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 without traverse of Group II (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 01/27/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the at least one keying feature must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not in narrative form made of multiple short sentences. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
METHODS OF MANUFACTURING COMPOSITE CONNECTORS .
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In specification, paragraph [0001], insert the US patent number corresponding to the parent application no. 16/536,353.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by JPS5823627Y2 (hereinafter “JP627”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JPS5823627Y2 (hereinafter “JP627”) in view of McMillan (US 9,140,140).
As applied to claim 1, JP627 teaches a method of manufacturing a composite connector (connector 1/2, Figs. 1-2) for a fluid transfer conduit (intended use limitation), the method comprising providing a tubular mandrel which extends substantially parallel to a central axis (“filament winding method” inherently includes a mandrel to wind around); winding continuous fibre reinforcement, impregnated with a thermosetting polymer, around the mandrel to form a tubular hub portion (1) which extends substantially parallel to the central axis (axis along longitudinal direction of the tubular hub); curing the hub portion; placing the hub portion into a mould featuring at least one cavity (“design by molding” inherently includes a cavity to receive material for forming the flange); and introducing polymer into the mould so as to fill the at least one cavity to form a flange portion (2) around the hub portion (see English Machine Translation, Description, pages 1-2).
In case Applicant does not agree that JP627 teaches a mandrel for winding the fibre reinforcement around, then McMillan teaches that it is well-known to use a mandrel in filament winding process (col. 3, 49-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a mandrel in the method of JP627, as taught by McMillan, as an effective means of allowing the forming of the tubular hub from fiber reinforcement layers impregnated with thermosetting polymer into the desired shape.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Grendelman et al. (US 4,217,935, hereinafter “Grendelman”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Grendelman et al. (US 4,217,935, hereinafter “Grendelman”) in view of McMillan (US 9,140,140).
As applied to claims 1 and 2, Grendelman teaches a method of manufacturing a composite connector (connector 14/15, Figs. 1-4) for a fluid transfer conduit (intended use limitation), the method comprising providing a tubular mandrel which extends substantially parallel to a central axis (“winding filament” inherently includes a mandrel to wind around, col. 3, lines 5); winding continuous fibre reinforcement, impregnated with a thermosetting polymer (col. 1, lines 6-9, col. 2, lines 31-33), around the mandrel to form a tubular hub portion (14) which extends substantially parallel to the central axis (axis along vertical direction in Fig. 4); curing the hub portion; placing the hub portion into a mould (12, Fig. 4) featuring at least one cavity that receives material for forming the flange 15); and introducing polymer (thermosetting polymer, col. 3, lines 39-43) into the mould so as to fill the at least one cavity to form a flange portion (15) around the hub portion (14, Fig. 4).
In case Applicant does not agree that Grendelman teaches a mandrel for winding the fibre reinforcement around, then McMillan teaches that it is well-known to use a mandrel in filament winding process (col. 3, 49-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a mandrel in the method of Grendelman, as taught by McMillan, as an effective means of allowing the forming of the tubular hub from fiber reinforcement layers impregnated with thermosetting polymer into the desired shape.
As applied to claim 4, the combination of Grendelman and McMillan teaches the invention cited including Grendelman teach that the method further comprises a resin transfer molding process to form the flange portion around the hub portion (col. 3, lines 39-43).
As applied to claim 5, the combination of Grendelman and McMillan teaches the invention cited including Grendelman teach wherein chopped-fiber reinforcement (8) is introduced into the mold (12) with thermosetting polymer (col. 3, lines 39-43).
As applied to claim 6, the combination of Grendelman and McMillan teaches the invention cited including Grendelman teach comprising curing the thermosetting polymer (cured epoxy, col. 2, lines 65-68) of the hub portion before introducing polymer into the mold to form the flange portion.
As applied to claim 8, the combination of Grendelman and McMillan teaches the invention cited including Grendelman teach forming the flange portion along a section of the hub portion. Considering the broadest reasonable claim interpretation, a top portion of the flange (15) is formed partway along the hub portion and away from the extreme end of the hub portion (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grendelman et al. (US 4,217,935, hereinafter “Grendelman”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Grendelman et al. (US 4,217,935, hereinafter “Grendelman”) in view of McMillan (US 9,140,140) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 206840761 U, hereinafter “Zhou”).
As applied to claim 3, the combination of Grendelman and McMillan teaches the invention cited including the connection between the tubular hub and the flange but does not explicitly teach forming of a keying feature on the tubular hub portion.
Zhou teaches a tubular hub portion (30) made of reinforcement fibers and thermosetting polymer molded with a flange portion (20) wherein a keying feature (conical surface 31) is formed at the end for the hub portion (30) so that the resin can enter during the injection molding to provide additional structural strength to the joint. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form a keying feature on hub portion of the Grendelman/McMillan, as taught by Zhou, as an effective means of forming a joint with enhanced structural strength.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grendelman et al. (US 4,217,935, hereinafter “Grendelman”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Grendelman et al. (US 4,217,935, hereinafter “Grendelman”) in view of McMillan (US 9,140,140) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peters et al. (US 9,834,250, hereinafter “Peters”).
As applied to claim 7, the combination of Grendelman and McMillan teaches the invention cited including Grendelman teach curing the thermosetting polymer (cured epoxy, col. 2, lines 65-68) of the hub portion before introducing polymer into the mold to form the flange portion followed by curing the flange portion in the mold (col. 4, lines 10-14). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach the simultaneous or co-curing of the hub and flange portions.
Peters teaches a method of forming a composite component comprising a hub and a flange t made of fibers impregnated with matrix material wherein the component can be cured either prior to placing the preform into the mold or cured simultaneously with the molding compound (col. 5, lines 41-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide simultaneous curing of the hub and flange of Grendelman/McMillan, as taught by Peters, as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “A”). The resulting method would be reasonably expected to perform in the manner taught by Grendelman/McMillan without modification of the principles of operation of Grendelman, because Grendelman does not dissuade one of ordinary skill in the art from using a conventional co-curing of the hub and flange portions and thus understood to permit any conventional technique for curing the hub and flange portions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bedborough et al. (GB 2483264 A) teaches a pipe 12 of a fibre reinforced composite material and having an end inner surface that tapers inwardly, a reinforcing element 30 having a portion positioned inside the pipe end and having an outer surface shape 33 corresponding to the shape of the pipe end inner surface, the reinforcing element including a radially orientated flange 36. The assembly also includes a second pipe 14 of a fibre reinforced composite material and having an end inner surface 48 that tapers inwardly, a second reinforcing element 50 having a portion positioned inside said second pipe end and having an outer surface shape 53 corresponding to the shape of the second pipe end inner surface, the second reinforcing element including a radially orientated flange 56. The reinforcing element flanges 36, 56 are held against relative axial movement by a locking device 16 which has recesses 61, 62 retaining respective arrays of locking keys 67, 69 (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 03/27/2026