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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 12, 15 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Williams et al. 5,961,154.
In regard to claim 1, Williams et al. discloses a composite tube assembly comprising:
a first composite tube 90A having a first tubular core 92A and a first outer composite material 68 (FRP), the first outer composite material bonded to a first face of the first tubular core; and
a second composite tube 92B having a second tubular core and a second outer composite material 70 (FRP), the second outer composite material bonded to a second face of the second tubular core, wherein the second composite tube is coupled to the first composite tube via one or more couplers 20, each coupler of the one or more couplers including a composite portion (20 is made up of two parts 26 and 30, which are made from two different materials, thereby making it a composite coupler), each coupler of the one or more couplers secured to an exterior surface of the first outer composite material of the first composite tube and an exterior surface of the second outer composite material of the second composite tube and extending across a joint defined between the first and second composite tubes (bolts 50 and nuts 56 secure the secure the coupler to the exterior surface of the tubes).
In regard to claim 3, wherein the one or more couplers includes at least one composite ply 30 or 32 coupled to the first outer composite material 90a and the second outer composite material 90b.
In regard to claim 12, further comprising an adhesive 94, the adhesive configured to at least partially bond the one or more couplers with the first exterior surface of each of the first composite tube and the second composite tube (see fig 7A), and wherein the adhesive is a matrix precursors (see abstract where the sealing adhesive 94 has a curing agent and epoxy resin).
In regard to claim 15, wherein at least one of the first tubular core or the second tubular core is an additively manufactured core (this is considered a product by process limitation that carries little patentable weight in an apparatus claim. The claimed process must impart a structural limitation that other forms of manufacture may not provide. If the tubular core of Williams et al. was produced using another method of manufacture, such as extrusion or machining, it would have the same physical properties as that of a core that was produced by additive manufacturing. Williams et al. includes all of the positively recited structural limitations as that of the core of the present invention and is therefore deemed to anticipate the claim).
Claim(s) 7 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller et al. 4,702,498.
In regard to claim 7, Mueller et al. discloses a composite tube assembly comprising:
A first composite tube 2 having a first tubular core 2 and a first outer composite material 3, the first outer composite material bonded to a first face of the first tubular core; and
A second composite tube having a second tubular core 2 and a second outer composite material 3, the second outer composite material bonded to a second face of the second tubular core,
wherein the first tubular core comprises a first core main portion 2 and a first core flange 11 extending radially from the first core main portion, the first outer composite material comprises a first outer main portion 3 and a first outer flange 9 extending radially from the first outer main portion, the second tubular core comprises a second main portion 2 and a second core flange 11 extending radially from the second core main portion and the second outer composite material comprises a second outer main portion 3 and a second outer flange 9 extending radially from the second outer main portion.
In regard to claim 23, wherein at least one of the first tubular core or the second tubular core is an additively manufactured core (this is considered a product by process limitation that carries little patentable weight in an apparatus claim. The claimed process must impart a structural limitation that other forms of manufacture may not provide. If the tubular core of Williams et al. was produced using another method of manufacture, such as extrusion or machining, it would have the same physical properties as that of a core that was produced by additive manufacturing. Mueller et al. includes all of the positively recited structural limitations as that of the core of the present invention and is therefore deemed to anticipate the claim).
Claim(s) 7 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dweib et al. 2025/0146600.
In regard to claim 7, Mueller et al. discloses a composite tube assembly comprising:
A first composite tube 120 (the tube contains polyethylene and basalt powder) having a first tubular core and a first outer composite material 106a, the first outer composite material bonded to a first face of the first tubular core; and
A second composite tube 120 having a second tubular core and a second outer composite material 106a, the second outer composite material bonded to a second face of the second tubular core,
wherein the first tubular core 120 comprises a first core main portion and a first core flange (see fig. 1C) extending radially from the first core main portion, the first outer composite material 106a comprises a first outer main portion and a first outer flange extending radially from the first outer main portion, the second tubular core 120 comprises a second main portion and a second core flange extending radially from the second core main portion and the second outer composite material 106a comprises a second outer main portion and a second outer flange extending radially from the second outer main portion.
In regard to claim 22, the tubular core 120 comprises silicon (the basalt in the core contains silicon).
In regard to claim 23, wherein at least one of the first tubular core or the second tubular core is an additively manufactured core (this is considered a product by process limitation that carries little patentable weight in an apparatus claim. The claimed process must impart a structural limitation that other forms of manufacture may not provide. If the tubular core of Dweib et al. was produced using another method of manufacture, such as extrusion or machining, it would have the same physical properties as that of a core that was produced by additive manufacturing. Dweib et al. includes all of the positively recited structural limitations as that of the core of the present invention and is therefore deemed to anticipate the claim).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10-12, 15 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bradley 3,388,932.
In regard to claim 1, Bradley discloses (fig. 4) a composite tube assembly comprising:
a first composite tube 25 having a first tubular core 24 and a first outer composite material 33, the first outer composite material bonded to a first face of the first tubular core; and
a second composite tube 25 having a second tubular core 24 and a second outer composite material 33, the second outer composite material bonded to a second face of the second tubular core, wherein the second composite tube is coupled to the first composite tube via one or more couplers B, each coupler of the one or more couplers including a composite portion (24), each coupler of the one or more couplers secured (via 45) to an exterior surface of the first outer composite material of the first composite tube and an exterior surface of the second outer composite material of the second composite tube and extending across a joint defined between the first and second composite tubes (see fig. 4).
In regard to claim 3, wherein the one or more couplers includes at least one composite ply 24 coupled to the first outer composite material 33 and the second outer composite material 33.
In regard to claim 10, Bradley discloses (figs. 8 and 9) a composite tube assembly comprising:
A first composite tube 23 having a first tubular core 24 and a first outer composite material 33, the first outer composite material bonded to a first face of the first tubular core; and
A second composite tube 23 having a second tubular core 24 and a second outer composite material 20, the second outer composite material bonded to a second face of the second tubular core,
wherein the first composite tube includes a first tapering portion 24 wherein the first tubular core tapers in thickness and the first outer composite material 33 defines a substantially constant thickness and wherein the second composite tube includes a second tapering portion forming a socket wherein the second tubular core tapers 24 in thickness and the second outer composite material 33 defines a substantially constant thickness.
In regard to claim 11, wherein, when coupled, the first tapering portion extends into the second tapering portion such that the first outer composite material is positioned between an outer surface of the first tubular core and an inner surface of the second tubular core (see either figs. 8 or 9).
In regard to claim 12, further comprising an adhesive 45, the adhesive configured to at least partially bond the one or more couplers with the first exterior surface of each of the first composite tube and the second composite tube (see fig. 4), and wherein the adhesive is a matrix precursors (see col. 2, lines 47-49, where 45 can include a curing agent and epoxy resin).
In regard to claims 15 and 26, wherein at least one of the first tubular core or the second tubular core is an additively manufactured core (this is considered a product by process limitation that carries little patentable weight in an apparatus claim. The claimed process must impart a structural limitation that other forms of manufacture may not provide. If the tubular core of Bradley was produced using another method of manufacture, such as extrusion or machining, it would have the same physical properties as that of a core that was produced by additive manufacturing. Bradley includes all of the positively recited structural limitations as that of the core of the present invention and is therefore deemed to anticipate the claim).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. 5,961,154 in view of Schmidt et al. 2013/0036604.
In regard to claim 4, Williams et al. discloses a coupler 22, 24, as described above, where the coupler includes an unreinforced coupler core 62 made from a composite material (FRP) and a composite material 30, 26 bonded (via 94) to the unreinforced coupler core 60 (they are bonded at 62), but Williams et al. does not disclose the core as being a ceramic material. Schmidt et al. teaches that making similar types of composite couplers 40 either from FRP or ceramic material is common and well known in the art (see paragraph 19 of Schmidt et al.). Therefore, inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
In regard to claim 5, wherein the unreinforced ceramic coupler core (60 of Williams et al.) includes a main portion 60 and a tab 62 extending from the main portion, and
wherein the composite material 32, 26 is coupled to the main portion of the unreinforced
ceramic coupler core (via 94, see fig. 7A).
In regard to claim 6, wherein, when coupled, the tab 62 is positioned between the first composite tube 68 and the second composite tube 70 (see fig. 7).
In regard to claim 13, Williams discloses an outer composite material being FRP, but does not disclose outer composite material as being a ceramic matrix. Schmidt et al. teaches that making similar types of composite pipes 16, 17 either from FRP or ceramic material is common and well known in the art (see paragraph 19 of Schmidt et al.). Therefore, inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. 4,702,498 in view of Schmidt et al. 2013/0036604.
In regard to claim 21, Mueller et al. discloses an outer composite material 26 being FRP, but does not disclose outer composite material as being a ceramic matrix. Schmidt et al. teaches that making similar types of composite pipes 16, 17 either from FRP or ceramic material is common and well known in the art (see paragraph 19 of Schmidt et al.). Therefore, inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
Claim(s) 4, 13 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley 3,388,932 in view of Schmidt et al. 2013/0036604.
In regard to claim 4, Bradley discloses a coupler 8 as described above, where the coupler includes an unreinforced coupler core 24 made from a composite material (FRP) and a composite material 26 bonded to the unreinforced coupler core 24, but Bradley et al. does not disclose the core as being a ceramic material. Schmidt et al. teaches that making similar types of composite couplers 40 either from FRP or ceramic material is common and well known in the art (see paragraph 19 of Schmidt et al.). Therefore, inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
In regard to claims 13 and 24, Bradley discloses an outer composite material 26 being FRP, but does not disclose outer composite material as being a ceramic matrix. Schmidt et al. teaches that making similar types of composite pipes 16, 17 either from FRP or ceramic material is common and well known in the art (see paragraph 19 of Schmidt et al.). Therefore, inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 14 and 25 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bradley and Williams do not disclose a coupler secured to an exterior surface of the first and second tubes. The Examiner disagrees, as both Williams and Bradley disclose a coupler secured to the exterior of the pipes, as explained in further detail in the prior art rejection section above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In regard to claim 10, Applicant argues that Bradley fails to disclose a first tubular with a tapering core and an outer composite material of constant thickness and a second tapering portion forming a socket wherein the second tubular core tapers in thickness and the second outer composite material defines a substantially constant thickness. The Examiner disagrees, as Bradley discloses in figs. 8 and 9 a first tube 21 with a core piece that tapers at the end 24 and an exterior piece 33 that contains the same thickness as is extends from the exterior to the interior along the tapered portions of 32-24). Similarly, pipe 20 has layered portions 26-32 with a tapered end and layer 22 that stays a constant thickness.
The 103 rejection of Williams in view of Schmidt et al. has been maintained because it is the Examiner’s position that the 102 Williams rejection was proper for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID E. BOCHNA whose telephone number is (571)272-7078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/DAVID BOCHNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights