DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 10/7/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 12 and 16 has been amended. Claims 4-5, 9-10, 13-14 and 17-20 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-12, 15-16 and 21 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim objections set forth in the office action of 7/11/2025. Therefore, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, filed 6/5/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant argues that LUPKE teaches the first pressure and second pressure are adjusted in the same space. The Examiner agrees that LUPKE teaches the first pressure and the second pressure are adjusted in the same space. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lyons et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0137424), hereinafter LYONS.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “expendable” should read “expandable” in line 16. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 6-8, 11-12, 15-16 and 21 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. The limitations of claim 1 recite a first pressure sensor inside the mold in a space outside of the expandable body and a second pressure sensor inside the cylindrical expandable body; however, neither the Applicant’s specification nor the drawings indicate an item number or description of having two pressure sensors. The Applicant’s specification states the pressure adjusting is controlled based on measured values of a pressure sensor [pg. 8, lines 22-23], which is the only time a pressure sensor is mentioned. Therefore it can be interpreted that one sensor can measure both pressures. Where are the two sensors in the drawings?
Claims 2-3, 6-8, 11-12, 15-16 and 21 are similarly rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
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.
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) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekido et al. (U.S. 5,960,834), hereinafter SEKIDO, in view of Hori et al. (JP 2010064392A, original and translation provided), hereinafter HORI, and Lyons et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0137424), hereinafter LYONS.
Regarding claim 1, SEKIDO teaches: A method for manufacturing a fiber-reinforced resin tube body (SEKIDO teaches a method for manufacturing a tube body made of fiber-reinforced plastic [Abstract]) comprising: a preparing step of preparing a cylindrical expandable body with fiber wound around the cylindrical expandable body (SEKIDO teaches a nylon tube was coated on a mandrel and prepared by gathering wire materials, and forming a helical winding layer of carbon fibers around the nylon tube using filament winding process [Col. 30, lines 66-67 – Col. 31, lines 1-5]); an installing step of installing the cylindrical expandable body in a mold after the preparing step (SEKIDO teaches the preform of nylon with reinforced fibers was set in a split mold [Col. 31, lines 7-8); a decompressing step of decompressing an inside of the mold after the installing step (SEKIDO teaches reducing the pressure by vacuuming from a suction port provided on the upper mold [Col. 31, lines 10-14], and this step was done after the preform was set in the mold and before the injection of the resin.); a flowing step of flowing resin into the mold (SEKIDO teaches a mixture of a preheated epoxy resin was introduced into the mold [Col. 31, lines 14-18]), in which the cylindrical expandable body is placed, after the decompressing step (SEKIDO teaches that the resin was injected into the mold after the preform had been set in the mold and after decompressing [Col. 31, lines 7-14]); and an expanding step of expanding the cylindrical expandable body toward an inner wall of the mold after the flowing step (SEKIDO teaches the pressure in the nylon tube was elevated after the resin was introduced [Col. 31, lines 15-20]. SEKIDO teaches the tube is expanded when the pressure is elevated [Col. 6, lines 15-19]), wherein the decompressing step includes a pressure adjusting step of adjusting pressure inside the cylindrical expandable body in response to decompressing the inside of the mold (SEKIDO teaches compressed air is introduced into the nylon preform while reducing the pressure in the mold [Col. 31, lines 10-14]), . . . .
SEKIDO is silent as to: the pressure adjusting step is controlled based on measured values of a first pressure sensor that measures the pressure inside the mold, in a space outside of the cylindrical expendable body, and a second pressure sensor that measures the pressure inside the cylindrical expandable body to prevent the cylindrical expandable body from expanding as a result of decompression inside the mold, the pressure adjusting step including adjusting the pressure inside the mold, in the space outside of the cylindrical expandable body, so as to be equal to the pressure inside the cylindrical expandable body.
In the same field of endeavor, fiber-reinforced plastics, HORI teaches a first pressure sensor (21) that detect the internal pressure of the cavity portion (4) of the mold and a second pressure sensor (22) that detects the internal pressure of the hollow core (3) [0029; Fig. 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SEKIDO, by having pressure sensors to control the decompressing step, as suggested by HORI, in order for the pressing force not to deform the reinforcing fiber [0032].
SEKIDO and HORI are silent as to: the pressure adjusting step including adjusting the pressure inside the mold, in the space outside of the cylindrical expandable body, so as to be equal to the pressure inside the cylindrical expandable body. In the same field of endeavor, molding, LYONS teaches pressure sensors mounted on the OML tool, the IML tools (250) and/or the composite assembly (154), which the IML tools are expandable [0048-0049; 0066; Figs. 9-10]. LYONS teaches the pressure applied may be adjusted [0067]. LYONS teaches a substantially uniform internal compaction pressure between the tools (250, 202) [0049; 0058]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SEKIDO and HORI, by having the pressure adjust to be substantially equal to each other, as suggested by LYONS, in order to track the pressure and temperature and be used in subsequent curing operations to add repeatability to the manufacturing process for a given composite article configuration [0066], and minimize or eliminate the occurrence of voids [0049].
Furthermore, the Examiner interprets the “so as to be equal to the pressure inside the cylindrical expandable body” clause as an intended result of the methods steps positively recited and has not been given patentable weight [see e.g., MPEP 2111.04]. In the alternative, should patentable weight be required, the combination of SEKIDO, HORI and LYONS teach substantially the same process steps and would be expected to produce substantially the same result absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 6, SEKIDO teaches: wherein after the flowing step and before the expanding step, the method comprises an inflow stopping step of stopping an inflow of the resin (SEKIDO teaches after injecting the resin, when the resin reaches the suction port, the suction and the injection is stopped and then the tube is expanded [Col. 31, lines 18-20].).
Regarding claim 7, SEKIDO teaches: wherein the mold has an inflow gate and an outflow gate (SEKIDO teaches a mold (130) that has an air supply port (134) and pressure reducing port (135) [Col. 24, lines 37-40]) that are spaced apart from each other in an axial direction of the cylindrical expandable body (SEKIDO teaches that the resin injection port (133) and the pressure reducing port (135) can be changed to each other [Col. 24, lines 46-47], therefore the air supply port (134) and the pressure reducing port (133, which is changed to the location of the resin injection port) are spaced apart from each other in an axial direction of the body (139) [Fig. 34; Col. 24, lines 45-47]), and the mold is arranged such that an axis of the cylindrical expandable body installed in the mold intersects a horizontal direction (SEKIDO shows the mold is arranged in a horizontal direction with an upper mold (131) and a lower mold (132) [Fig. 34] and the body/core would also be in a horizontal direction when set in the mold [Fig. 34].) and that the inflow gate is located below the outflow gate (SEKIDO shows the inflow gate (134) is located below the outflow gate (135/133) [Fig. 34]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekido et al. (U.S. 5,960,834), hereinafter SEKIDO, Hori et al. (JP 2010064392A), hereinafter HORI, and Lyons et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0137424), hereinafter LYONS, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GUMMA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0094455), hereinafter GUMMA.
Regarding claim 2, SEKIDO, HORI and LYONS teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including an inflow gate [SEKIDO: Fig. 34; Col. 24, lines 38-39], but is silent as to: wherein a metal member is provided at a part of the cylindrical expandable body, the mold is provided with an inflow gate, through which resin is flowed in a position corresponding to the metal member, and in the flowing step, the resin is flowed into the mold from the inflow gate. In the same field of endeavor, molding, GUMMA teaches a metal fitting (10D) is provided at an open end of the body (21) [Fig. 4; 0018]. GUMMA teaches the metal fitting (10D) and the body (21) are inserted into a mold (40) and thermoplastic resin is injected into the molding space and flows into a position corresponding to the metal fitting (10D) [Fig. 4; 0033]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SEKIDO, HORI and LYONS, by having a metal fitting, as suggested by GUMMA, in order to form a cylindrical body [0006].
Claim(s) 3 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekido et al. (U.S. 5,960,834), hereinafter SEKIDO, Hori et al. (JP 2010064392A), hereinafter HORI, and Lyons et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0137424), hereinafter LYONS, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kruse et al. (U.S PGPUB 2005/0258575), hereinafter KRUSE.
Regarding claim 3, SEKIDO, HORI and LYONS teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including: the mold is composed of at least two molds including a first mold and a second mold (SEKIDO teaches the mold is composed of an upper mold (131) and a lower mold (132) [Fig. 34; Col. 24, lines 37-38]) and SEKIDO teaches the concept of a first step of opening the mold and setting the preform/body into the lower mold to fit into lower mold and then closing the upper and lower molds, indicating a second installing step of the upper mold closing [Col. 20, lines 22-32; Col. 20, lines 30-33]. SEKIDO is silent as to: wherein a metal member is provided at a part of the cylindrical expandable body, the fiber is wound around a part of the metal member,. . . , the first mold and the second mold each have a recess at a position corresponding to the metal member, the recess has a stepped portion at a position corresponding to a boundary between a portion of the metal member where the fiber is wound around and a portion of the metal member where the fiber is not wound around, and the installing step comprises: a first installing step of installing the metal member in the recess of the first mold while positioning an end of the fiber to the stepped portion of the first mold, and a second installing step of fitting the recess of the second mold to the metal member installed in the recess of the first mold while positioning the stepped portion of the second mold to the end of the fiber. In the same field of endeavor, molding, KRUSE teaches metal inserts (2) that is provided at a part of the expandable body (1) [0052; 0053]. KRUSE teaches the insert is over-wrapped or over-braided with mixtures of thermoplastic matrix and reinforcing fibres [0054; Figs. 4A-4B, 5A-5B, 6A-6B; 0057]. KRUSE teaches the inserts are partially covered with the composite material (11) [Fig. 8; 0061]. KRUSE teaches the mold (20) has a recess corresponding to the inserts (2) and the recess has a stepped portion at a position corresponding to a boundary between a portion of the metal member (2) where the fiber is wound around and a portion of the metal insert (2) in where the material (11) is not wound around [Fig. 12]. KRUSE teaches the article with the inserts is inserted into mold (20) and closed [0068]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SEKIDO, HORI and LYONS, by having metal inserts, and a mold with a cavity shape including the metal inserts with the recess portions, as suggested by KRUSE, in order to rigidly connect the end devices [0069] and the ability to mould additional items to the body [0025].
Furthermore, it’s a known option in the art to use fittings at the end of molded bodies and insert them into molds with the molds having the shape of the fittings as well, as taught by KRUSE. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.").
Regarding claim 15, SEKIDO teaches: wherein after the flowing step and before the expanding step, the method comprises an inflow stopping step of stopping an inflow of the resin (SEKIDO teaches after injecting the resin, when the resin reaches the suction port, the suction and the injection is stopped and then the tube is expanded [Col. 31, lines 18-20].).
Regarding claim 16, SEKIDO teaches: wherein the mold has an inflow gate and an outflow gate (SEKIDO teaches a mold (130) that has an air supply port (134) and pressure reducing port (135) [Col. 24, lines 37-40]) that are spaced apart from each other in an axial direction of the cylindrical expandable body (SEKIDO teaches that the resin injection port (133) and the pressure reducing port (135) can be changed to each other [Col. 24, lines 46-47], therefore the air supply port (134) and the pressure reducing port (133, which is changed to the location of the resin injection port) are spaced apart from each other in an axial direction of the body (139) [Fig. 34; Col. 24, lines 45-47]), and the mold is arranged such that an axis of the cylindrical expandable body installed in the mold intersects a horizontal direction (SEKIDO shows the mold is arranged in a horizontal direction with an upper mold (131) and a lower mold (132) [Fig. 34] and the body/core would also be in a horizontal direction when set in the mold [Fig. 34].) and that the inflow gate is located below the outflow gate (SEKIDO shows the inflow gate (134) is located below the outflow gate (135/133) [Fig. 34]).
Claim(s) 8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekido et al. (U.S. 5,960,834), hereinafter SEKIDO, Hori et al. (JP 2010064392A), hereinafter HORI, Lyons et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0137424), hereinafter LYONS, and GUMMA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0094455), hereinafter GUMMA, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kruse et al. (U.S PGPUB 2005/0258575), hereinafter KRUSE.
Regarding claim 8, SEKIDO, HORI, LYONS and GUMMA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including: the mold is composed of at least two molds including a first mold and a second mold (SEKIDO teaches the mold is composed of an upper mold (131) and a lower mold (132) [Fig. 34; Col. 24, lines 37-38]), GUMMA teaches metal fittings [0018] and SEKIDO teaches the concept of a first step of opening the mold and setting the preform/body into the lower mold to fit into lower mold and then closing the upper and lower molds, indicating a second installing step of the upper mold closing [Col. 20, lines 22-32; Col. 20, lines 30-33]. SEKIDO, HORI, LYONS and GUMMA are silent as to: the fiber is wound around a part of the metal member,. . . , the first mold and the second mold each have a recess at a position corresponding to the metal member, the recess has a stepped portion at a position corresponding to a boundary between a portion of the metal member where the fiber is wound around and a portion of the metal member where the fiber is not wound around, and the installing step comprises: a first installing step of installing the metal member in the recess of the first mold while positioning an end of the fiber to the stepped portion of the first mold, and a second installing step of fitting the recess of the second mold to the metal member installed in the recess of the first mold while positioning the stepped portion of the second mold to the end of the fiber. In the same field of endeavor, molding, KRUSE teaches metal inserts (2) that is provided at a part of the expandable body (1) [0052; 0053]. KRUSE teaches the insert is over-wrapped or over-braided with mixtures of thermoplastic matrix and reinforcing fibres [0054; Figs. 4A-4B, 5A-5B, 6A-6B; 0057]. KRUSE teaches the inserts are partially covered with the composite material (11) [Fig. 8; 0061]. KRUSE teaches the mold (20) has a recess corresponding to the inserts (2) and the recess has a stepped portion at a position corresponding to a boundary between a portion of the metal member (2) where the fiber is wound around and a portion of the metal insert (2) in where the material (11) is not wound around [Fig. 12]. KRUSE teaches the article with the inserts is inserted into mold (20) and closed [0068]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SEKIDO, HORI, LYONS and GUMMA, by having metal inserts, and a mold with a cavity shape including the metal inserts with the recess portions, as suggested by KRUSE, in order to rigidly connect the end devices [0069] and the ability to mould additional items to the body [0025].
Furthermore, it’s a known option in the art to use fittings at the end of molded bodies and insert them into molds with the molds having the shape of the fittings as well, as taught by KRUSE. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.").
Regarding claim 11, SEKIDO teaches: wherein after the flowing step and before the expanding step, the method comprises an inflow stopping step of stopping an inflow of the resin (SEKIDO teaches after injecting the resin, when the resin reaches the suction port, the suction and the injection is stopped and then the tube is expanded [Col. 31, lines 18-20].).
Regarding claim 12, SEKIDO teaches: wherein the mold has an inflow gate and an outflow gate (SEKIDO teaches a mold (130) that has an air supply port (134) and pressure reducing port (135) [Col. 24, lines 37-40]) that are spaced apart from each other in an axial direction of the cylindrical expandable body (SEKIDO teaches that the resin injection port (133) and the pressure reducing port (135) can be changed to each other [Col. 24, lines 46-47], therefore the air supply port (134) and the pressure reducing port (133, which is changed to the location of the resin injection port) are spaced apart from each other in an axial direction of the body (139) [Fig. 34; Col. 24, lines 45-47]), and the mold is arranged such that an axis of the cylindrical expandable body installed in the mold intersects a horizontal direction (SEKIDO shows the mold is arranged in a horizontal direction with an upper mold (131) and a lower mold (132) [Fig. 34] and the body/core would also be in a horizontal direction when set in the mold [Fig. 34].) and that the inflow gate is located below the outflow gate (SEKIDO shows the inflow gate (134) is located below the outflow gate (135/133) [Fig. 34]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekido et al. (U.S. 5,960,834), hereinafter SEKIDO, Hori et al. (JP 2010064392A), hereinafter HORI, and Lyons et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0137424), hereinafter LYONS, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakajima et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2002/0117228), hereinafter NAKAJIMA.
Regarding claim 21, SEKIDO, HORI and LYONS teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the fiber-reinforced resin tube body is a power transmission shaft of a vehicle. In the same field of endeavor, fiber reinforced plastics, NAKAJIMA teaches a fiber reinforced tube used as a power transmission shaft [Abstract; 0002]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SEKIDO, HORI and LYONS, by having the tube be a power transmission shaft, as suggested by NAKAJIMA, in order to allow for making full use of the mechanical properties of the fiber for use with the FRP pipe [0016]. Furthermore, a power transmission shaft is an option of what can be made from fiber reinforced plastics. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
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 CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights