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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1,3,6-13 and 15-17, in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction is moot as the pressure vessel includes the same limitations of the pressure vessel of claim 1 (pg 7 ln 14-17). This is not found persuasive because as demonstrated in the restriction requirement dated 11/06/2025 and further demonstrated below, the claims do not share a special technical feature. Additionally, the recitations of “water-soluble”, “liner-free”, and “pressure rating of at least 100 psi” do not impart patentable weight to the computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions. Specifically, the use of a water-soluble material would be based on the material loaded into the printer, the manufacturing of a “liner-free” vessel would require removal of the liner which is part of the computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions, and the pressure rating of the vessel would be based on the composite material which forms the final product.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/23/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 the phrase “further comprising, when acted upon by the 3D printer, cause” should read -further comprising instructions, when acted upon by the 3D printer, cause”.
Claim 16 the term “non-sphericall” in line 4 and should read -non-spherical-.
Claim 17 the term “including” in line 3 should read -includes-.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1,3,6-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claims 1,3,6-13 and 15-17 are directed to “[a] computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions”. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of machine (computer) readable media encompasses non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission or carrier wave. As such, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03.II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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, 10, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Garcia (US20220314528A1).
In reference to claim 1:
Garcia discloses a computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions (para 0025) which, when acted upon by a 3D printer, cause the 3D printer to
print a water-soluble mandrel (10) of a liner free composite pressure vessel, the mandrel having a predetermined size, shape, and internal volume (10c) and including at least one end (13) having an opening (17) to the internal volume (paras 0025-0026, Fig. 1); and
further cause the 3D printer to print a fluid management device integral to and contained by the mandrel (channels, para 0029. See Applicant’s published specification para 0057 disclosing the fluid management device may be a channel).
Garcia does not explicitly disclose the composite pressure vessel having a pressure rating of at least 100 psi. However, the pressure rating of the composite pressure vessel manufactured by using the water-soluble mandrel does not limit the computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions for printing the water-soluble mandrel. More specifically, the mandrel is removed to form a liner-free composite pressure vessel (see Applicant’s published specification para 0053 discussing that the mandrel would serve as a liner if left intact) and the pressure rating would be influenced by the composite material wrapped around the mandrel. As such, Garcia teaches each of the limitations required of claim 1.
In reference to claim 10:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Garcia further discloses wherein the fluid management device is a channel (49) (channels, para 0029).
In reference to claim 13:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Garcia further discloses wherein the mandrel further includes a boss (15), the opening defined by the boss (para 0034).
In reference to claim 15:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Garcia further discloses wherein the mandrel includes a first end section (13a), a second end section (13b), and at least two middle sections (11) (para 0023, Figs. 1 and 11).
In reference to claim 16:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Garcia further teaches wherein the predetermined shape is non-sphericall (Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Stratasys (FDM Sacrificial Composite Tooling – previously of record).
In reference to claim 3 and 6:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Garcia does not wherein the fluid management device is a baffle (31) (claim 3) or wherein the baffle includes a plurality of through holes (27) (claim 6). However, this would have been obvious in view of Stratasys. Stratasys discloses a computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions (pg 11 disclosing “design sacrificial core”) which, when acted upon by a 3D printer, cause the 3D printer to print a soluble mandrel (10) of a composite pressure vessel. Stratasys further discloses printing the mandrel to have an internal baffle including a plurality of through holes in order to provide higher crush strength, improved fluid flow, and reduced washout time (pgs 9-10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions of Garcia with the baffle and through holes of Stratasys in order to obtain a computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions which produce
In reference to claim 7:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Garcia does not disclose wherein the fluid management device is a cylinder (25) arranged coaxial a longitudinal centerline of the mandrel, the cylinder including a plurality of through holes (27). However, this would have been obvious in view of Stratasys. Stratasys discloses a computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions (pg 11 disclosing “design sacrificial core”) which, when acted upon by a 3D printer, cause the 3D printer to print a soluble mandrel (10) of a composite pressure vessel. Stratasys further discloses printing the mandrel to have an internal cylinder including a plurality of through holes in order to provide higher crush strength, improved fluid flow, and reduced washout time (pgs 9-10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions of Garcia with the internal cylinder and through holes of Stratasys in order to obtain a computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions which produce a mandrel with higher crush strength, improved fluid flow, and reduced washout time.
In reference to claims 8 and 9:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Garcia does not disclose wherein the fluid management device divides the internal volume into at least two chambers (41) (claim 8) or wherein the at least two chambers are in fluid communication with one another (claim 9). However, this would have been obvious in view of Stratasys. Stratasys discloses a computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions (pg 11 disclosing “design sacrificial core”) which, when acted upon by a 3D printer, cause the 3D printer to print a soluble mandrel (10) of a composite pressure vessel. Stratasys further discloses printing the mandrel to have at least two internal chambers which are in fluid communication with each other in order to provide higher crush strength, improved fluid flow, and reduced washout time (pgs 9-10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions of Garcia with the internal cylinder and through holes of Stratasys in order to obtain a computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions which produce a mandrel with higher crush strength, improved fluid flow, and reduced washout time.
In reference to claim 17:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Garcia does not disclose wherein an inside surface (1Oc) of the mandrel including an iso-grid (43). However, this would have been obvious in view of Stratasys. Stratasys discloses a computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions (pg 11 disclosing “design sacrificial core”) which, when acted upon by a 3D printer, cause the 3D printer to print a soluble mandrel (10) of a composite pressure vessel. Stratasys further discloses printing the mandrel to have an internal surface includes an iso-grid in order to provide higher crush strength, improved fluid flow, and reduced washout time (pgs 9-10, lower right image on page 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions of Garcia with internal isogrid of Stratasys in order to obtain a computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions which produce a mandrel with higher crush strength, improved fluid flow, and reduced washout time.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Bouwmeester (US20200269528A1).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Garcia does not disclose wherein the fluid management device is a diaphragm. However, this would have been obvious in view of Bouwmeester. Bouwmeester teaches a 3D printed mandrel (para 0160, Fig. 3). Bouwmeester further teaches placing diaphragms across the internal structure of the mandrel in order to improve the mandrel stiffness and maintain the predefined shape of the outer surface of the mandrel (para 0121-0122). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions of Garcia with the diaphragms of Bouwmeester in order to obtain a mandrel which improves the mandrel stiffness and maintains the predefined shape of the outer surface of the mandrel.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Kotliar (US20160061381A1).
In addition to the discussion of claim 11, above, Garcia further discloses instructions which when acted upon by the 3D printer cause the 3D printer to manufacture a boss through additive manufacturing (para 0034). Garcia does not disclose the computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions further comprising, when acted upon by the 3D printer, cause the 3D printer to print a valve contained in part by the opening. However, this would have been obvious in view of Kotliar. Kotliar discloses a 3D printed valve for controlling fluid flow into and out of the pressure vessel (para 0063). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions of Garcia with the integrally formed valve of Kotliar in order to obtain a mandrel which provides for a mechanism for controlling fluid flow into and out of the pressure vessel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745