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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Species (a) in Category A, Species (b) in Category (B), and Species (b) in Category C in the reply filed on 03/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there exists overlapping subject matter between species (a) and (b) and no serious search and examination burden exists. This is not found persuasive because the species require a different field of search and have acquired a separate status in view of their different classifications. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 2 and 11 are FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. In c laim 2 recites “manufacturing a dry tube comprising circumferentially-oriented fiber reinforcement” , i t is unclear if the “circumferentially-oriented fiber reinforcement” is identical to the continuous circumferentially-oriented fiber reinforcement of claim 1. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “manufacturing a dry tube comprising the circumferentially-oriented fiber reinforcement”. In claim 11 recites “filament winding fiber reinforcement onto a mandre l”, i t is unclear if the fiber reinforcement being wound is identical to the fiber reinforcement of claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burlefinger (English Translation of DE102011077287). Regarding claim 1, Burlefinger teaches a process of manufacturing a composite connector capable for use as a fluid transfer conduit: manufacturing a tubular pre-form which extends substantially parallel to a central axis, the tubular pre-form comprising continuous circumferentially-oriented fiber reinforcement (Figure 2 and [0012] ); manufacturing a continuous fiber pre-form net, the pre-form net comprising a support layer and continuous fiber reinforcement, the continuous fiber reinforcement being secured by being stitched to the support layer (Figure 3a and 3b and [0012]-[0013] ); placing the tubular pre-form and the pre-form net together into a mold to form a tubular hub portion from the tubular pre-form and a flange portion from the pre-form net, the flange portion extending from the hub portion at an angle to the central axis [0013]-[0014]; and introducing polymer into the mold so as to form a composite connector comprising the flange portion and the hub portion [0013]-[0014]. Regarding claim 2, Burlefinger teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein manufacturing the tubular pre-form comprises manufacturing a dry tube comprising circumferentially-oriented fiber reinforcement [0012]. Regarding claim 4, Burlefinger teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein manufacturing the continuous fiber pre-form net further comprises placing the continuous fiber reinforcement in multiple orientations (Figures 3a and 3b and [0012]). Regarding claim 7, Burlefinger teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein introducing polymer into the mould comprises a resin transfer moulding (RTM) [0013]-[0014]. Regarding claim 13, Burlefinger teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the pre-form net is annular and defines a central hole with which the tubular pre-form is aligned when the tubular pre-form and the pre-form net are placed together into the mold (Figure 1 and [0013]-[0014]). Regarding claim 14, Burlefinger teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein manufacturing the pre-form net comprises securing one or more reinforcing fibres to the support layer by stitching so that the one or more reinforcing fibres extend both radially and circumferentially (Figure 1 and [0013]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 . Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burlefinger (English Translation of DE102011077287) , as applied to claim 1, in further view of Sakonjo (US 7,138,167). Regarding claim 3, Burlefinger teaches the process as applied to claim 1. Burlefinger does not teach manufacturing the continuous fiber pre-form net further comprises stitching multiple layers of fiber reinforcement to the common support layer. Sakonjo teaches a process of preparing a curved or bent preform for a fiber-reinforced composite material of an aircraft (Col 1, ln 19-26). Sakonojo teaches the preform is prepared by stitching a plurality of fiber layers (Col 5, ln 29-3-60). Sakonjo teaches a curved preform, such as an entire ring (Col 11, ln 15-24), prepared with a plurality of reinforced fibers intersecting at a predetermined angle includes those disposed in parallel in one or more of the directions of +45 degrees, -45 degrees and 90 degrees (Col 7, ln 56- Col 8, ln 48 and Figures 1-2) to provide a high-density and high-strength preform (Col 3, ln 1-7 and Col 5, ln 12-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Burlefinger , in particularly the preform net, with stitching multiple layers of fiber reinforcement as taught by Sakonjo for the benefit of providing a complex-shaped fiber-reinforced composite material with superior strength. Claim s 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burlefinger (English Translation of DE102011077287) , as applied to claim 1, in further view of Darrow (US 3,621,661) and Chase (PG-PUB 2014/0309042). Regarding claim 5 and 6 , Burlefinger teaches the process as applied to claim 1. Burlefinger does not teach manufacturing the continuous fiber pre-form net further comprises forming at least one fixing point for the flange portion by arranging the continuous fiber reinforcement in the flange. Burlefinger does not teach manufacturing the continuous fiber pre-form net further comprises forming an adjacent pair of fixing points and arranging the continuous fiber reinforcement in the pre-form net to encircle the adjacent pair of fixing points. Darrow teaches a process of manufacturing a composite shaft with integral end fittings (Col 3, ln 15-35 and Figures 1, 2, 9, and 10 ). Darrow teaches a composite shaft comprises a shaft section and circumferential flange end fittings with bolt holes in order to connect the shaft to similar shafts using adjacent flanges and bolt members (Col 3, ln 15-25). Darrow teaches bolt holes drilled in the flanges (Col 4, ln 18-28 and Col 5, ln 36-60). Chase teaches a process of manufacturing a torque disc comprising a plurality of openings for securing the torque disc to rotatable shafts using threaded bolts or fasteners (Figure 1-2 and [0020] , [0029] ). Chase teaches in manufacturing the disc, fiber 26 (a carbon fiber tow [0023]) is secured to a support layer by being stitched [0023]. Chase teaches each support layer has a reinforcing fiber 26, and the fiber repeatedly encircles each adjacent pair of fixing points so as to form a series of windings 30 (Figure 4a and 4b, [0025]). Chase teaches 10 windings 30 encircle each adjacent pair of fixing points. Chase teaches order to maximize the number of windings 30 without overlying the windings 30 or increasing the overall dimensions of the torque disc 10, the inner ones of the windings 30 are shaped so as to almost completely encircle one of the fixing points before extending directly towards and almost completely encircling the adjacent one of the fixing points [0025]-[0027]. Chase teach the manner in which the reinforcing fiber 26 passes around the fixing points serves to enhance the strength [0030]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Burlefinger with bolt holes as taught by Darrow, a known suitable feature in circumferential flange end fittings for composite shafts, to yield the predictable result of connecting the shaft to other objects. While Darrow teaches providing bolt holes through machining, Chase teaches an alternative technique known in the field of endeavor pertaining to composite molding for provid ing bolt holes and strengthen ing fiber preform s . I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Burlefinger in Darrow with the technique of Chase to forming adjacent pairs of fixing points and arranging the continuous fiber reinforcement in the preform to encircle the adjacent pair of fixing points, for the known benefit of providing fastening holes and enhancing the strength of the preform. Claim 8 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burlefinger (English Translation of DE102011077287) in further view of Darrow (US 3,621,661). Regarding claim 8, Burlefinger teaches the process as applied to claim 1 , wherein the flange has a continuous transition section to integrate the flange and shaft. Burlefinger does not teach the pre-form net comprises one or more tabs and placing the tubular pre-form and the pre-form net together into the mold comprises arranging the tabs to contact the tubular pre-form. Darrow teaches a process of manufacturing a composite shaft with integral end fittings (Col 3, ln 15-35), comprising a transition section with a plurality of fingers (i.e., tabs) (Figure 2 and 11). Darrow teaches a tubular shaft and a flange section comprising a plurality of flat fiber layer and cup- shaped members to provide a transition section (Figure 2, item 38 and Figure 11 and Col 5, ln 36-60). Darrow teaches the plurality of tabs allow for a smoo th transition between the shaft section and flange section (Col 4, ln 50-75). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Burlefinger , in particular the continuous flange transition section, with the plurality of tabs as taught by Darrow, a known suitable mechanism for providing a smooth transition between a flange and shaft for integral molding. Accordingly, the process of Burlefinger in view of Darrow would require arranging the tabs to contact the tubular pre-form in order to place the tubular pre-form and the pre-form net together into the mold for the purpose of integrating the components, as taught by Darrow. Regarding claim 9 and 10, Burlefinger teaches the process as applied to claim 1 , wherein the pre-form net has a substantially planar structure [0012] , an intermediate step is performed to shape the preform before disposing the preform into a mold [0013] , and the mold naturally has a three-dimensional shape . Burlefinger does not teach: the pre-form net has a substantially planar structure before it is placed into the mold and (2) the mold has a three-dimensional shape and placing the pre-form net into the mold comprises converting the pre-form net into the three-dimensional shape. Darrow teaches a process of manufacturing a composite shaft with integral end fittings (Col 3, ln 15-35) . Darrow teaches a tubular shaft and a flange section comprising a plurality of flat fiber layer and cup-shaped members to provide a transition section (Figure 11 and Col 5, ln 36-60). Darrow teaches the construction includes a plurality of cupped shaped members, such as members 120-124 which are shaped to be substantially flat at their outer periphery so as to assume the shape and the outer periphery of flange section 14, and the plurality of tabs allow for a smooth transition between the shaft section and flange section ( Figure 2 and 11 and Col 4, ln 50-75 , Col 5, ln 36-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Burlefinger , in particular the intermediate shaping step for providing a three-dimensional shape of the flange, with the plurality of tabs as taught by Darrow, a known suitable technique to provide three-dimensional shape to flat flange preform and a smooth transition between a flange and shaft , to yield the predictable result of providing an integral shaft and flange. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burlefinger (English Translation of DE102011077287) , as applied to claim 1, in further view of Ohta (US 5,685,933) and Corradini (PG-PUB 2016/0076874). Regarding claim 11 and 12 , B ur lefinger teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the tubular pre-form comprises a fiber braid (Figure 2 and [0012]). Burlefinger does not teach : manufacturing the tubular pre-form comprises filament winding fib er reinforcement onto a mandrel , wherein the mandrel forms part of the mould . Ohta teaches a process of manufacturing a drive shaft comprising a shaft body by winding resin impregnated fiber onto a mandrel and removed from that body after hot setting (Figure 1a-1c, 5-7, and 11; Col 5, ln 21—60, Col 7, ln 1-12 and Col 8, ln 32-52). Corradini teaches a process of manufacturing a fiber texture wound around an impregnation mandrel for fabricating an annular structural part out of composite material (Figure 3B and [0031]-[0038]). Cor r adini teaches winding with a winder machine and impregnating the preform held on the impregnation mandrel [0031]-[0032]. Corradini teaches impregnation may be assisted by a pressure difference between the inside and the outside of the mold in which the preform is located [0032]. While Burlefinger teaches the tubular pre-form comprises braids, Burlefinger is silent to how the braiding occurs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Burlefinger with a winder and mandrel as taught by Ohta , a known suitable mechanism for braiding a tubular preform. While Ohta teaches hot setting the impregnated fibers on the mandrel to retain the shape, Ohta is silent to impregnating fibers disposed on mandrels. While Burlefinger teaches impregnating the tubular pre-form in a mold, Burlefinger is silent to how the shape of the tubular pre-form is retained. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Burlefinger in view of Ohta with an impregnation mandrel as taught by Corradini for the purpose of providing a mandrel suitable for withstanding molding pressure during impregnation step of Burlefinger for the purpose of providing support for and retaining the shape of the hollow preform as taught by Corradini . Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraysee (PG-PUB 2015/0345682) i n view of Darrow (US 3,621,661) and Burlefinger (English Translation of DE102011077287). Regarding claim 15, Fraysse teaches a method of forming a connection system, comprising: p roviding a connector (Figure 2, item 4 and 41 and [0050]-[0054] ); c onnecting a fluid transfer conduit to the hub portion of the connector, such that the hub portion fits onto or into the fluid transfer conduit (Figure 2, item 2 and [0051], [0055]). Fraysse teaches the releasable conduit is for a pipeline for the circulation of fluid, in particularly fuel [0019], [0025]. Fraysse does not teach manufacturing a composite connector according to the method of claim 1. Darrow teaches a process for manufacturing hollow shafts, ducts, or pipes with integral end flanges (Col 1, ln 10-16). Darrow teaches metal shafts and end flanges have several limitations, including expense , weight, and potential failure in weak bonds (Col 1, ln 19-40). Darrow teaches using a composite shaft with integral connecting flanges are light weight and strong (Col 3, ln 42- Col 2, ln 5). As presented above in the rejection of claim 1, Burlefinger teaches a process of manufacturing a composite connector capable for use as a fluid transfer conduit: manufacturing a tubular pre-form which extends substantially parallel to a central axis, the tubular pre-form comprising continuous circumferentially-oriented fiber reinforcement (Figure 2 and [0012] ); manufacturing a continuous fiber pre-form net, the pre-form net comprising a support layer and continuous fiber reinforcement, the continuous fiber reinforcement being secured by being stitched to the support layer (Figure 3a and 3b and [0012]-[0013] ); placing the tubular pre-form and the pre-form net together into a mold to form a tubular hub portion from the tubular pre-form and a flange portion from the pre-form net, the flange portion extending from the hub portion at an angle to the central axis [0013]-[0014]; and introducing polymer into the mold so as to form a composite connector comprising the flange portion and the hub portion [0013]-[0014]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Fraysse with the connector of Burlefinger for the benefit of providing lightweight and strong shafts as taught by Darrow. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Fraysee with the process of manufacturing the composite connector as taught by Burlefinger to yield the predictable result of providing a composite connector as taught by Darrow. Regarding claim 16, Fraysse in view of Darrow and Burlefinger teaches the process as applied to claim 15 . Fraysse teaches There is therefore a need to improve the connection of the conduits in an aircraft pipeline system, while at the same time maintaining optimum assembly between the conduits and avoiding any leaks, any assembly clearance and any assembly defects [0012]. Fraysse in view of Darrow and Burlefinger the composition and orientation of the continuous fiber reinforcement at least within the hub portion is selected such that the coefficient of thermal expansion and/or the stiffness of the hub portion substantially matches that of the fluid transfer conduit. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton (MPEP 2141.03). One of ordinary skill in the art motivated to incorporate the composite connector of Burlefinger in the process of Fraysse would have stood the selected connector should be suitable for use with the particular fluid transfer conduit used in order to engineer an assembly with no leaks and defects, as desired by Fraysse . Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a suitable composition and orientation of the continuous fiber reinforcement for providing the desired coefficient of thermal expansion and/or hub stiffness suitable for use with the fluid transfer conduit in order to provide an optimum assembly. Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraysee (PG-PUB 2015/0345682) i n view of Darrow (US 3,621,661) and Burlefinger (English Translation of DE102011077287), as applied to claim 16, in further view of Correa (PG-PUB 2016/0153597). Regard 17, Fraysee in view of Darrow and Burlefinger teaches the process as applied to claim 16. While it appears a seal is disposed in the annular section of the fluid transfer conduit ( Fraysse , Figure 12-13) , the disclosure is unclear. Fraysee in view of Darrow and Burlefinger does not teach positioning an elastomeric O-ring between an outer surface of the fluid transfer conduit and an inner surface of the hub portion or between an inner surface of the conduit and an outer surface of the hub portion to seal a connection between the fluid transfer conduit and the composite connector. Correa teaches fuel line coupling components couple together coaxially aligned fuel lines and allow for relative longitudinal movement (Figure 1 and 2). Correa teaches an elastomeric O-ring seal 14b is positioned within an annular recessed seat 14c of the coupling member 14 So as to prevent fuel leakage (Figure 4 and [0018]). Correa teaches a n elastomeric O-ring seal 16b is positioned within an annular seat 16a at the distal end 12b of the outer tubular housing member 12 so as to allow such sliding movement of the fuel line FL (Figure 1 and 5 and [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the process of Fraysse in view of Darrow and Burlefinger with an elastomeric seal between an outer surface of the fluid transfer conduit and an inner surface of the hub portion for the benefit of sealingly engaging the components of the pipeline and preventing fuel leakage, as taught by Correa. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1578 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9:00-5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Phillip Tucker can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712721095 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT HANA C. PAGE Examiner Art Unit 1745 /HANA C PAGE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745