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 § 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 3 and 14 are 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 claim 3, line 1, the word “Process” should be changed to –process—(uncapitalized) as the claim is meant to only have a single word capitalized therein at the beginning of the claim.
In claim 14, the claim appears to be intended to be dependent upon claim 8 (the generic system claim) however the claim as presented does not depend upon any claim at all. This is unclear and confusing. For purposes of examination it is assumed applicant intended the claim to be dependent upon claim 8. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-14, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mukai et al (US 7735536).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai et al (US 7735536).
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hatta (US 11254070), Ross et al (US 3232545) and Kaminsky et al (US 4010906) all suggested symmetrical application of two windings from opposite sides of the central winding axis of the mandrel therein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFRY H AFTERGUT whose telephone number is (571)272-1212. The examiner can normally be reached M,W,F 7:30-9, 10:30-5 pm T, Th 7:30-4.
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 N 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.
/JEFFRY H AFTERGUT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights