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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “performing a first heat treatment to partially polymerize only the flange component”. The originally filed specification does not support such. The specification discloses a first heat treatment for partially polymerizing a flange component. The specification does not, however, support excluding the additional portions of composite extension member, the flange sector or the composite tubular body from partially polymerizing during the first heat treatment.
Claim 1 recites “the composite extension member integrally bonded to the composite tubular body through the at least one first wall and the second wall”. No portion of the originally filed specification supports “integrally bonded”. There is no disclosure that bonding even occurs in the assembling step.
Claim 1 recites “so as to obtain the composite tubular part with the composite extension member permanently bonded to the composite tubular body”. The originally filed specification does not support the term “permanently bonded”. Para 19 (see applicant’s Publication) discloses “a good bonding interface once the assembly has fully polymerized”. This is does not equate to support for “permanently bonded”.
Claim 7 recites at “the step of forming the flange component, several flange components are formed”. The specification does not support one composite extension member having multiple flange components. Similarly, the limitations in claims 8-9 that require more than one flange component per one extension member are not supported.
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.
In claim 1, is the first wall recited in “a corresponding first wall” inclusive of the previously claimed first wall.
Claim 1 recites “integrally bonded”. It’s unclear what constitutes an “integral bond” rather than a “non-integral” bond. The specification does not provide objective criteria for determining this difference.
Claim 1 recites “permanently bonded”. It’s unclear what constitutes “permanently bonded” as the specification does not define such. What peel strength delineates “permanently bonded” from non-permanently bonded.
Claim 1 recites “to polymerize jointly the composite tubular body portion”. It’s not clear if this polymerization step is associated with the previously recited polymerization step.
In claim 1, is the “by co-polymerization” step associated with either of the two previously recited polymerization steps?
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.
In claim 3, the limitation “each first wall and/or second wall” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 5, the limitation “at least one flange component” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites “the step of forming the flange component, several flange components are formed”. It’s not clear how multiple flange components are included in a single composite extension member. 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 components does “a first flange component” refer?
Respectfully, the limitations recited in claims 8 and 9 are entirely unclear. In claim 8, the limitation “a second flange component” is unclear because it’s not clear how multiple flange components are included in a single composite extension member. The limitation “the step of assembling the flange components” lacks antecedent basis. There is no previous step of assembling flange components. It’s unclear to which of the previously recited first circumferential ends the limitation “first circumferential end” refers. It’s entirely unclear to which previously recited annular flange sector the limitation “the annular flange sector” refers?
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.
Claim 8 recites “variation in thickness”. Is this variation associated with “variable thickness” recited claim 7?
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 several 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 several flange components” refers. It’s not clear how multiple flange components are included in a single composite extension member. Additionally, is the “variable thickness” associated with the variable thickness previously recited?
In claim 9, the limitation “the second flange component” lacks antecedent basis.
Are the limitations “a first end” and “a second end” referring to ends other than the previously recited circumferential ends?
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 indefiniteness rejections associated with claims 1 and 7 as detailed above, precludes the examiner from understanding the limitations of claims 8-9. Examination of claims 8-9 on the merits remains precluded.
The claim 10 limitation reciting “each second wall” and “each corresponding first wall” lack proper antecedent basis.
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 method for manufacturing an aerospace and/or aeronautical composite tubular part, the composite tubular part (fig 2a-b) comprising one composite tubular body 1 and one composite extension member including a flange component (3,4), the method comprising the following steps: providing the composite tubular body 1 being made of a first thermosetting material (para 7, 23) and comprising at least one first wall, forming the flange component (3 or 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 one second wall (fig 3a, show flange component with a wall that can read on second wall – also see discussion of forming components 3 or 4, para 19-29) shaped complementary to the at least one first wall and at least one flange sector (3b/4a, figs 2-3), extending from the second wall at a non-collinear angle relative to the second wall (angle is present, figs 2a-3a, para 19-29), performing a first heat treatment to partially polymerize only (para 26, components 3 and/or 4 individually/separately partially cured); the flange component so that the flange component is self-supporting while remaining bondable (para 26-27), assembling the flange component onto the composite tubular body such that he second wall is placed in surface contact with a corresponding first wall (para 19-29), thereby forming a composite assembly defining (i) the composite tubular body and {ii) the composite extension member (3c and/or 4c) integrally bonded to the composite tubular body through the at least one first wall and the second wall (figs, 2a-3a, para 19-29), performing a second heat treatment of the composite assembly so as to polymerize jointly the composite tubular body and the flange component (para 28) so as to obtain the composite tubular part with the composite extension member permanently bonded to the composite tubular body by co-polymerization of the first thermosetting material and the at least one second thermosetting material (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 has 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 at least one of the first thermosetting material and of the at least one 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 at least 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 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 wherein at the step of forming the 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 several flange components each comprising a central portion of the annular flange sector and at least one first circumferential end of the annular flange sector, wherein at the step of forming at the flange component, a 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 onto the tubular body is carried out in such a way that each second wall is in contact with each first corresponding wall at a 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s asserts “it is understood by applicant that claims 8 and 9 are allowable if the 35 USC 112 rejections are overcome and the claims are rewritten into independent form including all of the features of independent claim 1 and any intervening claim(s).” This is not correct. Any amendments to claims 8-9 require further consideration and search by the examiner. See para 32 of the Non-Final Rejection (NF) and the rejection of claims 8-9 above.
Applicant asserts Tamura does not disclose a flange extension member structurally integrated with the tubular body. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of claims as the claims do not expressly require such. Nonetheless, Tamura discloses the amended limitations as detailed in the body of the rejection above. Tamura clearly teaches the component extension member of which flanges 3,4 are part of. Applicant asserts Tamura does not teach partial curing of the flange components. This is not correct, as para 26 clearly discloses partial curing of 3, 4. Para 27 clearly discloses assembly, and para 28 discloses the second heat treatment. Fig 3a, and the specifically, the magnified portion of fig 3a, clearly shows the first and second wall as complementary.
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 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