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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 26th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims received on May 26th, 2026 have been entered. Claim 1has been amended and claims 16 and 17 have been canceled. Claims 18 and 19 have not been submitted within the Applicant Arguments/Remarks. Claims 18 and 19 remain to be open for examination unless otherwise stated/written by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicant argues, regarding amended claim 1, that if the leaves (12, 14, 16), of Rollins (US 7,252,261 A), are considered to be the top portions of the arcuate cavities defined by hook members (34, 36), then the leaves (12, 14, 16) cannot also be bridge elements defining the top of the rectangular cavities defined by hook members (34, 36) in which the thrusting means (19, 20, 21) are positioned. While the top portion of Rollins (labeled as elements 12, 14, and 16) is unitary in structure, the overall element comprises several geometric features which further comprise separate functions. Image 1 below clearly points out the features the applicant claims in the invention. Rollins teaches a top and a bottom portion which is understood to be referring to the placement of what the following elements are provided. A ledge profile is provided in the prior art of Rollins (known as faces 46, 48 within the prior art) which further comprises corresponding bridged portion (known as hook members 30, 32 within the prior art). It should be noted that one skilled in the art understand that when an element defines another element, it is understood that the position or characteristics of one element being determined by the properties or position of the other element. The function of the leaves (12, 14, 16) are understood to be considered the top portion which further provides the hook members (30, 32) which corresponds to the bridge that defines the top of the ledge profile.
PNG
media_image1.png
497
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Image 1: Annotated top and bottom portions of Rollin's Fig. 19)]
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 13-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pretto (US 5,746,387 A), in view of Weber (US 2012/0018565 A1), and in further view of Rollins (US 7,252,261 A).
Regarding claim 1, Pretto discloses a shaft comprising (Col 2, Ln. 63-66 & Fig. 2, shaft 10) a first, inner tube made of a composite fiber material (Col. 3, Ln. 1-15, shell 12 having a shell core 11), a plurality of cavity profiles made of a composite fiber material disposed in between the inner and outer tubes (Col. 3, Ln. 1-15 & Fig. 7, openings 19, 21, and 23), and a plurality of ledge profiles made of a composite fiber material and disposed in between the inner and outer tubes, the cavity profiles and the ledge profiles being arranged in an alternating manner, wherein one ledge profile is arranged in between two cavity profiles and one cavity profile is arranged in between two ledge profiles (Col. 3-4, Ln. 59-67, 1-4 & Fig. 6-7, rail lips 26 and elongated rails 13, 15, and 17), but fails to disclose a second outer tube.
However, Weber teaches wherein the outer tube is positioned completely circumferentially around the plurality of cavity profiles and the plurality of ledge profiles in at least one position along a length of the shaft, and wherein the outer tube comprises a plurality of elongated slots discontinuously distributed along a length of the outer tube (Fig. 3-4 and 6, & Pg. 3, ¶50, tube 2, corresponding to an outer tube, having a plurality of openings which are elongated and discontinuous along the tube’s length). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an outer tube with openings extending along its length to provide protection from foreign objects and to secure the internal components. One skilled in the art merely requires to include an external shell to the device of Pretto and ensure the openings allow for the expanding exponents to pass through by adjusting the shape of the openings taught by Weber.
Pretto also fails to disclose wherein one or more of the plurality of cavity profiles are multi- part systems having a top and bottom portion which further comprises a bridge element defining a top of the ledge profile. However, Rollins teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of cavity profiles are multi-part systems, comprising a top portion adhered to a bottom portion, and wherein each of the plurality of ledge profiles is defined laterally by a wall of each adjacent cavity profile and on a base by an outer diameter of the inner tube, and further comprises a bridge element defining the top of the ledge profile (Fig. 18-19 depicting leaves 12, 14, 16 as top portion adhered to inner body 18, corresponding to a bottom portion, wherein hook members 30, 32 correspond to a bridge element defining a top portion of the faces 44, 46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a multi-part cavity portion with a top and bottom portion as well as a bridge element defining a top of the ledge profile to the shaft component in order to provide a means to replace components or elements for maintenance for improvement of material or structure, and to provide a larger contact surface area to prevent tearing and uniformly expand a wound material.
Regarding claim 2, Pretto discloses wherein the shaft is an expandable shaft comprising a plurality of protrusion elements, each protrusion element discontinuously positioned in one of the elongated slots (Col. 3-4, Ln. 59-67, 1-4 & Fig. 3 and 5-6, pad 32), and a plurality of expandable elements located in one or more of the ledge profiles (Col. 4, Ln. 5-11 & Fig. 3 and 5-6, bladder 34).
Regarding claim 3, Pretto discloses wherein the composite fiber materials of the tubes and the profiles comprise one or more of glass, carbon, aramid, or graphite (Col. 3, Ln. 16-39).
Regarding claim 4, Pretto discloses wherein the composite fiber material comprises a matrix of a thermoset resin, including one or more of an epoxy, polyesters, phenolics, vinyl esters, bismaleimide or polyurethane (Col. 3, Ln. 7-15).
Regarding claim 7, Pretto discloses wherein the plurality of protrusion elements and the plurality of expandable elements are arranged in the plurality of ledge profiles (Col. 3-4, Ln. 59-67, 1-4 & Fig. 3 and 5-6, rail lips 26, elongated rails 13, 15, and 17, and pad 32).
Regarding claim 8, Pretto discloses wherein the plurality of protrusion elements are lug assemblies, each comprising a lug and a lug support (Col. 3-4, Ln. 59-67, 1-4 & Fig. 3 and 5-6, strip 30 corresponding to a lug support and pad 32 corresponding to a lug).
Regarding claim 13, Pretto discloses wherein one or more of the plurality of cavity profiles are hollow (Col. 3, Ln. 1-15 & Fig. 7, openings 19, 21, and 23).
Regarding claim 14, Pretto discloses wherein one or more of the plurality of cavity profiles comprise a stiffening bar therein (Col. 3, Ln. 39-47 & Fig. 4, stiffeners 25, 27, 29).
Regarding claim 15, Pretto discloses wherein one or more of the plurality of cavity profiles are one- part systems (Col. 3, Ln. 1-15 & Fig. 7, openings 19, 21, and 23).
Regarding claim 18, Pretto discloses wherein the ledge profile comprises a curved upper surface, a curved lower surface, and parallel side walls between the curved upper surface and curved lower surface (best depicted in Fig. 3 and 7, rail lips 26 and elongated rails 13, 15, and 17).
Regarding claim 19, Pretto discloses wherein the composite fibers in the tubes and profiles are multi- directional (Col. 3, Ln. 7-15, the composite fibers being braided corresponding to the composite being multi-directional).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pretto (US 5,746,387 A), in view of Weber (US 2012/0018565 A1), in view of Rollins (US 7,252,261 A), and in further view of Pretto (US 5,379,964 A).
Regarding claims 5-6, Pretto ‘387 fails to disclose the manufacturing process of the shell assembly. However, Pretto ‘964 teaches wherein the tubes, the ledge profiles, and cavity profiles are made by filament winding or roll wrapping (Col. 1-2, Ln. 67-68, 1-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured the shaft and its intricacies using the taught methods of filament winding or roll wrapping as it would provide means for extruding a shaft with a complex geometry while maintaining its structural integrity.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pretto (US 5,746,387 A), in view of Weber (US 2012/0018565 A1), in view of Rollins (US 7,252,261 A), and in further view of Anderson (US 6,065,715 A).
Regarding claims 9-10, Pretto discloses wherein the plurality of expandable elements are bladder assemblies, each comprising a bladder configured to be inflated with air, (Col. 4, Ln. 5-11 & Fig. 3 and 5-6, clamp 37 corresponding to a bladder support)., but fails to disclose a bladder support. However, Anderson teaches a bladder support on which the bladder is disposed wherein the bladder support is a single-part system and made of rigid material such as a metal, composite, or plastics (Col. 2, Ln. 38-45 & Fig. 3 and 5-6, segment 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a bladder support to the plurality of expandable elements in order to provide a means for ensuring the bladder is in contact and in place when expanding and contracting.
Regarding claim 11, Pretto fail to discloses wherein the blader support is a multi-part system. However, Anderson teaches wherein the bladder support is a multi-part system and made of at least two different materials having different densities (Col. 3, Ln. 38-42 & Fig. 3 and 5-6, segment 15 and bars 11 being of composite material). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a multi-part bladder support system made of two different materials into the plurality of expandable elements in order to provide a means for component replacement or improvement as well as to improve rigidity and longevity of the assembly.
Regarding claim 12, Pretto discloses wherein the bladder is configured to push the lug outward when the bladder inflated with air, and when deflated, an installed spring system pushes the lug inward (Col. 4, Ln. 12-28, springs 48).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIA E MELIKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST and a flexed schedule on Fridays from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Victoria P. Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
ERMIA E. MELIKA
Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights