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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 01/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/08/2026.
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) 1-2, 5 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mordasini (U.S Patent 10632353B2).
Regarding claims 1-2, Mordasini, drawn to the art of fiber-reinforced composite by applying multiple layers of prepreg material to a mandrel (Abstract; 1-2a & 2b), discloses wrapping a first layer of fibers around a mandrel at a first angle to the axial direction of the mandrel (+45 or -45 degrees)(preform 10 with multiple plies, wherein ply 12 is interpreted as the first layer of fiber (see figure 1 & 2a-2b; Columns 1-2, lines 60-67 & 1-25; Column 5, lines 6-41)), and wrapping a second layer of fibers around the mandrel at a second angle (second layer 14) which is aligned with axial direction X of the mandrel (Column 5, lines 14-16 & 35-37). Mordasini discloses curing the resin to form the fiber composite (i.e. fiber panel) (Column 2, lines 25-27). See also generally Figures 5a & 6a for a general process overview.
Mordasini discloses removing the mandrel i.e. unwrapping the fabric composite (Column 1, lines 26-28) after curing. Mordasini also discloses that multiple preforms can be wound around the mandrel, as well as winding one preform with multiple plies in a successive manner (claim 1 & 15). Further, regarding the step of mingling with resin, Mordasini discloses that the fibers are comprised of tapes that are fibers in a resin matrix (Column 1, lines 30-37 & Columns 1-2, lines 60-67 & 1-2; Figures 4a & 4b – prepreg tape 10).
Regarding claim 5, Mordasini has disclosed heating and compacting the mandrel to cure the resin (Column 2, lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 8, Mordasini discloses that the first ply (12) is at angle of +45 or -45 degrees with respect to the axis of the mandrel X, and the second ply (14) is in the direction of the axis of the mandrel X, thus being at 0 degrees with respect to the axis of the mandrel X (see claim 1 rejection above). As such this means that the first and second angle are within 45 degrees of each other, since the difference between 0 degrees and 45 degrees is 45 and thus within 45 degrees.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mordasini (U.S Patent 10632353B2) and McLarty (U.S Patent 3629028).
Regarding claims 3-4, Mordasini has not explicitly disclosed supplying resin to the mandrel by immersing fibers through a resin bath before wrapping around the mandrel. However, this is well-known in the art as disclosed by McLarty below.
McLarty, drawn also to the art of fiber composite tubes (Column 1, lines 3-12), discloses a process wherein fiber filaments are passed through successive resin baths and then wrapped around a mandrel (Abstract; Column 1, lines 3-12).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Mordasini, with the step of immersing fibers through resin bath and then wrapping around the mandrel, as disclosed by McLarty, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to have a filament wound tube with smooth, even surfaces (Column 1, lines 67-70).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mordasini (U.S Patent 10632353B2) and Griffiths (U.S Patent 3639958A).
Regarding claim 6, Mordasini has not explicitly disclosed heating the mandrel by supplying electrical current to resistors inside the mandrel, however, this is a known prior art elements, as disclosed below by Griffiths.
Griffiths, drawn also to the art of forming a structure by coating fiber filaments with resin and winding them on a mandrel (Abstract), discloses that it is known in the art for the mandrel to be heated internally by electrical resistance heaters (i.e. electrical current to resistors inside the mandrel) (Column 4, lines 23-26).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Mordasini, with the heating of the mandrel taking place by electrical resistance heaters, as disclosed by Griffiths, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to be able to partially cure the resin coated fibers/filaments during winding (Column 4, lines 25-26).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mordasini (U.S Patent 10632353B2) and Ehsani (U.S Patent 11746546B1).
Regarding claim 7, Mordasini has not explicitly disclosed applying light to cure the resin, however, such a step is known from Ehsani, as disclosed below.
Ehsani, drawn also to the art of fiber reinforced polymer structure (Abstract; Column 1, lines 55-60), discloses curing the resin by heating the mandrel with electrical current, light, heat etc. (Column 7, lines 35-42).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Mordasini, with the step of curing the resin by heating the mandrel with light, as disclosed by Ehsani, since as such Ehsani discloses that heating the mandrel and curing the resin can be done by various different alternatives such as heating, light, or electrical current, and as such, the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods is held to be obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to yield predictable results (i.e. heat mandrel and cure resin) (MPEP 2143 I(A)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-2814313-A, drawn also to a fiber composite manufacturing process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746