DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-13 were elected without traverse in the February 13, 2026 response. Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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, 4, 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 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 4, 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 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). 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.
Conclusion
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