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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 07/08/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 02/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3 and 5 have been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-8 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 07/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hori et al. (US 2015/0299913), and further in view of Ohta et al. (US 5,685,933) (All of record).
The following action is a second non-final office action.
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 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 2015/0299913) in view of Ohta et al. (US 5,685,933) (All of record).
With respect to claims 1 and 3, 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 (“a mold”, Pa [0056]) 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).
Hori does not explicitly teach that the flange-moulding portion comprises at least one raised boss, around which the fiber-reinforcement is diverted.
In the same field of endeavor, a method of manufacturing the drive shaft, Ohta teaches that the invention uses a tubular mandrel 40, as shown in Fig. 10, connected at each end to a framework 43 composed of a plurality of frames 42 each having a pin 41, next, a resin impregnated fiber W is wound on the mandrel 40 hooking on the pins 41 of the framework 43 to form a shaft body 14, and when the stopper 45 is subsequently removed from the framework 43, a flange 16 is thus formed, and the flange 16 can be provided with a sufficiently large area for forming the bolt inserting holes 18, by suitably predetermining the length and number of frames 42 of the framework 43 (co 7 li 43-co8 li 5).
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 Ohta such that the one would provide the mold having the pins on the flanges in order to form the bolt inserting holes to facilitate coupling to another member.
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]).
With respect to claim 8, Ohta as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the fiber-reinforcement comprises hoop overwound fiber-reinforcement (“since the fiber W wound in the shape of a hoop near each end flange 16 forms a wide reinforcing band 15, the strength of the flange 16 is further enhanced.”, co 6 li 3-5).
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
Prosecution Insights