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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues a person skilled in the art would not apply Pabsch to Lochman because the device of Lochman allows for flexibility and deformation while the fiber arrangements of Pabsch aim to increase structural rigidity. However, the two objectives do not need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, Pabsch itself states in col 1, lines 8-11, “ The invention relates to a process for manufacturing structural members made of fiber composites, which have at least one plane flange adjoining a tubular region, for example to be used for a flexible coupling”, and mentions several times in the description of the drawings (cols 1-2) that the tubular member made from the method of Pabsch is flexible. Thus the purposes of Lochman and Pabsch are aligned, both seek to make a coupling that is flexible but also transmits torque.
Applicant argues a person skilled in the art would find Lochman and Pabsch to be incompatible due to the holes in Lochman. However, the fibers could be wound around the holes, and the existence of holes in a composite structure does not necessarily result in reduced strength or severed fibers.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochman (CZ 305275 B6), hereafter known as Lochman, in view of Pabsch (US 5135596 A), hereafter known as Pabsch.
Regarding claim 1, Lochman discloses a composite tube (abstract, fig 5, Lochman), comprising:
a region of greater diameter forming a bellow (fig 5, region 2’ and 1’.2, Lochman);
wherein the bellow has a first side and a second side spaced apart in the axial direction of the tube (fig 5, region 2’ and 1’.2, each bellow has two sides spaced apart axially, Lochman);
wherein each side of the bellow comprises at least one hole (figs 8 and 10, bellows have holes, Lochman);
wherein the at least one hole on the first side is offset in relation to the at least one hole on the second side (figs 8 and 10, bellows holes are offset from each other, Lochman)
wherein the composite tube is formed from fiber reinforced polymer (not disclosed),
and wherein the fiber reinforced polymer comprises a braided fiber structure (not disclosed)
Lochman does not disclose wherein the composite tube is formed from fiber reinforced polymer, nor wherein the fiber reinforced polymer comprises a braided fiber structure. However, Pabsch teaches a composite tube formed from fiber reinforced polymer (col 2, lines 16-27, Pabsch), wherein the fiber reinforced polymer comprises a braided fiber structure (col 8, lines 55-63, the fiber windings are quasi-braided, which is a type of braided structure, Pabsch). Pabsch describes a manufacturing process for a composite shaft with flanges, a field closely related to Lochman and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of file to incorporate the teachings of Pabsch into Lochman and manufacture the composite of Lochman using braided fiber reinforced polymer in the method of Pabsch. Tubes made of fiber reinforced polymers are well known in the art, and the manufacturing method of Pabsch allows for an ordered flow of fibers in the flange region (col 1, lines 28-32, Pabsch), which improves the strength of the flange of Lochman.
Regarding claim 2, Lochman in view of Pabsch discloses a composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein the offset is an angular offset around the axis of the tube (figs 8 and 10, bellow holes are offset by 90˚, Lochman).
Regarding claim 3, Lochman in view of Pabsch discloses a composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein each side of the bellow comprises a plurality of holes (figs 8 and 10, bellows have a plurality of holes, Lochman).
Regarding claim 4, Lochman in view of Pabsch discloses a composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein the holes are evenly angularly distributed around each side of the bellow (figs 8 and 10, bellow holes are evenly angularly distributed around each side, with two spaced 180˚ separated on each side, Lochman).
Regarding claim 5, Lochman in view of Pabsch discloses a composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein all the holes have the same radial extent (figs 8 and 10, bellow holes have the same radial extent, Lochman)
Regarding claim 6, Lochman in view of Pabsch discloses a composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein all the holes have the same angular extent (figs 8 and 10, bellow holes have the same angular extent, Lochman).
Regarding claim 7, Lochman in view of Pabsch discloses a composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein the holes on the first side have no overlap in the angular direction with the holes on the second side (figs 8 and 10, bellow holes on each side of a bellow do not overlap with each other, Lochman).
Regarding claim 8, Lochman in view of Pabsch discloses a composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein each hole has an associated region on the opposite side of the bellow (figs 8 and 10, the bellow holes each have a region on the opposite side of the bellow, Lochman);
and when the tube bends about its axis, at least one such region of the bellow moves towards its associated hole (figs 8 and 10, as the tube bends, the parts of the bellow on the inside of the bend compress, thus each bellow region opposite of a hole moves towards its associated hole, Lochman).
Regarding claim 9, Lochman in view of Pabsch discloses a composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein the combined angular extent of holes on the first side and/or the second side is at least 90 degrees (figs 8 and 10, each bellow hole extends ~90 degrees angularly, thus the two bellow holes have a combined angular extent of ~180 degrees, Lochman).
Regarding claim 10, Lochman in view of Pabsch discloses a composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the first side and the second side of the bellow form an angle to a plane perpendicular to the axis of the shaft of no more than 30 degrees (fig 5, bellows extend perpendicularly from shaft axis, thus form an angle of 0 degrees to a plane perpendicular to the axis of the shaft, Lochman).
Regarding claim 16, Lochman in view of Pabsch discloses the composite tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein the combined angular extent of holes on the first side and/or the second side is at least 120 degrees (figs 8 and 10, each bellow hole extends ~90 degrees angularly, thus the two bellow holes have a combined angular extent of ~180 degrees, Lochman).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochman in view of Pabsch, in further view of Deeg (US 5890965 A), hereafter known as Deeg.
Regarding claim 13, Lochman in view of Pabsch discloses a composite tube as claimed claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the fiber reinforced polymer comprises fibers oriented in the circumferential direction in the region of maximum diameter of the bellow.
However, Deeg teaches a composite tube with fibers oriented in the circumferential direction in the region of maximum diameter (col 2, lines 19-22, the fibers are in the circumferential direction where flange 7 connects to 5, which is the region of maximum diameter, Deeg). Deeg describes a composite drive shaft with expanded flanges, a field closely related to Lochman, Pabsch, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of file to incorporate the teachings of Deeg into Lochman in view of Pabsch and include fibers oriented in the circumferential direction in the region of the bellow of Lochman in view of Pabsch that has the largest diameter. Circumferentially orientated fibers can better absorb centrifugal forces (col 2, line 22, Deeg), improving the strength of the bellow.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochman in view of Pabsch, in further view of McGuire (US 4968286 A), hereafter known as McGuire.
Regarding claim 14, Lochman in view of Pabsch discloses a composite tube as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose wherein at least some fibers of the fiber reinforced polymer are continuous throughout the tube.
However, McGuire teaches a fiber reinforced composite tube coupling with continuous fibers (col 2, line 67- col 3, line 9, McGuire). McGuire describes a bellow shaped composite drive shaft coupler that adds flexibility between the coupled shafts, a field closely related to Lochman, Pabsch, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of file to incorporate the teachings of Deeg into Lochman in view of Pabsch and use continuous fibers in the manufacture of the tube of Lochman in view of Pabsch. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the fiber material to be continuous, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochman in view of Pabsch in further view of Kirschey (EP 1394431 A2), hereafter known as Kirschey.
Regarding claim 15, Lochman in view of Pabsch discloses a method of manufacturing a composite tube according to claim 1 (abstract, Pabsch), the method comprising:
providing a mandrel, the mandrel comprising a section of larger diameter (fig 1, core carrier 2 acting as the mandrel has a larger diameter section in the form of disk 16 which is attached to 2 via fasteners 10, col 2, lines 43-45, Pabsch);
applying fiber over the mandrel (fig 1, fibers col 2 lines 60-64, fibers are wound over the mandrel, which consists of 2,10,16, Pabsch);
applying resin to the Fibre (col 2, lines 65-66, the fibers are impregnated with resin, therefore resin must have been applied to the fibers, Pabsch);
curing the resin (col 4, lines 29-34, the resin is cured, Pabsch);
forming at least one hole in the section of larger diameter (figs 8 and 10, bellows have holes in a section of larger diameter, thus the holes must be formed, Lochman);
and removing the mandrel (fig 19 shows the finished tube flange without the mandrel, thus the mandrel must have been removed, Pabsch).
Pabsch does not disclose forming at least one hole in the section of a larger diameter. However, Kirschey teaches a flanged device with at least one hole in the section of a larger diameter (fig 4, flange has holes 14 in section of larger diameter, Kirschey). Kirschey describes a composite tube with section of larger diameter used to transmit torque and provide flexibility, a field closely related to Pabsch and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of file to incorporate the teachings of Kirschey into Pabsch and add holes on the periphery of the flange of Pabsch. The addition of hole would allow the tube of Pabsch to be connected to existing driveshafts and preform the function of torque transmission.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iyer (US 20190085890 A1) discloses a flexible bellowed rotational shaft.
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 HAOTIAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/H.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights