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 8/8/2025. Claims 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the winding does not cover the whole face of the former in Ashston et al. (US 3,970,495). Although this is true, nothing in the claim mandates full coverage of both faces. Applicant argues the former “is not fully encapsulated and does not constitute a core for the flange portion.” Examiner notes Applicant specifies “not fully encapsulated” whereas the claims lack the term “fully.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term encapsulated, the coverage shown in Fig. 2 in Ashton et al. would certainly quality since it has coverage of a continuous material on all sides is with only a small gap in coverage on the second side.
Encapsulation is not an absolute term that requires coverage on all sides, and “partial encapsulation” is a semantically appropriate qualification of the term. Anything wrapping around a material to some extent may be said to encapsulate that material. Further, since the term encapsulation is unqualified in the claims (i.e. Applicant could have added the term “fully” but chose not to), under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, it includes both partial and full encapsulation. It is reason to conclude the flange is “mostly encapsulated” in Ashton et al., and thus reasonable to conclude it is encapsulated within the scope of the instant claims.
Applicant further argues the former in Ashton et al. does not constitute a core for the flange portion. Applicant does not elaborate on why this is so. Examiner submits “core” offers very little structurally. Anything over which material resides, such as the former in Ashton et al., is reasonably considered a core as claimed. The term “core” is extremely general and virtually anything between other materials is a core. Note the former has material on both sides, left and right, and around the circumference, and serves to support said material internally, and thus is certainly would have been reasonably considered a core). If not, the term “core” becomes indefinite because it is unclear what special features are required of the claimed core, which has no specific definition in the instant specification.
Applicant further argues Ashton et al. is not directed to a fluid transfer conduit. Applicant does not answer the Examiner’s position that this is merely an intended use that similar requires the capability of fluid transfer. 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 argued a tubular composite product in Ashton et al., as an impervious tubular structure, have a structure suitable for use for fluid transfer, and thus reads on the claim as written unless Applicant can articulate and structural or process difference separate from the intended use.
Finally, Applicant argues the annular ends in Aston allows the fibers to return during winding. It is unclear why this matters since all the features of the claim are apparently taught by Ashton and the purpose of winding on both sides and encapsulating does matter as long as it is taught. If the invention is distinct, Applicant should be able to articulate distinct features in the claimed process that are not present in Ashton et al. They have failed to do so and thus have failed to overcome the previous 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) 1-10 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, 12, 13 and 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.
Regarding Claims 2-3 and 14, 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
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