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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 5/20/2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 2 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the winding in the radial direction in the instant application is “deliberate.” However, it is unclear how this distinguishes the claimed process for Ashton et al. (US 3,970,495) because Ashton et al. would appear to teaches the “passing across the first surface in a radial direction” as claimed. Whether or not it is “deliberate” or not does not matter if Ashton et al. teaches the process step as claimed.
Applicant argues Ashton et al. does not teach a “fibre redirection mechanism.” Although this may or not be true, it is irrelevant because no such “fibre redirection mechanism” is claimed. Applicant describes the Ashton et al. winding process in detail with a rotating mandrel and axial movement. However, this does not distinguish the instant claims from Ashton et al. Examiner has argued any movement in the radial direction, i.e. a direction from the center to the edge, of the fiber along the first surface is radial movement as claimed. Nothing in the claim requires perfect radial movement in a line overlapping that from a center point of the flange to the edge. Thus, any movement in the radial direction along the first reads on the claim. Ashton et al. clearly teaches and illustrate this as described in the previous rejections. Examiner submits any movement on a surface of a fiber that goes from a more central point to the edge inherently passes in the radial direction to some extent. Applicant has not responded to this argument.
Applicant argues Ashton et al. does not allow radial transfer between the first and second surfaces as claimed between they have continuous circumferential winding paths. However, Ashton et al. clearly teaches the fiber on the first surface, moving out away from the center, passing over the edge, and winding on the second surface. Regardless of the implementation of the winding technique to deploy this fiber path, Examiner submits such a fiber path passes across the first and second surface as claimed. The fact the step is “intentional or not” does not change the fact the process is anticipated. Applicant’s claims are too broad to capture the distinction in their process and thus cannot overcome the previous obviousness rejection.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ashton et al. (US 3,970,495).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, and 12-15, Ashton et al. teaches a method of manufacturing comprising:
providing a tubular mandrel [50] which extends substantially parallel to a central axis (See col. 3, lines 59-66 and Figs. 2, showing a mandrel [50] with frusto-contical ends, but which is substantially parallel to a central axis via a cylindrical center portion of the mandrel);
providing a former [94],[110] on an outer surface of the tubular mandrel [50] which extends substantially perpendicular to the central axis (See col. 5, lines 27-45 and Fig. 3, wherein boss portion [100] of the flange [94], which extends substantially perpendicular to the central axis, abuts an outer surface of mandrel [50] at an annular lip [61] portion thereof to retain the flange [50] via said lip [61]); and
winding continuous fibre reinforcement, impregnated with a thermosetting polymer around the mandrel [50] to form a tubular hub portion which extends substantially parallel to the central axis and over the former [94],[100] to form a flange portion which extends from the hub portion at an angle to the central axis (See col. 4, lines 3-27, col. 6, lines 61-66, col. 8, lines 56-62, and Figs. 2-3, wherein continuous filaments/fibers impregnated with a heat curing resin such as epoxy, i.e. a thermoset, are wound to form a tubular hub [56],[60] extending substantially parallel to the central axis via central portion [56] thereof and over former [94],[100] on both sides and back onto the mandrel on a side of the former [94,[100] to form a flange portion extending from the hub portion [56],[60] at an angle as clearly illustrated in Figs. 2-3 and described, see col. 4, lines 45-53, and then cured, see col. 7, line 66 to col. 8, line 8);
removing the tubular mandrel [50] (See col. 6, lines 6-8);
wherein winding, via a filament winding process (See col. 4, lines 3-7), the continuous fibre reinforcement over the former comprises passing the continuous fibre reinforcement across a first surface of the former [94],[110] that is substantially perpendicular to the central axis and across a second surface that is substantially perpendicular to the central axis of the former such that the former [94],[110] is encapsulated as a core for the flange portion (See Figs. 2-3, clearly illustrating winding on both faces of former [94],[110], thus encapsulating most of the former [94],[110] as a core for the flange).
Ashton et al. et al. doesn’t teach the process therein is “for a composite connector for a fluid transfer conduit.” However, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Examiner submits as a fluid, impervious (note cured prepreg is understood to be impermeable to liquids), tubular composite product having a flange as claimed, it at least would have been possible to utilize the composite product of Ashton et al. et al. as a composite connector for fluid transfer absent further structural limitations or specified use as such.
Ashton et al. teaches the fibers are wound in a helix in geodesic paths (See col. 4, lines 45-53) and clearly illustrates a tight abutment with the mandrel [50] and the former [94],[100] (See Fig. 3). Examiner submits it inevitable that at least some fibers being wound will be anchored, i.e. at a fixing point, at the base of the first surface of the former via at least partial circumferential winding prior to ascending the remainder of the former [94],[110] is a generally radial direction. Since the direction from the center to the edge is a radial direction, and the fibers are wound so as to extend from towards the center to the edge, in order to be disposed as shown, it is implicit the fibers must pass in a radial direction at least to some extent. Examiner submits the claim does not require the fibers to pass along a perfectly radial path, just a radial direction. Examiner further notes the former is never even described as having a circular shape, thus requiring the term “radial direction” to be given wide breath for clarity, i.e. any straight path outward from a central area and over the edge. Further, as stated, it is implicit that prior to that prior to taking their radial path to the edge, the fibers wrap circumferentially around a base portion where the extending flange of former [94],[110] extends from the conical area of the mandrel adjacent thereto, and at least some of this wrapping would have, or at least could have, occurred along the perpendicularly extending face creating the flange. Any such curved passing of the fiber along said face is a circumferential path.
Regarding Claim 4, Ashton et al. clearly illustrates the continuous fibers passes over the former in multiple orientations (See Fig. 2, clearly showing the helically wound fibers ascending the former in a variety of orientations beginning from various points).
Regarding Claim 5, Ashton et al. teaches applying a consolidation force to the first surface of the flange via end molds [136],[138] (See Fig. 4 and col. 7, lines 34-48).
Regarding Claims 6-7 and 9, Ashston et al. implies the mandrel [50], i.e. via deflation, may be removed prior to displacing the end portions [62],[64] over the former [94],[110], thus leaving the former encapsulated after removal of the mandrel [50] for a time prior to removal of the former via cutting the flange portion (See col. 8, lines 6-12). Examiner submits any removed former, such as former [94],[110] in Ashston et al., does not play a structural role in the fabricate composite part, and thus is considered “non-structural” in the fabricated part unless more specificity is provided for the meaning of such terminology within the process.
Regarding Claim 8 and 10, Aston et al. teaches the mandrel may be formed of a “sacrificial material” that is destroyed following molding for removal (See col. 5, lines 3-24).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights