DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Wassenhove (GB 2207115A).
As to claim 1, van Wassenhove teaches a method of manufacturing a composite structure (Fig. 2). van Wassenhove provides a mandrel (Fig. 1) comprising a elongate shaft base part (2) which has a longitudinal axis and at least one conical part (10) extending from the cylindrical surface of the base part (2). van Wassenhove moves the mandrel and a braiding machine relative to one another (Page 11, middle: “mandrel is traversed relative to the braider”) and braids fibre tows (page 9, line 6) over the mandrel base part (2). van Wassenhove provides and inherently selects the size and shape of the conical part relative to the braiding machine in a manner that avoids braiding directly onto the vertex of the conical part. The designer and operator of the van Wassenhove process and mandrel is interpreted to have engaged in a modelling process which modelled the fibre tow position, especially in light of the selection of a braid angle selection (page 11, bottom).
van Wassenhove does not specifically teach that none of the fibre tows intersect with a vertex of the at least one conical part.
However, in light of van Wassenhove’s teaching that the conical head “helps the filaments during braiding to fall onto one or other side of the pin…to form the aperture in the article” (Page 11, top) and the traversing process described (Page 11, middle), one would have found it obvious that the van Wassenhove process be performed without braiding the fibers directly onto the vertex of the conical part.
As to claim 2, van Wassenhove teaching that the conical head “helps the filaments during braiding to fall onto one or other side of the pin…to form the aperture in the article” (Page 11, top) meets the limitation that the fibre tows that come into contact with the at least one conical part of the mandrel slip down to the base of the at least one conical part. As to claim 6, van Wassenhove applies resin to the fiber tows (Page 11, bottom), cures the resin (Page 12, top: “hardened”), and removes the conical part of the mandrel (Page 12, top; Fig. 2, mandrel is removed)). As to claim 8, van Wassenhove provides a mandrel with a pair of conical parts, the two conical parts extending from opposite sides of the base part.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Wassenhove (GB 2207115A) in view of Kellems (US 1,945,195). van Wassenhove teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 3, van Wassenhove is silent to the conical part at a non-perpendicular angle to the longitudinal axis of the elongate shaft.
Kellems teaches features (2) equivalent to the claimed pins provided at a non-perpendicular angle to the longitudinal axis of an elongate shaft/mandrel (1 or 1’) around which wire is braided.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Kellems pin angle into van Wassenhove motivated by the easier removal of the braided article from the mandrel provided by the Kellems pin angle (page 1, lines 70-80). A reasonable expectation of success would be apparent from the overall similarity of the Kellems braiding process to van Wassenhove.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Wassenhove (GB 2207115A) in view of Mayes (US 4,137,354). van Wassenhove teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 3, van Wassenhove is silent to the conical part at a non-perpendicular angle to the longitudinal axis of the elongate shaft.
Mayes teaches pins with a conical head (Fig. 14, item 118) equivalent to the claimed pins provided at a non-perpendicular angle to the longitudinal axis of an elongate shaft/mandrel (Fig. 12-13).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Mayes pin angles into van Wassenhove motivated by the filament orienting and guiding effect provided by the angles pins (10:50-53). A reasonable expectation of success would be apparent from the overall similarity of the Mayes process to van Wassenhove.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Wassenhove (GB 2207115A) in view of Baetz (US 5,424,109). van Wassenhove teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 5, van Wassenhove is silent to computer simulation.
Baetz teaches computer modeling candidate braiding angles (2:52-60) which is a simulation.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this feature from Baetz into van Wassenhove because this is the use of a known technique (Baetz computer modeling to evaluate candidate braiding patterns on a mandrel) in a comparable process to the van Wassenhove mandrel braiding process. One could have applied this improvement in the same way to van Wassenhove to provide the predictable result that van Wassenhove could evaluate candidate braiding patterns in the same manner.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Wassenhove (GB 2207115A) in view of Humphrey (US 5,376,199). van Wassenhove teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 7, van Wassenhove teaches conical part/pins, but is silent to metallic inserts on the conical part and encasing the metallic inserts in the resin.
Humphrey teaches a pin (Fig. 3, item 24) for positioning metallic bushings (Fig. 3, item 12; 4:45-46) and curing resin (3:45-57) around the metallic bushings.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this feature from Humphrey into van Wassenhove motivated by providing a reinforcing insert at the location of the van Wassenhove pin. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success since van Wassenhove and Humphrey are both directed to curable composite material.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Wassenhove (GB 2207115A) in view of Masson (US 20120305173). van Wassenhove teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 9, van Wassenhove provides an article with a pair of holes formed by conical parts/pins.
van Wassenhove is silent to cutting the article to form a clevis.
Masson teaches a mandrel (Fig. 7, item 8) covered with a cured material (18) and machining the ends ([0061]) to form a connecting rod with a clevis configuration (Fig. 8, item 21).
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this step from Masson into van Wassenhove motivated by eliminating material that would prevent connection to the van Wassenhove article. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of the similar tubular configuration of the Masson and van Wassenhove composite and mandrel structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 10 requires two pairs of conical parts (which van Wassenhove teaches), but van Wassenhove does not teach the conical parts of one pair having a larger base than the conical parts of the other pair. Claims 11-13 are dependent on claim 10 and are allowed for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments appear to be on the grounds that van Wessenhove fails to teach modelling the positions of fiber tows and the at least one conical part during the braiding process and selecting a size, shape and position of the conical part such that none of the fiber tows intersect with a vertex during the braiding process. Applicant argues that van Wassenhove lacks any express teaching of any modelling process, and there is no discussion of how an “operator or some automated process may perform a modelling process.” Applicant notes that van Wassenhove stopping the braiding machine when the filaments are tangential to the pin, which is not a modelling process but detecting a live situation. Applicant continues that even if some modelling process were performed during the braiding process as suggested by the Examiner, it would be too late at that stage to select the size, shape, or position of the conical part because the mandrel is “already being used in the braiding process.” Applicant submits that van Wassenhove fails to disclose that none of the fiber tows intersect with the conical part, and van Wassenhove does not acknowledge or address the issue of tow splitting.
The Examiner has carefully considered these arguments.
First, there is little discussion in Applicant’s arguments about what constitutes “modelling”. However, by claim differentiation (see claim 5) it is clear the term is broader than as to be limited to computer simulation. The Examiner notes also the Applicant’s comment that there is no discussion of how an operator “or some automated process may perform a modelling process.” The Examiner text searched and reviewed the van Wassenhove reference, and did not locate any “automated process”. Given these circumstances, it is unclear why the “detecting a live situation” by an operator cannot be considered a “modelling” of fiber tows. It is clear that the claimed modelling must occur “during the braiding process”, and so it is necessarily the case that this claimed step occurs during a “live situation”, not during a planning or providing step which occurs before the braiding. The claim does not state how this modelling process is accomplished “during the braiding process” as claimed, whether by cameras or other means, but the Examiner maintains that the individual doing the van Wassenhove process braiding necessarily also performs a modeling process when they observe and control the process. The interpretation of “modelling” is not so narrow as to be limited to computer simulation.
The Examiner noted Applicant’s discussion of tow splitting, and that van Wassenhove does not acknowledge or address tow splitting. This supports the Examiner’s position set forth in the rejection. If no tow splitting is discussed in van Wassenhove and the van Wassenhove figures do not show any tow splitting, it would seem that the operator successfully performed the modelling and selection steps in van Wassenhove such that none of the fiber tows intersect with the vertex of the conical part during the braiding process, as claimed. To conclude otherwise requires the reader to consider the van Wassenhove reference and by a preponderance conclude that some of the tows must have actually intersected the vertex of the conical part, even though Applicant agrees there is no discussion of tow splitting in van Wassenhove.
It is also important to note that that the Examiner presented a rejection of claim 5 (modelling comprises computer simulation) using an additional reference, and there does not appear to be any arguments responsive to the rejection of claim 5. Even if it were ultimately determined that Applicant’s arguments were persuasive with respect to amended claim 1 after amendment to include the modelling, the previous/pending rejection of claim 5 would meet all limitations of claim 5, including claim 1. There does not appear to be any basis for allowance when all claimed subject matter would still be met by the rejection of claim 5.
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 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
Prosecution Insights