DETAILED ACTION
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
Amendments to the claims received on February 4th, 2026 have been entered. Claim 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed February 4th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-13, and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Crowe (US 4,229,014 A).
Applicant argues regarding claim 1, that the Cheng's (CN 214217788 U) supporting arc blocks 21 are not directly connected via links, nor does Cheng describe an air bag 221 being defined when expanded. Due to the claim amendments, it is understood that Cheng’s supporting arc blocks 21 and link structure fail to disclose or suggest such features. However, Crowe does indeed disclose such feature wherein a link structure is properly described in figures 4-6 and in Col. 3, Ln. 53-58. The link structure comprises push nuts 75, corresponding to first and second fixing blocks and main body 61, corresponding to a link being arrange in first and second columns as depicted in Fig. 4. The elements described further depict a ring shape to define the bladder 76, 36 of the prior art reference. The office action has been updated to address the amended claim.
Applicant further argues the Crowe’s inner and outer leaves 72 are not arrange in a rigid ring shape. It should be clarified that the Office Action has been updated to point to the push nuts 75 to correspond to the first and second fixing blocks. It should also be noted that a ring shape is often described as annular, circular, or a doughnut. A ring shape also refers to an object or structure that is circular in outline and has a hole in the center. Furthermore, the amended claim states, “the first fixing blocks, the second fixing blocks, and the link are arranged in a ring shape” thus only requiring the link structure as a whole to be in such a shape which is clearly depicted in 5 and 6 of Crowe, wherein the push nuts 75 and main body 61 are arranged in a circular configuration which then provides the ring shape for defining the airbag 76, 36.
Applicant finally argues the Lin (CN 208265528 U) also fails to define a rigid ring shape. However, it should be pointed out that the prior art reference of Lin merely provides that teaching that it is obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate a plurality of expansion shaft plates. Crowe discloses the claimed invention except for the amount of expansion plates ranging from 6 to 15. Lin teaches wherein the number of the expansion shaft plates is 6 to 15 (Fig. 1, winding plate 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Lin, in combination with air expansion structure from Crowe as such a modification would allow for a more even pressure distribution on the sleeve and thus would make it obvious to incorporate.
Furthermore, it would have also been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a plurality of expansion shaft plates since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
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.
Claims 1-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowe (US 4,229,014 A) in view of Cheng (CN 214217788 U).
Regarding claim 1, Crowe discloses a winding method, comprising:
arranging an air expansion structure on a winding device (Fig. 1-7; Col. 1, Ln. 63-68; Col. 2, Ln. 1-10);
arranging a membrane on the sleeve (Col. 1, Ln. 63-67, sheet of material 17 corresponding to a membrane); and
wherein the air expansion structure comprises: an airbag, expanding when the gas is input in the airbag or contracting when the gas is removed from the airbag (Fig. 3 and 5-6; Col. 3, Ln. 66-68; Col. 4, Ln. 1-7, bladder 76 corresponding to an airbag); a link structure, arranged outside the airbag and comprising a first column, a second column, a plurality of first fixing blocks, a plurality of second fixing blocks, and a link (Fig. 4-6; Col. 3, Ln. 53-58, link structure comprising push nuts 75, corresponding to first and second fixing blocks and main body 61, corresponding to a link being arrange in first and second columns as depicted in Fig. 4), wherein the first column and the second column are longitudinally arranged adjacent to each other (best depicted in Fig. 4), the first fixing blocks are arranged on the first column, the second fixing blocks are arranged on the second column, and the link is directly connected with the first fixing blocks and the second fixing blocks, so that the first fixing blocks, the second fixing blocks, and the link are arranged in a ring shape to be annularly arranged outside the airbag so as to define the airbag (Fig. 3-6; Col. 3, Ln. 53-58); and
a plurality of expansion shaft plates, wherein the expansion shaft plates are arranged on the link structure at intervals (Fig. 3 and 5-6; Col. 3, Ln. 45-52, outer leaves 72, 73 corresponding to expansion shaft plates), each expansion shaft plate is connected with the link structure by a connector (Fig. 3 and 5-6; Col. 3, Ln. 45-58, cap screw 74 and cup washers 71 corresponding to a connector), a cross section of each expansion shaft plate presents a T-shaped structure, a side of each expansion shaft plates is a protruding side which is arranged between the first column and the second column and connected to the connector (Fig. 3 and 5-6 depicting a T-shaped cross section presented by the outer leaves 72, 73), and another opposite side of each expansion shaft plates is of an arc-shaped structure which is configured to contact the sleeve, so that the expansion shaft plates are pushed due to the expansion of the airbag or restored to an original position due to the contraction of the airbag (Fig. 3; Col. 2, Ln. 50-61).
Crowe discloses the claimed invention except for the procedure of setting protirement preset parameters. However, Cheng teaches setting a preset inflation parameter value at the winding device to input a gas to inflate the air expansion structure, so that a sleeve sleeving on the air expansion structure is expanded from a second preset diameter to a first preset diameter (Pg. 10, ¶44); setting a preset winding parameter value at the winding device for winding, so that the membrane is wound (Pg. 4-5, ¶21); and removing the gas from the air expansion structure to contract the sleeve back to the second preset diameter. wherein, so that a distance is generated between the sleeve and the membrane (Pg. 10, ¶45). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Cheng, in combination with air expansion structure from Crowe as such a modification would enable the user to control desired functionality of the device for varying materials. Setting preset values merely requires ordinary skill as it is also very well known that doing so would make the winding process efficient.
Regarding claims 2-11, Crowe fails to disclose setting preset parameters for inflation, diameter, winding, tension, and stress. However, Cheng teaches an inflation parameter, a tension parameter specific to the assembly, relating to a winding tension, a winding parameter, a temperature parameter, and a stress value (Pg. 10-12, ¶¶44-60 describe the sensing and controlling process of the various parameter aforementioned). Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted specific parameters using a combination of sensors, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215. It is understood the modifying the present inflation parameters, the diameters and the winding tension, would allow the user to utilize the air expansion structure for winding a various set of materials with different properties and allowing the structure to be used universally with other configurations of membranes.
Regarding claim 12, Crowe fails to disclose setting a temperature parameter. However, Cheng teaches the present winding parameter value comprises a temperature parameter, which comprises an oven temperature and a winding temperature (¶¶ 30-32), and the oven temperature is disclosed as between 25-85º, which is an overlapping range with the claimed range of 45-85ºC. See MPEP 2144.05. Further, Cheng teaches the temperature is controlled to be higher than room temperature but lower than the melting temperature of the media being wound (¶¶31), making it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select particular temperatures based on the operating conditions and particular media being wound.
Regarding claim 15, Crowe discloses wherein the connector is a retracting spring (Col. 4, Ln. 12-21).
Regarding claim 16, Crowe discloses spring connector wherein the connector penetrates the protruding side of the expansion shaft plates, and is connected between the column, and when the airbag expands, the expansion shaft plates are pushed to a position by the connector, and when the airbag contracts, the expansion shaft plates are restored to the original position from the position by the connector (Col. 4, Ln. 12-21 captive nut 77 corresponding to a column).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowe (US 4,229,014 A) in view of Cheng (CN 214217788 U), and in further view of Li (CN 111422701 A).
Regarding claim 13, Crowe fails to disclose the air expansion structure comprises a shaft within the airbag. However, Li teaches wherein the air expansion structure comprises a shaft, wherein the airbag is arranged around the shaft (Fig. 1-2; Pg. 6-7, ¶25, main shaft 1 being disposed within the airbag 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a shaft within the airbag so as to provide structural integrity to the assembly as well as to ensure that even distribution is provided within the airbag when the inflating process begins.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowe (US 4,229,014 A) in view of Cheng (CN 214217788 U), and in further view of Lin (CN 208265528 U).
Regarding claim 18, Crowe fails to disclose an amount of expansion shaft plates. However, Lin teaches wherein the number of the expansion shaft plates is 6 to 15 (Fig. 1, winding plate 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a plurality of expansion shaft plates since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It is understood that increasing the number of plates would allow for a more even pressure distribution on the sleeve and thus would make it obvious to incorporate.
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 ERMIA E MELIKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Victoria P. Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
ERMIA E. MELIKA
Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654