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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 - 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai et al (US Patent 7,735,536) in view of Amano et al (US 2002/0139430).
Mukai et al taught the feeding of helical winding of filaments 74 in a symmetrical deposition (see Figures 9A-9C) which included first and second feeding devices which were each traversed along the axis of a mandrel having a central cylindrical portion and two dome ends therein. The system not only included movement of the filament guides 110 along an axis parallel to the mandrel 50 to symmetrically apply the filaments but it also included the translation of the mandrel along the axis of the cylindrical mandrel. The system included traversing the filament guides simultaneously with the translation of the mandrel along the cylindrical axis therein (see Figure 9C and the description of the same, column 17, line 41-column 18, line 40). The reference taught the use of a controller which controlled the entire operation. The reference additionally taught that there were multiple applicators (winding guides) on each side of the mandrel for the symmetrical application (two on each side). Additionally the reference taught that the feeding arrangement for the filaments included an impregnation device 76 as part of the arrangement. the reference taught that the winding operation was useful for formation of a pressure vessel therein.
Mukai et al is discussed above in paragraph 5 and applicant is referred to the same for a complete discussion of the reference. The reference did include a controller as well as an operator panel which was used to control the winding operation described in the reference (see Figure 5 of the reference). The reference failed to express that one skilled in the art would have provided the program instructions to operate the system on a computer readable medium, however the applicant is advised that those skilled in the art were well aware of the use of a non-transitory computer readable medium which was used with a processor for controlling an operation and the use of such computer readable medium with instructions thereon is take as well known and conventional in the winding art for controlling a computer controlled winding operation. Applicant is hereby given Official Notice that such computer readable medium with instructions thereon for controlling a winding operation are well known and conventional in the art. Given that the reference to Mukai et al provided a controller for controlling the winding operation in the manner described and claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the controller with instructions from a computer readable medium which included instructions to operate the system in the manner described by Mukai et al using the computer readable instructions on the recorded medium of the known system in the art.
Mukai fails to explicitly disclose that the pitch axis of the winding support is perpendicular to the roll axis of the winding support. Yet the art of Amano, which discloses a filament winding apparatus that efficiently fabricates an FRP pipe (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Mukai, discloses moving the at least one primary feeding device and the at least one secondary feeding device along a pitch axis of the winding support with respect to the base, the pitch axis of the winding support being perpendicular to the roll axis of the winding support (paragraph 74). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first and second feeding devices are moved along a pitch axis of the winding support with respect to the base, the pitch axis of the winding support being perpendicular to the roll axis of the winding support, as suggested by Amano, in Mukai’s method. The rationale being stated by Amano is that by allowing to move the feeding devices in a perpendicular direction to the roll axis of the winding support allows to adjust the engagement of the fiber strands to the impregnating roller (paragraph 74).
Response to Arguments
Due to Applicant’s amendment, Applicant’s arguments, filed June 12, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 - 17 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Amano et al (US 2002/0139430).
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 JOSHEL RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/JOSHEL RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights