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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 5th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims received on June 5th, 2026 have been entered. Claim 1 has been amended claims 2-4 and 6-8 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9, filed June 5th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Buchko (US 8191340 B1) and in further view of Wang et al. (CN 111606096 A).
Applicant argues regarding claim 1, that the claimed range is critical to the claimed invention and that the prior art relied on in the previous office action fail to suggest such range. While the prior art references do not provide said range provided in the amended claim 1, the prior art references do require the measurement and adjustment of said characteristics indicating the controllability of the ranges of the pressure and tension parameter. For this reason, Buchko and Wang et al. are introduced to indicate that such ranges are well known within the art and thus one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention may adjust such parameters to account for the desired outcome of the expansion and winding of the material.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a winding tension” on the second line of the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is attempting to introduce a new parameter or if they are referring to “a winding tension” disclosed in claim 1. If it is the latter, then the limitation should read “the winding tension”. Proper correction is required.
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, 5, 9-12, 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), Buchko (US 8191340 B1) and in further view of Wang et al. (CN 111606096 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, 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.
Crowe fails to disclose setting the preset inflation parameter to a value between 1.0-2.5 kg/cm2 and the winding tension parameter to a range between 0.15-0.60 kg*m/s2. However, Buchko teaches setting the preset inflation parameter to a value between 1.0-2.5 kg/cm2 (Col. 5, Ln. 26-67, 5-30 psi, which is converted to 0.35-2.1 kg/cm2). In addition, Wang et al. further teaches the winding tension parameter to range between 0.15-0.60 kg*m/s2 (Pg. 4, ¶32, tension being between 2N-5N while moving at a speed between 60m/min-100m/min). 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. Adjusting such parameters would account for a desired outcome of the expansion and winding of the material.
Regarding claim 5, Crowe fails to disclose a specific first and second preset diameter. However, Wang et al. teaches an initial diaphragm width between 300 – 1500 mm, corresponding to a first preset diameter, and describes a shrinkage and expansion which further corresponds to a second preset diameter (Pg. 1-2, ¶¶9-15). 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. Adjusting the diameter merely requires one skilled in the art as the range varies based on the application of the invention.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Crowe fails to disclose a stress value of the membrane. However, Cheng teaches material tension, corresponding to membrane stress, ranging from 1N (Pg. 12, ¶55) to 30N (Pg. 12, ¶57) falling within range of 11.8-37.2 N. 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), Buchko (US 8191340 B1), Wang et al. (CN 111606096 A) 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), Buchko (US 8191340 B1), Wang et al. (CN 111606096 A) 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
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 through Thursday 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST and a flexed schedule on Fridays from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights