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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Arguments, filed 11th May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 15 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment is made as seen below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding amended Claim 1 and 15, claim 1 recites, "the first and second apertures are defined solely by the composite material without a separate bushing or insert”. Similarly, claim 15 recites, "the composite strut does not include a separately manufactured bushing disposed within either of the first and the second apertures". Each of these limitations constitutes a negative limitation excluding a bushing/insert from the aperture. It is noted that the specification does not disclose a bushing or insert, or lack thereof. Further, the specification merely states, “The first end defines a first aperture 15 and the second end defines a second aperture 16” (see pgh. [0030]) and “The tension strap is a continuous fiber reinforced plastic composite 23 which is wrapped repeatedly around the first aperture, along the top side of the compression block, around the second aperture and along the bottom side of the compression block at least two times” (see pgh. [0032]). Based on this disclosure, the tension strap has to be "wrapped around the aperture". One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to mean that some structure must be present for the tension strap to wrap "around", else the tension strap would be wrapped "around" nothing, or merely the air, and thus not "wrapped around" at all. Additionally, Figure 4 of the drawings clearly demonstrates the apertures (15, 16) of the composite strut being defined by an insert (34a) (see Drawings Fig. 4). No other disclosure is present as to how the tension strap can be "wrapped around... the aperture" without a separate bushing/insert to actually form the aperture. Accordingly, there is insufficient disclosure of the presently claimed negative limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(i) for additional discussion of negative limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 1 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.
Regarding Amended Claims 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the first and second apertures are defined solely by the composite material without a separate bushing or insert”. There is no antecedent basis for the structure “the composite material” therefore it is not understood what this intended to refer to. Examiner predicts this is intended to refer to the strut body but there is no limitation in the claim that directly maps to the strut body, merely a “compression block” and a “first end” and a “second end”. Thus, it is unclear what this limitation is intended to structurally limit. Additionally, the strut is established in the claim preamble as “A composite strut” this does not limit the strut to one composed of composite material, as “composite strut” could refer to a strut of several pieces placed together. For purposes of examination, “the composite material” will be interpreted as referring to the first end, second end, and compression block formed as one-piece and composed of a composite material.
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 1-3, 6-8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiselbrecher (US 4183261 A) in view of Yasui (US 20170130764 A1), further in view of Shobert (US 4992313 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Eiselbrecher discloses A composite strut, comprising: a first end (A) (see
Annotated Fig. 1 below) opposite a second end (B) separated by a strut distance along a longitudinal axis, the first end defining a first aperture (C) and the second end defining a second aperture (D); a compression block (14) extending along the longitudinal axis disposed between the first aperture (C) and the second aperture (D), the compression block (14) defining a top side opposite a bottom side disposed between a right side opposite a left side; a tension strap (11) comprising a first fiber reinforced composite wrapped repeatedly around the first aperture (C), along the top side of the compression block (14), around the second aperture (D) and along the bottom side of the compression block (14) at least two times, wherein fibers of the tension strap are oriented extending parallel to the longitudinal axis between the first (C) and second apertures (D); and an overwind (10) comprising a second fiber reinforced composite wrapped repeatedly around the first fiber reinforced composite (11) and the compression block (14) between the first end and second end at least two times, wherein fibers of the overwind (10) are oriented extending around the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Annotated Fig. 1
below, 2: 14-39) and wherein the first and second apertures are defined by the composite material (see 2: 63-68, 3: 1-8).
Eiselbrecher does not explicitly disclose wherein the fiber reinforced plastic is a continuous fiber reinforced plastic composite and wherein the first and second apertures are defined solely by the composite material without a separate bushing or insert.
Yasui teaches the wrapping of continuous fiber reinforced plastic composite in linkage structures (see Fig. 3, [0009], [0031]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the wrapping of continuous fiber reinforced plastic composite of Yasui with the composite strut of Eiselbrecher in order to reduce cost while keeping the structure light weight and materially strong (see US 20170130764 A1 [Yasui]; [0042-0045]).
Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second apertures are defined solely by the composite material without a separate bushing or insert.
Shobert teaches wherein the first (14) and second (16) apertures are defined solely by the composite material (12) without a separate bushing or insert (see Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, 3: 13-26, 4: 66-68).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to combine the teachings of Shobert with the composite strut of Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui in order to decrease the manufacturing cost and complexity (see US 4992313 A [Shobert]; 3: 13-26).
PNG
media_image1.png
554
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 2, Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert teaches the composite strut of claim 1, including a left side filler block (12) extending parallel to the longitudinal axis between the first (C) and the second apertures (D) and being disposed between the compression block (14) and the overwind (10) on the left side of the compression block (14), the left side filler block (12) in cross section along the longitudinal axis defining a left side chord length adjacent to the left side of the compression block (14), the left side chord length opposite a left side curvature (see US 4183261 A [Eiselbrecher]; Annotated Fig. 1 above, Fig.1, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 3, , Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert teaches including a right side filler block (12) extending parallel to the longitudinal axis between the first (C) and the second apertures (D) and being disposed between the compression block (14) and the overwind (10) on the right side of the compression block (14), the right side filler block (12) in cross section along the longitudinal axis defining a right side chord length adjacent to the left side of the compression block (14), the right side chord length opposite a right side curvature (see US 4183261 A [Eiselbrecher]; Annotated Fig. 1 above, Fig.1, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert teaches the first continuous fiber reinforced plastic composite is wrapped repeatedly at least 3 times (see US 4183261 A [Eiselbrecher]; Annotated Fig. 1 above, Fig.1, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert teaches the first continuous fiber reinforced plastic composite is wrapped repeatedly at least 5 times (see US 4183261 A [Eiselbrecher]; Annotated Fig. 1 above, Fig.1, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert teaches the first continuous fiber reinforced plastic composite is wrapped repeatedly at least 10 times (see US 4183261 A [Eiselbrecher]; Annotated Fig. 1 above, Fig.1, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert teaches the compression block are at least partially cylindrically shaped (see US 4183261 A [Eiselbrecher]; Fig. 4)
Regarding Claim 11, Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert teaches the compression block (36) having a rectangular cross section along the longitudinal axis (see US 20170130764 A1 [Yasui]; Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 12, Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert teaches the first and the second apertures are cylindrically shaped (see US 4183261 A [Eiselbrecher]; Annotated Fig. 1 above, Fig.1, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert teaches wherein the composite strut does not comprise a metal part (see US 4992313 A [Shobert]; 3: 13-44).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiselbrecher (US 4183261 A) as modified by Yasui (US 20170130764 A1) and Shobert (US 4992313 A) in Claim 3, above, further in view of Castel (WO 2012007674 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert teaches the composite strut of Claim 3.
Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert does not explicitly teach wherein the compression block, the left side filler block and the right side filler block are separately manufactured parts.
Castel teaches a weight reducing rod core for a connecting rod wherein the compression block (4), the left side filler block (6) and the right side (6) filler block are separately manufactured parts (see Fig. 4, [0034]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to combine the weight reducing rod core where the compression block and filler blocks are manufactured separately of Castel with the composite strut taught by Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert in order to allow for further weight reduction in the rod core while keeping the required material strengths (see WO 2012007674 A1 [Castel]; [0009]).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiselbrecher (US 4183261 A) as modified by Yasui (US 20170130764 A1) and Shobert (US 4992313 A) in Claim 1 and 3, above, further in view of Tice (US 4841801 A).
Regarding Claim 5, Eiselbrecher modifed by Yasui and Shobert teaches the composite strut of Claim 3.
Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert does not teach the compression block, the left side filler block and the right side filler block are integrally manufactured as a single part.
Tice teaches a composite strut (10), wherein the compression block (32), the left side filler block (32), and the right side filler block (32) are integrally manufactured as a single part (see Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to combine the integrally manufactured compression block and filler blocks of Tice with the composite strut taught by Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert in order to allow the compression block to evenly expand in size when exposed to temperature, preventing radial buckling of the fibers (see US 4841801 A [Tice]; 5:23-42).
Regarding Claim 9, Eiselbrecher modifed by Yasui and Shobert teaches the composite strut of Claim 1.
Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert appear to teach the same based resin is used for all the fibers, but do not explicitly teach the use of the same based resin in the compression block (see US 4183261 A [Yasui]; [0107-0111])
Tice teaches a strut where the compression block (32), the tension strap (72) and the overwind (42) utilize a common base resin (see Fig. 7, 3: 36-44, 4: 58-68, 5:1-2, 5: 23-42).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to combine the utilization of a common based resin of Tice with the composite strut taught by Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert in order to preventing radial buckling of the fibers (see US 4841801 A [Tice]; 5:23-42).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiselbrecher (US 4183261 A) as modified by Yasui (US 20170130764 A1) and Shobert (US 4992313 A) in Claim 1 and 3, above, further in view of Valembois (WO 2009138660 A2).
Regarding Claim 14, Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert teaches the composite strut of Claim 1.
Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert does not teach the compression block comprising a chopped fiber filled thermoplastic composite.
Valembois teaches a composite strut wherein the compression block (2) comprises a chopped fiber filled thermoplastic composite (see Fig. 2, [0005]).
It would have been obvious to combine the compression block comprising chopped fiber filled thermoplastic composite of Valembois with the composite strut taught by Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert in order to obtain desired compressive strength while keeping the weight low (see WO 2009138660 A2 [Valembois]; [0003], [0037]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiselbrecher (US 4183261 A) in view of Yasui (US 20170130764 A1), further in view of Shobert (US 4992313 A), and further in view of Tice (US 4841801 A).
Regarding Claim 15, Eiselbrecher discloses A composite strut, comprising: a first end (A) (see
Annotated Fig. 1 above) opposite a second end (B) separated by a strut distance along a longitudinal axis, the first end defining a first aperture (C) and the second end defining a second aperture (D); a compression block (14) extending along the longitudinal axis disposed between the first aperture (C) and the second aperture (D), the compression block (14) defining a top side opposite a bottom side disposed between a right side opposite a left side; a tension strap (11) comprising a first fiber reinforced composite wrapped repeatedly around the first aperture (C), along the top side of the compression block (14), around the second aperture (D) and along the bottom side of the compression block (14) at least two times, wherein fibers of the tension strap are oriented extending parallel to the longitudinal axis between the first (C) and second apertures (D); and an overwind (10) comprising a second fiber reinforced composite wrapped repeatedly around the first fiber reinforced composite (11) and the compression block (14) between the first end and second end at least two times, wherein fibers of the overwind (10) are oriented extending around the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Annotated Fig. 1 above, 2: 14-39); a left side filler block (12) extending parallel to the longitudinal axis between the first (C) and the second apertures (D) and being disposed between the compression block (12) and the overwind (10) on the left side of the compression block (14), the left side filler block in cross section along the longitudinal axis defining a left side chord length adjacent to the left side of the compression block (12), the left side chord length opposite a left side curvature; a right side filler block (12) extending parallel to the longitudinal axis between the first (C) and the second apertures (D) and being disposed between the compression block (12) and the overwind (10) on the right side of the compression block (14), the right side filler block (12) in cross section along the longitudinal axis defining a right side chord length adjacent to the left side of the compression block (14), the right side chord length opposite a right side curvature (see Annotated Fig. 1 above, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, 12: 24-37) and wherein the first and second apertures are defined by the composite material (see 2: 63-68, 3: 1-8).
Eiselbrecher does not explicitly disclose wherein the fiber reinforced plastic is a continuous fiber reinforced plastic composite, the utilization of a common base resin, the composite strut not comprising metal parts, and wherein the first and second apertures are defined solely by the composite material without a separate bushing or insert.
Yasui teaches the wrapping of continuous fiber reinforced plastic composite in linkage structures (see Fig. 3, [0009], [0031]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the wrapping of continuous fiber reinforced plastic composite of Yasui with the composite strut of Eiselbrecher in order to reduce cost while keeping the structure light weight and materially strong (see US 20170130764 A1 [Yasui]; [0042-0045]).
Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui does not explicitly teach the utilization of a common base resin, the composite strut not comprising metal parts, and wherein the first and second apertures are defined solely by the composite material without a separate bushing or insert.
Shobert teaches wherein the composite strut does not comprise a metal part and wherein the composite strut does not include a separately manufactured bushing disposed within either the first and the second apertures (see Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, 3: 13-26, 4: 66-68).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to combine the teachings of Shobert with the composite strut of Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui in order to decrease the manufacturing cost and complexity (see US 4992313 A [Shobert]; 3: 13-26).
Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert appear to teach the same based resin is used for all the fibers, but do not explicitly teach the use of the same based resin in the compression block (see US 4183261 A [Yasui]; [0107-0111]).
Tice teaches a strut where the compression block (32), the tension strap (72) and the overwind (42) utilize a common base resin (see Fig. 7, 3: 36-44, 4: 58-68, 5:1-2, 5: 23-42).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to combine the utilization of a common based resin of Tice with the composite strut taught by Eiselbrecher modified by Yasui and Shobert in order to preventing radial buckling of the fibers (see US 4841801 A [Tice]; 5:23-42).
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 Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571) 272-7124. 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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights