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 of Claim 1-15 in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3 . 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a rotation device" in line 10. Applicant recites in claim 1 in line 7 “a rotation device”. Examiner is not clear if they are the same rotation device since both recitations use “a”. For examining purposes it’s assumed to be the same rotation device.
Claims 2-15 are also rejected by virtue of dependecy
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.
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) 1,14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102282688, hereinafter KR’688 (translation provided in IDS) in view of CN 115139553 hereinafter CN’553
Regarding Claim 1, KR’688 discloses apparatus for manufacturing a hydrogen tank, the apparatus comprising: a molding device configured to form a hollow cylindrical initial resin material body by solidifying a liquid resin material ([0001], [0057]-[0060]); a winding device provided at a molding device downstream side of the molding device and configured to form an intermediate material by winding a carbon fiber around a material outer surface of the initial resin material body formed by the molding device (Figure 4, [0016], [0060] winding machine-50); a rotation device provided at a winding device downstream side of the winding device and configured to impregnate an epoxy resin with the initial resin material body and the carbon fiber by rotating the intermediate material formed by the winding device (Figures 2-3, [0011], [0012], rotating mandrel-11); KR’688 discloses that after the carbon fibers are wound on the outer body then both ends are pulled ([0055], [0060] ) but didn’t disclose that a pultrusion device/ pulling unit provided at a rotation device downstream side of the rotation device.
In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, CN’553 discloses pultrusion/pulling unit (Figure 1, pultrusion rollers-41, 42, page-1, 3, 4, pulling unit-4).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of the apparatus of KR’688 with that of the CN’553 pultrusion molding equipment for the purpose of pulling the molded product from being deformed under pressure (page-4).
KR’ 688 discloses that carbon fibers are wound on the rotating mandrel-11 ([0011], Figure-4) and then after the carbon fibers are wound they are longitudinally pulled at both ends ([0060]) which meets the limitation of to stretch the intermediate material, which has passed through the rotation device/mandrel, in a longitudinal direction. Further, re: pultrusion device/ pulling unit provided at a rotation device downstream side of the rotation device, this is mere shifting of location. It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Regarding Claim 14, KR’688 discloses that the winding device and the molding device are positioned adjacent to each other (Figure 4, molding device comprising the tank-10 with carbon fibers wound around, winding device-50).
Regarding Claim 15, wherein the winding device and the molding device are in contact with each other (Figure 4-5, molding device comprising the tank-10 with carbon fibers wound around, winding device-50).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102282688, hereinafter KR’688 translation provided dated 03/28/ listed in IDS in view of CN 115139553 hereinafter CN’553 as applied in Claim 1 further in view of JP H0834066 hereinafter JP’066
Regarding Claim 2 KR’688 discloses apparatus for manufacturing a hydrogen tank, the apparatus comprising: a molding device configured to form a hollow cylindrical initial resin material body ([0001], [0057]-[0060]), but didn’t specifically disclose that wherein the molding device comprises: a molding body having at least one resin inlet through which the resin material is introduced, the molding body having a molding outlet through which the initial resin material body is discharged. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, CN’553 discloses the molding device comprises: a molding body having at least one resin inlet through which the resin material is introduced, the molding body having a molding outlet through which the initial resin material body is discharged (mold-56, page-8, translated, Figure 1). Further, JP’066 discloses and the molding body having a molding hole in the molding body and corresponding to an initial tank outer surface of the hydrogen tank; and a mandrel provided in the molding hole of the molding body and the mandrel having a shape corresponding to an inner surface of the hydrogen tank (mold-56, mandrel-32D, hollow body-94, page -10, para 2nd, translated Figure 2).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of the apparatus of KR’688 with that of the JP’066 teaching of molding body with a hole with a mandrel provided in the hole and the mandrel having a shape corresponding to an inner surface of the tank for the purpose of having a desired shape of the outer body (page 10, translated).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102282688, hereinafter KR’688 translation provided dated 03/28/ listed in IDS in view of CN 115139553 hereinafter CN’553 and JP H0834066 hereinafter JP’066 as applied in Claim 2 and further in view of Kameriet (US 20200078996)
Regarding Claim 3, KR’688 discloses apparatus for manufacturing a hydrogen tank, the apparatus comprising: a molding device configured to form a hollow cylindrical initial resin material body ([0001], [0057]-[0060]), but didn’t disclose that wherein the molding body further comprises: a first molding body having a first molding groove; and a second molding body provided below the first molding body, wherein the second molding body having a second molding groove, and wherein the first molding groove and the second molding groove collectively define the molding hole. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Kamereit discloses a first molding body having a first molding groove; and a second molding body provided below the first molding body, wherein the second molding body having a second molding groove (Figure annotated). Further, Kamereit discloses wherein the first molding groove and the second molding groove collectively define the molding hole ([0017], [0071], core-3 passes through the opening).
It would have been obvious one ordinary skilled in the art to combine KR’688 molding apparatus with that of Kamereit’s teaching of two different molding bodies for the purpose of uniform distribution of the resin material for the formation of the tank body.
PNG
media_image1.png
508
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Kameriet discloses wherein a first resin inlet is in an upper portion of the first molding body (Figures 3-4, runner-22).
5. Regarding Claim 5, Kameriet discloses wherein a second resin inlet is in a lower portion of the second molding body (Figures 1-2, runner-22).
Regarding Claim 6, Kamereit discloses a first resin inlet is in an upper portion of the first molding body (Figures 3-4, runner-22) and wherein a second resin inlet is in a lower portion of the second molding body (Figures 1-2, runner-22) but didn’t explicitly disclose that a second pressure of the resin material introduced through the second resin inlet in the second molding body is higher than a first pressure of the resin material introduced through the first resin inlet in the first molding body. Regarding the specific limitation that a second pressure of the resin material introduced through the second resin inlet in the second molding body is higher than a first pressure of the resin material introduced through the first resin inlet in the first molding body are the process of using the apparatus and viewed as recitation of intended use. Also see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 7-8, KR’688 discloses a winding device provided at a molding device downstream side of the molding device and configured to form an intermediate material by winding a carbon fiber around a material outer surface of the initial resin material body formed by the molding device and a carbon fiber inlet in the winding body and the carbon fiber inlet being configured to allow the carbon fiber and the epoxy resin to be introduced through the carbon fiber inlet (Figure 4, [0016], [0060] winding machine-50); but didn’t disclose that a winding body having a winding hole therein; a winding inlet in the winding body and the winding inlet being configured to allow the initial resin material body to be introduced through the winding inlet; a winding outlet in the winding body and the winding outlet being configured to allow the intermediate material to be discharged through the winding outlet; which seems to be unobvious.
Regarding Claims 9-11, KR’688/CN’553 disclose pultrusion/pulling device at a rotation device downstream side of the rotation device and a plurality of inlet rollers provided in the rotation inlet and configured to guide the intermediate material in a circumferential direction (Figure 1, rotation devices/rollers-41, 42, page-1, 3, 4, pulling unit-4, CN’553) but didn’t explicitly that a rotation body having a rotation hole therein; a rotation inlet in the rotation body and the rotation inlet being configured to allow the intermediate material, which is discharged from the winding device, to be introduced through the rotation inlet; a rotation outlet in the rotation body and the rotation outlet being configured to allow the intermediate material, which passes through the rotation body, to be discharged through the rotation outlet is deemed unobvious.
Regarding Claims 12-13, KR’ 688 discloses that carbon fibers are wound on the rotating mandrel-11 ([0011]) and then after the carbon fibers are wound they are longitudinally pulled at both ends ([0060]). Further CN’553 discloses pultrusion/pulling unit with plurality of rollers (Figure 1, pultrusion rollers-41, 42, page-1, 3, 4, pulling unit-4). However prior arts did not disclose that pultrusion body having a pultrusion hole therein, the pultrusion body having a pultrusion inlet through which the intermediate material discharged from the rotation device is introduced, and a pultrusion outlet through which the intermediate material is discharged from the pultrusion body and the pultrusion rollers being configured in the longitudinal direction of the intermediate material having passed through the rotation device is deemed novel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison HIndenlang can be reached at 571-700-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741