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.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kremers (WO 2006/107196).
Regarding claim 1, Kremers teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a fiber-reinforced tube, the apparatus comprising: a stock roll (18) from which a strip (8) of fiber material is fed, a pressure roller (9) positioned downstream of the stock roll and configured to apply a compressive force to the strip at a contact region to consolidate the strip against a mandrel (4), and a heating means (13) which blows hot gas into an area encompassing a portion of a travel path of the strip upstream of the contact region to heat the strip prior to pressing with the pressure roller (See Figures; p. 2 line 29 to p. 4, line 14; p. 5, lines 21-30; p. 6, lines 29-30; p. 8, lines 3-6). The stock roll (18), strip (8) of fiber material, pressure roller (9), and heating means (13) which blows hot gas read on the instantly claimed tape reel, tape, compression roller, and nozzle configured to direct a heating gas, respectively.
Regarding claims 2-3, Kremers teaches that the strip (8) comprises a plurality of unidirectional fibers oriented in a feeding direction (i.e. parallel to the tape path of travel) and embedded in a thermoplastic matrix (See p. 7, lines 17-24). Examiner notes that the particular type of tape used is a material worked upon by the apparatus rather than a positively recited element of the apparatus itself and therefore does not impart patentability to the claims. Examiner has included the teachings of Kremers which encompass the same material worked upon, however such a material is not considered to be a positively recited component of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 17, Kremers also teaches a method of manufacturing a fiber-reinforced tube, the method comprising: dispensing a strip (8) of fiber material along a travel path, using a heating means (13) to blow hot gas over an area encompassing a portion of the travel path upstream of a pressure roller (9) having a contact region with a mandrel (4), heating the strip with the hot gas at the area encompassing the portion of the travel path, and consolidating the strip (8) on the mandrel and/or a previously wound strip layer by applying a compressive force on the heated strip (8) with the pressure roller at the contact region (See Figures; p. 2 line 29 to p. 4, line 14; p. 5, lines 21-30; p. 6, lines 29-30; p. 8, lines 3-6). Regarding the strip (8) being a unidirectional tape, Kremers teaches that the strip (8) comprises a plurality of unidirectional fibers oriented in a feeding direction (i.e. parallel to the tape path of travel) and embedded in a thermoplastic matrix (See p. 7, lines 17-24).
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 4-7, 9-10, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremers (WO 2006/107196).
Kremers teaches an apparatus and method for manufacturing a fiber-reinforced tube, as detailed above.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Kremers does not expressly disclose nitrogen gas, however the use of nitrogen gas is implicit in the reference. Kremers states that the hot gas may be inert gas or air (See p. 5, lines 28-29). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “inert gas” to include non-reactive noble gases as well as other commonly used non-reactive gases such as nitrogen and carbon dioxide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use nitrogen as the inert gas disclosed by Kremers.
Regarding claim 5, the strip (8) of Kremers includes a width dimension as claimed (See Figures). Kremers does not expressly disclose a width and length of an area of the heated gas along the tape width. The selection of such dimensions are a routine matter of design choice which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. One of ordinary skill would readily understand that the width of the area in which the hot gas is applied should be slightly larger than the strip, in particular because the entirety of the strip is melted for consolidation. The length of such an area would be a routine design choice which would depend on the size of the pressure roller as well as the time needed for the hot gas to melt the strip. These are predictable and routine considerations which one of ordinary skill in the art would contemplate when utilizing the apparatus of Kremers. Applicant has not demonstrated any new or unexpected result which arises from the particular dimensions claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Kremers teaches that the hot gas serves to melt a thermoplastic matrix material of the strip just upstream of the contact region (See Fig. 1; p. 7, line 25 to p. 8, line 6). To perform as described and melt the thermoplastic matrix of the strip, the hot gas must be hotter than the melting temperature of the thermoplastic, which meets the limitation “the nitrogen gas having a temperature above the melting temperature of the tape.” While Kremers does not teach an upper limit to the temperature of the hot gas, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the hot gas of Kremers would be below 500°C as claimed. More specifically, the thermoplastic materials disclosed by Kremers include polyethylene and polypropylene, which have varying melting temperatures depending on their chemical structure but generally lie within the range of 100°C to 170°C, which is well below the upper range of the instant claims. Since there is no discussion of the upper range in Kremers, it is reasonable to conclude that the hot gas would include temperatures just above the melting point of the recited thermoplastic materials. To heat up to 500°C or greater would be unnecessary and come at a considerable cost with a large amount of wasted energy, which would be avoided by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Kremers teaches that the strip (8) comprises a plurality of unidirectional fibers oriented in a feeding direction (i.e. parallel to the tape path of travel) and embedded in a thermoplastic matrix (See p. 7, lines 17-24).
Claim 10 contains the same limitations as claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons detailed above with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use nitrogen as the inert gas disclosed by Kremers for the same reasons detailed above with respect to claims 4 and 6. Regarding the use of thermoplastic unidirectional tape, Kremers teaches that the strip (8) comprises a plurality of unidirectional fibers oriented in a feeding direction (i.e. parallel to the tape path of travel) and embedded in a thermoplastic matrix (See p. 7, lines 17-24). Regarding the heating step, Kremers teaches that the hot gas serves to melt a thermoplastic matrix material of the strip just upstream of the contact region (See Fig. 1; p. 7, line 25 to p. 8, line 6).
Claim 19 contains the same limitations as claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons detailed above with respect to claim 5.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremers (WO 2006/107196) in view of Panico (US 3,782,889).
Kremers teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a fiber-reinforced tube, as detailed above.
Kremers does not expressly disclose a shield which concentrates the nitrogen gas in the path of travel of the tape as claimed.
Panico teaches an apparatus comprising reels (27,28) configured to dispense webs (30,31) which are wound on a mandrel (10) and a blower (21) which directs heated air toward the webs on the mandrel (See Figure; col. 2, line 42 to col. 3, line 62). Panico also teaches a housing (35) and an insulating partition (24) which enclose the blower (See Figure; col. 3, lines 10-13). The enclosure and insulating partition act as shields which prevent the heated air from dissipating, thereby concentrating the heated air in a heating area as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an enclosure around the heating means (13) of Kremers. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Panico that to do so would predictably improve efficiency (See col. 3, lines 10-12).
Claims 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremers (WO 2006/107196) in view of Babeau (US 2024/0092040).
Kremers teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a fiber-reinforced tube, as detailed above.
Regarding claim 11, Kremers does not expressly disclose a sensor configured to measure a temperature of the strip in the area in which it is heated with the hot gas.
Babeau teaches an apparatus for preparing composite parts, the apparatus comprising a support (5) around which a thermoplastic-impregnated band of fibrous material is wound and a plurality of heating systems (1-6) (See Figures; [0083]-[0127]; [0203]). Babeau teaches that the temperature of the tape is measured just prior to contact with a pressure roller (See [0206]). Any detection device which measures temperature as described reads on the instantly claimed sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the temperature sensor of Babeau in the apparatus of Kremers in order to provide real-time observation of temperature when the apparatus is in use.
Regarding claim 12, Kremers does not expressly disclose a heater positioned upstream of the contact region and configured to heat the mandrel or a previously applied layer of tape on the mandrel.
Babeau teaches a first heating system (2) (See Fig. 1) immediately upstream from where the band comes into contact with the mandrel, which is the same position as the heating means of Kremers and as the instantly claimed nozzle. Babeau teaches a second heating system (6) which heats a previously applied band (n-1) before a subsequent band (n) is applied at a contact point with the mandrel (See [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the second heating system of Babeau in the apparatus of Kremers in order to ensure that a previously wound layer of tape is sufficiently heated to form a reliable and consistent bond with a subsequently applied layer.
Regarding claim 20, Kremers does not expressly disclose a step of heating the mandrel or a previously applied layer of tape on the mandrel prior to application of compressive force to a subsequent layer of tape.
Babeau teaches a method of making a composite material, the method comprising heating a previously applied band (n-1) with a second heating system (6) before a subsequent band (n) is applied and compressed at a contact point with the mandrel (See [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the heating step with the second heating system of Babeau in the method of Kremers in order to ensure that a previously wound layer of tape is sufficiently heated to form a reliable and consistent bond with a subsequently applied layer.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremers (WO 2006/107196) in view of Babeau (US 2024/0092040) and Panico (US 3,782,889).
All limitations of claim 15 are included in claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 12. All such limitations are taught by Kremers, Babeau, and Panico for the reasons detailed above with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 12. Therefore claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons provided above. The rejections and rationales for combining references will not be repeated here for brevity.
Regarding claim 16, the use of nitrogen gas is implicit in the Kremers reference for the reasons detailed above with respect to claims 4 and 6.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremers (WO 2006/107196 A1) in view of Michael (US 3,202,560).
Kremers teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a fiber-reinforced tube, the apparatus comprising a pressure roller (9) configured to apply a compressive force to the strip at a contact region to consolidate the strip against a mandrel (4), as detailed above.
Kremers does not expressly disclose a hollow mandrel with ferrous metal balls contained in its interior, wherein the apparatus further includes a magnet configured to apply an attractive force to the balls and thereby create a compressive force on the mandrel.
Michael teaches an apparatus for forming glass-reinforced plastic pipe, the apparatus including a mandrel (22a) with a hollow cavity, a ball (146) of magnetically attractable material inside the hollow cavity, and a magnet (118a) which attracts the ball to provide a force on the mandrel (See Fig. 5; col. 8, line 60 to col. 9, line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the mandrel of Kremers as a hollow mandrel with a magnetically attractable ball inside and to provide an external magnet to attract the ball and thereby create force on the mandrel because Michael teaches that such components were recognized in the prior art as being suitable for creating a pressing force on a mandrel (See Fig. 5; col. 8, line 60 to col. 9, line 6).
Regarding the use of multiple balls in the mandrel, the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the instant case, the use of multiple balls yields a predictable result of each ball being subjected to a magnetic field and thereby being attracted to the magnet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746