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 .
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the terminal end" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. 4298330 to Davis (Davis).
With regard to claim 1, Davis discloses a cantilevered forming mandrel (Davis, title, abstract) having a fixed, upstream end (40, fig. 2) and a cantilevered, downstream end (figs. 9 and 11, the end opposite the upstream end) for the manufacture of an innervated tubular composite, wherein the geometry of the mandrel is curved (as shown in fig. 11).
With regard to claim 2, Davis discloses the cantilevered forming mandrel of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the radius of curvature of the mandrel is adjustable (as the mandrel is bent from a straight configuration as shown in fig. 2 and then moved to a bent configuration the members of the mandrel rotate with respect to each other and the result is an increasingly tightened radius of curvature).
With regard to claim 3, Davis discloses the cantilevered forming mandrel of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses comprising a heat source (as shown in fig. 5 and described at column 6, lines 63-66).
With regard to claim 4, Davis discloses the cantilevered forming mandrel of claim 3 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the heat source is chosen from resistance coils, electromagnetic induction units, and pipes containing warmed water or other liquid (column 6, lines 66-68).
With regard to claim 6, Davis disclose the cantilevered forming mandrel of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the unsupported downstream end comprises a cooling source (column 7, lines 3-4 “After curing, the mandrel 20 and hose H are removed and suitably cooled…”).
With regard to claim 7, Davis discloses the cantilevered forming mandrel of claim 6 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the cooling source comprises a heat exchanger (any temperatures differential creates a heat exchange. Even if the “suitably cooled…” language from the specification is considered to involve removing the hose from an curing chamber and exposing the still hot hose to a room full of ambient air, the room will constitute a cooling source that includes a heat exchanger).
With regard to claim 10, Davis discloses the cantilevered forming mandrel of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses comprising a plurality of straight sections connected to pivot joints (27/27, fig. 9).
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.
Claims 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 4298330 to Davis (Davis).
With regard to claims 5, 8 and 9, Davis discloses the cantilevered forming mandrel of claims 4, 7 and 1 respectively as set forth above, but does not further disclose wherein the heat source is located in the interior of the mandrel (4), wherein the heat exchanger is filled with a liquid chosen from water, refrigerant, and antifreeze (7), and wherein the terminal end comprises one or more inline and radially oriented nozzle arrays (8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the hose of Davis with a heat source in the interior of the mandrel such as pumping heated fluid through the mandrel in order to help soften and shape the hose prior to moving to the curved configuration. After curing of the hose, it would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the cured hose with a quenching station of radially oriented nozzles to set the hose in the curved configuration as is known to the skilled practitioner to use water to safely reduce the hose to temperatures safe for workers to handle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-21 are 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.
Claim 1 is written so broadly as to describe any mandrel that can be shaped into a curve. However, a curved mandrel having all of the limitations set forth in claims 2-9 (adjustable radius of curvature, heat source on the interior, a cooling source at the unsupported downstream end, a liquid filled heat exchanger as part of the cooling source) in combination with the steps recited in claim 11 is not taught or suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs 1469519, 2108022, 2004/0007279, 2004/0154732, 2007/00227605, 2012/0012221, 2015/0053293 and 2019/0063642 disclose methods of forming a continuous composite pipe on a cantilevered mandrel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R DEAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9216. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8-4 pm CST.
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 supervisors can be reached at: Craig M Schneider (571) 272-3607 and Ken Rinehart (571( 272-4881. 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.
/DAVID R DEAL/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights