DETAILED ACTION
This application is a division of U.S. Application No. 16/536,344 filed August 9, 2019 which claims priority to European Patent Application No. 18386024.6 filed August 10, 2018, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on 06/14/2024, 08/22/2024 and 11/25/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by Hori et al. (US 2015/0299913-of record).
With respect to claim 1, Hori teaches a method of manufacturing a connector (“tubular fiber-reinforced composite material to facilitate coupling to another member”, Pa [0011]), the method comprising:
providing a first mould section comprising a hub-moulding portion which extends substantially parallel to a central axis and a flange-moulding portion which extends from the hub-moulding portion at an angle to the central axis (“a tubular fiber structure including a tube and a flange located on at least one side of the tube.”, Pa [0012]; “the tubular fiber structure 10, removed from the outer jig 51 a and the inner jig 51 b, is accommodated in a cavity of a mold.”, Pa [0056]; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the shape of the cavity corresponds to the shape of the final product.);
introducing fiber-reinforcement to the first mould section (“the tubular fiber structure 10, removed from the outer jig 51 a and the inner jig 51 b, is accommodated in a cavity of a mold.”, Pa [0056]) such that continuous circumferentially-oriented fiber-reinforcement lies in the hub-moulding portion, and continuous longitudinally-oriented fiber reinforcement extends from the hub-moulding portion into the flange-moulding portion (“The tubular fiber structure is formed by shaping a fabric base material that is rolled. Here, the “fabric base material” is formed by threads laid out to extend in at least two directions and includes at least a portion that is woven from threads (interweaved portion).”, Pa [0012] and Fig. 2);
applying a second mould section (implicit) over the first mould section to form a complete mould in which the fiber-reinforcement is confined (“the cavity is closed”, Pa [0056]); and
introducing a polymer to the complete mould such that it permeates through the fiber-reinforcement to form a fiber-reinforced polymer connector (“After the cavity becomes almost vacuum, the cavity is filled with uncured thermosetting resin. Then, the resin is heated and cured to manufacture the fiber reinforced composite material.”, Pa [0056]); and
inherently extracting the connector from the mould.
It is noted that the limitation “for a fluid transfer conduit” in the preamble is an intended use since the coupling taught by Hori is capable of being used as a connector for a fluid transfer conduit. It has been held that If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
With respect to claim 4, Hori as applied to claim 1 above teaches that fiber introduced to the mould is dry fiber (“The tubular fiber structure is formed by shaping a fabric base material that is rolled. Here, the “fabric base material” is formed by threads laid out to extend in at least two directions and includes at least a portion that is woven from threads (interweaved portion).”, Pa [0012]).
With respect to claim 5, Hori as applied to claim 1 above further teaches applying a tackifier to the dry fiber-reinforcement (“The overlapping sections of the flange-corresponding portion 11 b (overlapping sections of the fabric base material 11) that has undergone shaping are fixed by an adhesive agent”, Pa [0055]).
With respect to claim 6, Hori as applied to claim 1 above teaches that the fiber-reinforcement comprises a woven tube (“The tubular fiber structure is formed by shaping a fabric base material that is rolled. Here, the “fabric base material” is formed by threads laid out to extend in at least two directions and includes at least a portion that is woven from threads (interweaved portion).”, Pa [0012]).
With respect to claim 7, Hori as applied to claim 1 above teaches that the method comprises a resin transfer moulding process (“The tubular fiber structure 10 is, for example, impregnated with a matrix resin and hardened in an RTM process to form a fiber reinforced composite material.”, Pa [0056]).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2, 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 2015/0299913) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McMillan (US 9,140,140) (All of record).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Hori as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach that the flange-moulding portion comprises at least one raised boss, around which the fiber-reinforcement is diverted, wherein the diverting the fiber-reinforcement around the raised boss produces at least one through-hole in the finished connector which is defined by continuous fiber reinforcement.
In the same field of endeavor, composite flange element, McMillan teaches that a composite flange element 10 comprises a cylindrical portion 12 of a component and a flange portion 14 (co 2 li 32-36), and the composite flange element is used being abutted to a second flange element 16 and the flange portions 14, 20 of the composite and second flange elements 10, 16 abut one another and are connected through holes 22, 24 by a bolt 26 (co 2 li 45-46, 50-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hori with the teachings of McMillan such that the one would provide the cavity corresponding to the composite flange element having a hole in the flange-moulding portion in order to manufacture a connector which is able to connect another flange portion through the hole by a bolt.
With respect to claim 8, Hori as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach that the fiber-reinforcement comprises hoop overwound fiber-reinforcement.
In the same field of endeavor, composite flange element, McMillan teaches that a composite flange element 10 comprises a cylindrical portion 12 of a component and a flange portion 14 (co 2 li 32-36), a composite flange having a ply layup which provides desirable properties for the flange (co 1 li 66-67), the first plies comprise a portion which corresponds to the cylindrical portion 12 of the component and a portion which corresponds to the flange portion 14 (co 4 li 16-19), and the second plies 32 over a section of the flange portion 14 comprise radially oriented fibres 42 and circumferentially oriented fibres 44, the radial fibres 42 provide stiffness and strength to the flange portion 14 and the circumferential fibres provide hoop strength (co 4 li 39-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hori with the teachings of McMillan such that the one would additionally provide the plies comprising radially oriented fibres and circumferentially oriented fibres over the section of the flange portion with the fabric base material in order to provide stiffness and strength to the flange portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742