DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Renaudin (US 6,071,460).
As to claim 8, Renaudin teaches a system for manufacture of hollow manufactured articles. The Renaudin system comprises a die body (Fig. 8, item 62) which acts as a spindle and is capable of shaping a composite material thereon. The Renaudin die body (62) is internally pressurizable (Fig. 8) and is thereby configured to counteract pressure of the mold during curing. Renaudin teaches a mold (Fig. 9, items 53a and 53b) provided with at least two valve bodies (53a and 53b) capable of being pressed under pressure against each other in a working configuration when the mold is closed (as shown in Fig. 8-9). Renaudin provides/defines a groove (hollow impression 54) interposed between the two valve bodies (53a, 53b) having a conformation substantially complementary to that of the manufactured article to be made (see Figs. 8-10) and housing said die body and the composite material (see Figs. 8-9). The Renaudin material worked upon is capable of being pressed under pressure between the die body and the two valve bodies.
As to claim 9, Renaudin teaches a die body (62) is made of at least partly deformable and/or elastically deformable material (10:66-11:1). As to claim 10, the Renaudin die is hollow and comprises a connecting element to a pressurized working fluid (9:11-19). As to claim 12, Renaudin teaches a heater for the mold (9:35-40), which meets an interpretation where “heating means” is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). See rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 below for an alternative interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaudin (US 6,071,460) in view of Scott (US 3,258,384). Renaudin teaches the subject matter of claim 8 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
As to claim 11, Renaudin is silent to a connecting element defining a plurality of connecting ways, each connected to the die body, and connected to input means, extraction means, or reduction means.
Scott teaches a connecting element (Fig. 2) which defines a plurality of connecting ways each connected to a die body and an input (127) or extraction/reduction means (133).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the Scott connecting element into Renaudin because Renaudin already teaches/suggests applying an inflation pressure to the bladder (through area near 71) and Scott provides a device for applying and removing pressure from a bladder. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of the overall similarity and purpose of the Renaudin and Scott apparatuses.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaudin (US 6,071,4690) in view of Pratt (US 3,290,728). Renaudin teaches the subject matter of claim 8 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
As to claim 12, when “heating means” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Renaudin is silent to the specific heating means disclosed in the specification (steam, or diathermic oil).
Pratt teaches heating a mold for a pipe with steam (Fig. 1, STEAM).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the Pratt steam conduits into Renaudin because Renaudin teaches/suggests heating the mold (9:34) and Pratt provides a device for heating a mold within the scope of the teaching/suggestion of Renaudin. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of the overall similarity and purpose of the Renaudin and Pratt apparatuses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments appear to be on the grounds that amended claim 8 has been amended to recite a die body with an outer surface configured to act as a spindle to shape a composite material laminated thereon and to counteract pressure from at least one mould during a curing phase. Applicant believes this represents a patentable distinction over Renaudin which includes a rigid mandrel (40) and an inflatable bladder (62) placed over the mandrel, and (3) the mold. Applicant believes that the rigid mandrel (40) exclusively performs the function of acting as a spindle during lamination and the bladder (62) does not shape the composite material.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this position. While it is true that Renaudin teaches a rigid mandrel (40) used with an inflatable bladder, the claim (“comprising”) does not preclude the rigid mandrel of Renaudin. It is unclear why Applicant believes the inflatable bladder of Renaudin fails to act as a spindle. It seems clear from Renaudin’s Fig. 6B, 8, and 9 that Renaudin’s inflatable bladder does act as a spindle (Fig. 6B) and does shape a composite material thereon (Fig. 8) even though these steps are interpreted to be unpatentable intended use features in the instant apparatus claim. In summary, Renaudin appears to meet the claimed structure and stated intended use and no claim feature precludes a rigid mandrel.
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 MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742