if “each corresponding first wall” are associated with the previously recited “at least one first wall” or “the first wall”. It’s not clear what constitutes the “corresponding” first wall.
Claim 1 recites “the composite tubular body”. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the flange having the second wall”. The limitation “the flange” appears to lack to lack antecedent basis. Is “the flange” associated with the previously recited at least one flange component, or the at least one flange sector”? Does “the second wall” refer to the previously recited “second wall” or “each second wall”?
Claim 1 recites “to polymerize both the at least one tubular body portion”. This limitation appears to lack proper antecedent basis. It is intended to refer to the previously recited “at least one composite tubular body portion” or “the composite tubular body”?
Claim 1 recites “obtained with a composite tubular body in the first thermosetting material and a composite extension member in the second thermosetting material assembled to the tubular body by the first and second walls.” It’s entirely unclear if “a composite tubular body” refers to a previously recited tubular body or a different tubular body. The limitation “a composite extension member” does not properly refer back to the previously recited composite extension member. It’s entirely unclear to which of the previously recited tubular bodies “the tubular body” refers. Finally, it’s not clear to which, if any, of the previously recited first walls and second walls “the first and second walls” refer.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the flange component or components". It’s not clear if “the flange component or components” are associated with the previously recited “at least one flange component” or “the flange component” (see above).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The examiner will interpret the limitations following the phrase as not required by the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The examiner will interpret the limitations following the phrase as not required by the claim.
Claim 5 recites “a thermosetting resin” in multiple locations. It’s not clear if the recited thermosetting resin is the same or different than the previously recited thermosetting resin.
Does the claim 5 limitation “a fibrous reinforcement” refer to the previously recited fibrous reinforcement?
In claim 7, it’s entirely unclear to which, if any, of the previously recited flange components “at least one flange component” refers.
Claim 7 recites “several flange components are formed each forming an annular flange sector, the flange components each comprising a central portion of the flange sector”. It’s not clear if the “several flange components” are associated with the previously recites “at least one flange component” or the “flange component or components”. Furthermore, it’s not clear if the “annular flange sector” is associated with the previously recited “at least one flange sector”. To which of the previously recited flange sectors does “the flange sector” refer?
Claim 7 recites “the step of forming at least one flange component”. To which of the previously recited flange components or components does “at least one flange component” refer?
Respectfully, the limitations recited in claims 8 and 9 are entirely unclear. In claim 8, the limitation “at least one flange component” is unclear for the reasons detailed above. The limitation “the step of assembling the flange components” lacks antecedent basis. The recited “thickness” and “central portion” limitations in claim 8 do not distinguish between the thicknesses and central portions of the first and second flange components.
It is entirely unclear to which of the previous recited flange sectors “the flange sector” refers.
Claim 8 recites “a variation in thickness”. Is this variation associated with “variable thickness” recited claim 7?
In claim 8, the limitation “the first end” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 recites “on assembly of the flange components”. Does assembly” refer to the previously recited assembly step. To which of the previously recited flange components does “the flange components” refer?
The claim 8 limitation reciting “together having a substantially constant thickness” is entirely unclear. How can the flange components have a substantially constant thickness if both the first and second flange components, as previously required by the claims, have a variable thickness?
Claim 9 recites “each of the flange components has a variable thickness from the central portion towards the first circumferential end and from the central portion towards a second circumferential end of the flange sector that is an opposite end to the first circumferential end”. Respectfully, this limitation is entirely unclear. It’s not clear to which of the previously recited flange components “each of the flange components” refers. Additionally, is the “variable thickness” associated with the variable thickness previously recited? The limitation “the flange sector” appears to require “a second circumferential end”. Are the circumferential ends associated with the flange components or the flange sectors?
Claim 9 recites “ for a first flange component and a second flange component”. It’s entirely unclear to which of the previously recited, if any, flange components the recited first and second flange components are associated.
The claim 9 limitations “the first end” and “the second end” lack antecedent basis.
It’s unclear if “a thickness variation” refers to the same thickness variation previously recited.
The claim 9 limitation reciting “together having a substantially constant thickness” is entirely unclear. How can the flange components have a substantially constant thickness if both the first and second flange components, as previously required by the claims, have a variable thickness?
The forgoing unclear language, combined with the applicant’s inconsistent and contradictory use of terms detailed above, precludes the examiner from understanding the limitations of claims 8-9. Examination of claims 8-9 on the merits is thus precluded.
Claim 10 recites “component or components” and “portion or portions”. These limitations are indefinite for the reasons extensively detailed above.
The claim 10 limitation reciting “each second wall” and “each corresponding first wall” are indefinite for the reasons extensively detailed above.
The claim 10 limitation reciting “the location” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 10, the limitation “ a portion” does not properly refer back to the previously recited portion.
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.
(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) 1-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamura (JP 2000-0157710, of record, see attached machine translation for text citations).
As to claim 1, Tamura discloses a method for manufacturing an aerospace and/or aeronautical composite tubular part, the composite tubular part (fig 2a-b) comprising a tubular body 1 and at least one flange (3,4), the method comprising the following steps: providing at least one composite tubular body portion (portion of 1) formed from a first thermosetting material (para 7, 23) and comprising at least one first wall (figs 2a-3a show portion has a wall), forming at least one flange component (3, 4) formed from at least one second thermosetting material (para 7, 23), identical or distinct from the first thermosetting material (para 7, 23), the flange component comprising a second wall (fig 3a, show flange component with a wall that can read on second wall – also see discussion of forming components 3, 4, para 19-29) and at least one flange sector (3b, 4a, figs 2-3), the second wall having a shape complementary to the first wall and the at least one flange sector extending from the second wall and forming an angle (α, α′) with the second wall (angle is present, figs 2a-3a, para 19-29), performing a first heat treatment to partially polymerize the flange component or components (para 26), assembling the flange component or components in contact with the portion or portions of tubular body such that each second wall is in contact with each corresponding first wall, whereby a composite assembly is formed defining the composite tubular body and a composite extension member (3c, 4c) of the composite tubular part (figs, 2a-3a, para 19-29), the composite extension member comprising the flange and having the second wall (para 19-29 figs 2a-3a), performing a second heat treatment of the composite assembly so as to polymerize both the at least one tubular body portion and the flange component or components (para 28), whereby the composite tubular part is obtained with a composite tubular body in the first thermosetting material and a composite extension member in the second thermosetting material assembled to the tubular body by the first and second walls (figs 2a-3a, para 6-17, 19-29).
As to claim 2, Tamura discloses the method wherein at the step of first heat treatment, the first heat treatment is configured such that the flange component or components have a degree of polymerization, measured by differential scanning calorimetry, comprised between 10 and 75% *(para 26).
As to claim 3, Tamura discloses the method wherein between the step of performing first heat treatment and the assembling step, the following step: applying an adhesive film to each first wall and/or second wall at a contact surface between the first wall and the second wall (para 27, assembling members - prepreg layer of 3, 4, closest to 1 reads on adhesive film).
As to claim 4, Tamura discloses wherein at least one of the first and of the second thermosetting material is a material comprising a fibrous reinforcement impregnated with a thermosetting resin (para 7, 23).
As to claim 5-6, Tamura discloses the method wherein the second thermosetting material is a material comprising a fibrous reinforcement impregnated with a thermosetting resin, and wherein the step of forming the at least one flange component comprises the sub-steps of putting into form a fibrous reinforcement, this fibrous reinforcement being either pre-impregnated with a thermosetting resin, or impregnated by a thermosetting resin after it is put into form, the second thermosetting material being the fibrous reinforcement impregnated with the thermosetting resin, wherein the second thermosetting material is identical to the first (para 7, 19-29).
As to claim 7, Tamura discloses the method wherein at the step of forming at least one flange component, several flange components are formed each forming an annular flange sector (see figs 2a-3a, flange components 3,4, also components are separated by extension 2), the flange components each comprising a central portion of the flange sector and at least one first circumferential end of the flange sector, wherein at the step of forming at least one flange component, at least one first flange component has a variable thickness from the central portion towards the first circumferential end (para 19-27, figs 2a-3a; specifically, fig 3a shows the variation in thickness of components 3, 4).
As to claim 10, Tamura discloses wherein at the step of assembling the flange component or components in contact with the portion or portions of tubular body is carried out in such a way that each second wall is in contact with each first corresponding wall at the location of a portion of the tubular body (para 19-27, figs 2a-3b)
.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boury et al. (US 2016/0221236).
Tamura does not disclose the composite tubular part is a sleeve of a launch vehicle or a satellite dispenser sleeve. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Tamura such that the composite tubular body part is a sleeve of a launch vehicle as taught by Boury (para 27) as such is a known use of composite tubes, and has a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights