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 with traverse of claims 8-18 in the reply filed on January 5th, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that (1) unity was found to exist during the international stage of the present application and (2) unity exists between the claims of Groups I and II since both of these groups of claims share at least one special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a mold in which a prepreg is heated and cured, wherein an annular pressure source utilizing its own thermal expansion exists between a cavity of the mold and the prepreg, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Shigero et al. (JP 2008018623 A; hereafter Shigero). Please note that the claims of group I are directed to an apparatus and thus the limitations pertaining to the use of the apparatus do not add further structure or patentably distinguish the apparatus from the prior art. Shigero discloses a mold (Fig. 3; [0026]; upper and lower casings 20 and 21) in which a prepreg (Fig. 3; [0025]; uncured reinforcing fiber prepreg 15) is heated and cured (Fig. 3; [0026]; object to be molded is heated to a molding temperature, such that the prepreg is cured), wherein an annular pressure source utilizing its own thermal expansion (Fig. 3; [0027]; rubber molding dies 17 and 18 thermally expand to apply annular pressure to 15) exists between a cavity of the mold and the prepreg (Fig. 3; [0026-0027]; 17,18 exist between the cavity defined by closed 20, 21 and 15).
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 5th, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of undue length. 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. 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).
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15-18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 8, “the prepreg by the pressure source” should say “the unidirectional prepreg by the annular pressure source” for claim language consistency.
Claim 9, line 2, “the pressure source” should say “the annular pressure source” for claim language consistency.
Claim 11, lines 2-3, “an external pressure” should say “the external pressure” for claim language consistency.
Claim 11, line 4, “the pressure source” should say “the annular pressure source” for claim language consistency.
Claim 13, line 3, “the pressure source” should say “the annular pressure source” for claim language consistency.
Claim 15, lines 2-3, “the pressure source” should say “the annular pressure source” for claim language consistency.
Claim 16, line 4, “the pressure source” should say “the annular pressure source” for claim language consistency.
Claim 17, lines 2-3, “the pressure source” should say “the annular pressure source” for claim language consistency.
Claim 18, line 2, “the pressure source” should say “the annular pressure source” for claim language consistency.
Claim 18, line 3, “the removed pressure source” should say “the removed annular pressure source” for claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 and 16-18 are 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 13 recites the limitation “the thickness of the unidirectional prepreg” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitations of “the assembly” and “the other side” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the temperature of the mold” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
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.
Claims 8, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. (JPS62211112A; hereafter Yano; page numbers correspond to attached English machine translation), in view of Gruhl et al. (DE 102016224367 A1; hereafter Gruhl; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Yano discloses a molding method (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, Ln. 18) for a rotary-component reinforcement carbon fiber reinforced plastic (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, Ln. 7 and Pg. 3, Ln. 17-20; carbon FRP wrapped around pipe, wherein a pipe can necessarily rotate around its central axis), the method molding a ring comprising a carbon fiber reinforced plastic (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, Ln. 7 and Pg. 7, 1st ¶; carbon fibers 2 and resin 4) for reinforcement of a rotary component having a circular cross section (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, Ln. 17-20 and Pg. 7, 1st ¶; pipe core 1) as an outermost layer of the rotary component (Fig. 1; carbon fibers 2 and resin 4 are wrapped around pipe core 1), characterized in that, in a process in which unidirectional carbon fibers (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, Ln. 7; unidirectional carbon fibers 2) and resin (Fig. 1; Pg. 7, 1st ¶; resin 4) are heated and cured (Pg. 3, Ln. 9; heat curing) in a mold (Fig. 1; Pg. 7, 1st ¶; mold 5) after being wound on the rotary component, an annular pressure source (Fig. 1; Pg. 4, Ln. 14; rubber layer 13 is annular shaped as it wraps around core 1) utilizing its own thermal expansion (Fig. 1; Pg. 5, Ln. 9-10; rubber layer 13 with a thermal expansion coefficient expands when heated) is interposed between a cavity of the mold and the unidirectional carbon fibers and resin (Fig. 1; rubber layer 13 is in between a cavity of mold 5 and carbon fibers 2 and resin 4), and an external pressure is applied to the unidirectional carbon fibers and resin by the annular pressure source (Fig. 1; Pg. 5, Ln. 9-11; when heated the rubber layer 13 thermally expands and applies pressure to carbon fibers 2 and resin 4).
Yano does not explicitly disclose the unidirectional carbon fibers are pre-impregnated with a thermosetting resin.
However, Gruhl teaches that it was well-known in the analogous art that a unidirectional prepreg (Fig. 2; [0042]; unidirectional fibers preimpregnated) comprising carbon fibers ([0010]; carbon fibers) and thermosetting resin ([0035]; thermosetting matrix material) can be molded by expansion pressure ([0033]).
Yano and Gruhl are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of fiber composite molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unidirectional carbon fibers and resin of Yano into a unidirectional carbon fiber thermosetting resin prepreg as taught by Gruhl. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Doing so would simplify the molding process by removing the need for the resin to be applied to the carbon fibers and allow the prepreg to be shaped by simple pressure.
Regarding claim 13, modified Yano discloses the molding method for a rotary-component reinforcement carbon fiber reinforced plastic according to claim 8, wherein Yano further discloses a thickness of the annular pressure source is in a range of 1 to 100 times a thickness of the unidirectional prepreg (Fig. 1; the thickness of the rubber layer 13 is in a range of 1 to 100 times a thickness of carbon fibers 2 and resin 4; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 15, modified Yano discloses the molding method for a rotary-component reinforcement carbon fiber reinforced plastic according to claim 8, wherein Yano further discloses the annular pressure source is in contact with the unidirectional prepreg (Fig. 1; Pg. 6, 1st ¶; rubber layer 13 contacts the carbon fibers 2 and resin 4 when it expands) and has a certain gap with the mold before heating (Fig. 1; Pg. 4, Ln. 17-18; gap 14 provided between mold body and rubber layer 13).
Regarding claim 16, modified Yano discloses the molding method for a rotary-component reinforcement carbon fiber reinforced plastic according to claim 8, wherein Yano further discloses the cavity of the mold is formed as a through hole (Fig. 1; cavity inside the mold 5 is formed as a through hole inside the mold 5), the rotary component, the unidirectional prepreg and the annular pressure source are assembled in a predetermined positional relationship to form a pre-assembly (Fig. 1; pipe core 1, the carbon fibers 2 and resin 4 and rubber layer 13 are in the given arrangement shown in Figure 1 with a gap 14 therein).
Modified Yano does not explicitly disclose after the pre-assembly is inserted into the through hole from one side and the ring is molded, an assembly in which the ring is molded is demolded from another side of the through hole.
However, the mold 5 comprising a through hole cavity of Yano is connected to upper and lower holding molds 7 and 8 (Fig. 1; Pg. 5, 1st ¶) respectively using threaded connectors (Marked Fig. 1). Yano teaches components of the assembly are inserted into the through hole cavity of mold 5 and then are held in place by these upper and lower holding molds 7 and 8 (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, Ln. 1-3). After molding, the assembly with the molded fiber reinforced plastic structure is demolded from the mold assembly (Pg. 2, Ln. 5-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
883
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
From these teachings of Yano, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would readily conceive the idea that before upper and lower holding molds 7 and 8 are threaded onto mold 5, the components of the assembly can be inserted inside mold 5 via one end of the through hole cavity of mold 5 and after molding upper and lower holding molds 7 and 8 can be removed from mold 5 via their threaded connection in order to demold the molded assembly from the other end of the through hole cavity of mold 5 in what would amount to a simple demolding process. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01. Doing so would allow the molded carbon fiber reinforced plastic to be removed from the molding assembly and provide the finished article.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. (JPS62211112A; hereafter Yano; page numbers correspond to attached English machine translation), in view of Gruhl et al. (DE 102016224367 A1; hereafter Gruhl; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Hosokawa et al. (US 20160059500 A1; hereafter Hosokawa).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yano discloses the molding method for a rotary-component reinforcement carbon fiber reinforced plastic according to claim 8, wherein Yano further discloses the annular pressure source is a flexible object (Pg. 4, Ln. 14-17; rubber layer 13 is made of silicone rubber).
Yano does not explicitly disclose the annular pressure source has a linear expansion coefficient of 1 x10-4/⁰C or more.
However, in the analogous art Hosokawa teaches a thermally expandable pressure source ([0064]; thermally expansive body) formed from silicone rubber ([0064]; silicone rubber) can have a linear expansion coefficient of 1 x10-4/⁰C or more ([0064]; greater than or equal to 1.0×10.sup.−4/° C). The thermally expandable pressure source is used to shape a carbon fiber reinforced prepreg ([0045]).
Yano and Hosokawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of fiber composite molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the annular pressure source of Yano with the teachings of Hosokawa to provide the annular pressure source has a linear expansion coefficient of 1 x10-4/⁰C or more. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. It is preferable to use such a material for the pressure source as it takes into consideration the mold release characteristic, the thermal expansion characteristic, and the flexibility (Hosokawa [0064]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yano discloses the molding method for a rotary-component reinforcement carbon fiber reinforced plastic according to claim 9, wherein Yano further discloses a material of the flexible object is a silicone rubber (Pg. 4, Ln. 14-17; rubber layer 13 is made of silicone rubber). As outlined in the rejection of claim 9, Hosokawa also teaches a thermally expandable pressure source ([0064]; thermally expansive body) formed from silicone rubber ([0064]; silicone rubber).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. (JPS62211112A; hereafter Yano; page numbers correspond to attached English machine translation), in view of Gruhl et al. (DE 102016224367 A1; hereafter Gruhl; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Lamirand et al. (FR 2638672 A1; hereafter Lamirand; page numbers correspond to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yano discloses the molding method for a rotary-component reinforcement carbon fiber reinforced plastic according to claim 8.
Modified Yano is silent as to the amount of external pressure applied by to the unidirectional prepreg by the annular pressure source.
However, in the analogous art Lamirand teaches that it is well-known to mold carbon fiber reinforced prepregs (Pg. 5, 3rd ¶; carbon fibers pre-impregnated) comprising thermosetting resin (Pg. 5, 3rd ¶; epoxy) with an inflation pressure of 0.1 MPa or more and 10 MPa or less (Pg. 7, 2nd ¶; inflation pressure was between 3 and 6 bars, corresponding to 0.3 MPa and 0.6 MPa).
Yano and Lamirand are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of fiber composite molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Yano with the teachings of Lamirand to provide the external pressure of 0.1 MPa or more and 10 MPa or less is applied to the unidirectional prepreg by the annular pressure source. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow rotary-component reinforcement carbon fiber reinforced plastic to be easily produces to the desired length (Lamirand Pg. 7, 2nd ¶).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. (JPS62211112A; hereafter Yano; page numbers correspond to attached English machine translation), in view of Gruhl et al. (DE 102016224367 A1; hereafter Gruhl; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Ozaki et al. (US 20220305699 A1; hereafter Ozaki).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yano discloses the molding method for a rotary-component reinforcement carbon fiber reinforced plastic according to claim 8.
Modified Yano does not explicitly disclose the mold is made of a non-magnetic material.
However, in the analogous art Ozaki teaches a mold ([0037]; mold portion 2) for shaping carbon fiber reinforced plastic comprising thermosetting resin ([0060]; carbon fiber reinforced plastic using a thermosetting resin) using inflation pressure ([0036]; bladder 3 is inflated), wherein the mold is made of a non-magnetic material ([0037]; mold is made of aluminum alloy or a synthetic resin material, which are non-magnetic materials).
Yano and Ozaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of fiber composite molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Yano with the teachings of Ozaki to provide the mold is made of a non-magnetic material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Doing so would allow for a greater variety of materials to be selected for carbon fiber reinforced plastic material, such as magnetic filler materials, without interfering with the molding process.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. (JPS62211112A; hereafter Yano; page numbers correspond to attached English machine translation), in view of Gruhl et al. (DE 102016224367 A1; hereafter Gruhl; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Leoni et al. (US 5152949 A; hereafter Leoni).
Regarding claim 14, modified Yano discloses the molding method for a rotary-component reinforcement carbon fiber reinforced plastic according to claim 8.
Modified Yano does not disclose at least two or more cavities exist in one mold, and at least two or more rings are molded at the same time.
However, in the analogous art Leoni teaches that it is well-known to use molds (Fig. 2A, 2E; Col. 5, 3rd ¶; female mold 14) with two or more cavities (Fig. 2A, 2E; Col. 5, 5th ¶; female mold 14 can be divided by caul 32 to provide two cavities) when molding carbon fiber reinforced plastics (Col. 9, 4th ¶) with inflation pressure (Fig. 2A, 2E; Col. 5, 5th ¶; bladder/liner 36 apply pressure when inflated).
Yano and Leoni are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of fiber composite molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Yano with the teachings of Leoni to provide at least two or more cavities exist in one mold. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Furthermore, given two or more cavities in the mold of modified Yano it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to duplicate the molding process in order to mold two or more rings at the same time, since it has been well settled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 VI(B). One would have been motivated to duplicate the process of molding the ring for the purpose of improving productivity.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. (JPS62211112A; hereafter Yano; page numbers correspond to attached English machine translation), in view of Gruhl et al. (DE 102016224367 A1; hereafter Gruhl; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation) as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Kemp (US 4889668 A).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yano discloses the molding method for a rotary-component reinforcement carbon fiber reinforced plastic according to claim 16.
Modified Yano does not explicitly disclose the annular pressure source is removed from the demolded assembly and the removed annular pressure source is repeatedly used.
However, in the analogous art Kemp teaches a flexible pressure source (Col. 1, 4th ¶; expandable elastomer, silicone rubber) made of silicone rubber (Col. 1, 4th ¶) for molding pre-pregs (Col. 1, 4th ¶) by expansion (Col. 1, 4th ¶; silicone rubber expands when heated to apply isostatic pressure to the pre-preg), wherein the flexible pressure source maybe contracted to separate from the molded prepregs (Col. 6, last ¶ and Col. 7, 1st ¶) and is reusable (Col. 13, 1st ¶; elastomeric pressure members were reused).
Yano and Kemp are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of fiber composite molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Yano with the teachings of Kemp to provide the annular pressure source is removed from the demolded assembly and the removed pressure source is repeatedly used. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would reduce costs by allowing the annular pressure source to be reused across different molding cycles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the references of the record nor any other prior art, taken alone or in combination, teach or fairly suggest the cumulative limitations of claim 17.
Regarding claim 17, Yano discloses a molding method (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, Ln. 18) for a rotary-component reinforcement carbon fiber reinforced plastic (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, Ln. 7 and Pg. 3, Ln. 17-20; carbon FRP wrapped around pipe, wherein a pipe can necessarily rotate around its central axis), the method molding a ring comprising a carbon fiber reinforced plastic (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, Ln. 7 and Pg. 7, 1st ¶; carbon fibers 2 and resin 4) for reinforcement of a rotary component having a circular cross section (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, Ln. 17-20 and Pg. 7, 1st ¶; pipe core 1) as an outermost layer of the rotary component (Fig. 1; carbon fibers 2 and resin 4 are wrapped around pipe core 1), characterized in that, in a process in which unidirectional carbon fibers (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, Ln. 7; unidirectional carbon fibers 2) and resin (Fig. 1; Pg. 7, 1st ¶; resin 4) are heated and cured (Pg. 3, Ln. 9; heat curing) in a mold (Fig. 1; Pg. 7, 1st ¶; mold 5) after being wound on the rotary component, an annular pressure source (Fig. 1; Pg. 4, Ln. 14; rubber layer 13 is annular shaped as it wraps around core 1) utilizing its own thermal expansion (Fig. 1; Pg. 5, Ln. 9-10; rubber layer 13 with a thermal expansion coefficient expands when heated) is interposed between a cavity of the mold and the unidirectional carbon fibers and resin (Fig. 1; rubber layer 13 is in between a cavity of mold 5 and carbon fibers 2 and resin 4), and an external pressure is applied to the unidirectional carbon fibers and resin by the annular pressure source (Fig. 1; Pg. 5, Ln. 9-11; when heated the rubber layer 13 thermally expands and applies pressure to carbon fibers 2 and resin 4).
Hosokawa teaches a thermally expandable pressure source ([0064]; thermally expansive body) formed from silicone rubber ([0064]; silicone rubber) can have a linear expansion coefficient of 1 x10-4/⁰C or more ([0064]; greater than or equal to 1.0×10.sup.−4/° C). The thermally expandable pressure source is used to shape a carbon fiber reinforced prepreg ([0045]). Hosokawa teaches that by lowering the temperature of the mold the thermally expandable pressure source contracts so that the molded article can be easily removed from the mold ([0060, 0062]).
Kemp teaches a flexible pressure source (Col. 1, 4th ¶; expandable elastomer, silicone rubber) made of silicone rubber (Col. 1, 4th ¶) for molding pre-pregs (Col. 1, 4th ¶) by expansion (Col. 1, 4th ¶; silicone rubber expands when heated to apply isostatic pressure to the pre-preg), wherein the flexible pressure source maybe contracted to separate from the molded prepregs (Col. 6, last ¶ and Col. 7, 1st ¶) and is reusable (Col. 13, 1st ¶; elastomeric pressure members were reused). Kemp teaches heating and cooling means are provided for heating and cooling the die and the expandable elastomer selectively in a first zone and another zone (Col. 3, 2nd ¶). However, the expansion and contraction of the expandable elastomer is a result of raising or lower the temperature via the platens 12 and 14, which are adjacent the die 26 such that changing the temperature of the expandable elastomer would change a temperature of a portion of the die (Col. 6, 4th and 5th ¶).
Robinson (GB 2542662 A) teaches a soft bladder 12 for shaping a composite part maybe removed by deflating while the bladder is still heated above its transition temperature ([0046]).
However, none of the references of the record nor any other prior art either alone or in combination, Inter Alia, teach or fairly suggest the annular pressure source is thermally shrunk to be demolded by locally cooling the assembly while keeping the temperature of the mold constant. While it is known in the prior art that a thermally expandable pressure source may be cooled to thermally shrink the pressure source and demold, in the prior art this is typically accomplished by cooling the molds containing the molded assembly. Therefore, claim 17 is deemed allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754