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 Objections
The following claims are objected to because of these informalities:
In claim 6, “a peek value when the tension reduction width is in the range of 1.00N or more, 4.50N or less” should read “a maximum value when the lower winding tension is set in a range of 1.00N to 4.50N”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5-6 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5, lines 7-8 recite "the tension reduction width of the fiber bundle with respect to the base tension is set in a range of 1.00N or more, 4.50N or less". The term tension reduction width does not have antecedent basis in this claim or the parent claim. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the term width in this context refers to the dimensional width of the fiber bundle, or instead refers to the range of tension reduction recited subsequently. For the purpose of examination, claim 5, lines 7-8 read on "wherein the lower winding tension is set in a range of 1.00N to 4.50N". Dependent claims fall herewith.
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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizuno (JP 2008304038A), previously made of record and with citations to translation also previously made of record.
Regarding claim 1, Mizuno teaches a method for manufacturing a high pressure tank (abstract) having a reinforcing layer (CFRP layer 14 in para. 0033 and Fig. 1) on an outer surface of a hollow liner (12), the method comprising:
a winding process of winding a fiber bundle containing a curable resin (para. 0042 and as shown in Fig. 4) and having a predetermined tension on the outer surface of the liner (paras. 0018, 0043, 0046, and 0049); and
a reinforcing layer forming process of forming the reinforcing layer by curing the curable resin contained in the fiber bundle wound around the outer surface (para. 0044),
wherein the winding process is performed so that the tension of the fiber bundle is reduced toward an outer circumferential side of the reinforcing layer (“When the FW molding of 1 to 3 layers is completed, FW molding of 4 to 24 layers is performed using carbon fibers having a diameter of 7 μm (S14), and then 25 to 36 layers using carbon fibers having a diameter of 5 μm. FW molding is performed (S16). In this way, at the stage of sequentially forming the outer layer, the inner layer is wound by the tension accompanying the FW molding... in the FW molding of the outer layer, winding may be performed with a relatively weak tension as compared with the FW molding of the inner layer to suppress the oozing phenomenon” per para. 0043 with emphasis added by examiner).
Regarding claim 2, Mizuno teaches the liner includes a round tubular shaped body portion and dome portions at both ends of the body portion (as shown in Figs. 1 and 4), and the winding process is performed only around the body portion of the liner (as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Mizuno teaches the winding process is performed by a hoop winding of the fiber bundle around the body portion of the liner (as shown in Fig. 4 and per para. 0042).
Regarding claim 4, Mizuno teaches the reinforcing layer is composed of a plurality of unit layers laminated on the outer surface of the liner (paras. 0041-0043), and the unit layer is formed by arranging the band-shaped fiber bundles in parallel in an axial direction of the liner (as shown in Fig. 4), and the winding process is performed to reduce tension of the fiber bundle for each multi-layer formed by overlapping at least two unit layers in a layer thickness direction of the reinforcing layer (para. 0043).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno.
Regarding claim 5, Mizuno teaches a base tension winding process of winding the fiber bundle around the liner at a base tension at which winding of the fiber bundle is started (paras. 0043, 0046); and a reduced tension winding process of winding the fiber bundle at a tension lower than the base tension around the fiber bundle wound at the base tension (para. 0043).
Mizuno is silent about the specific value or range of tension reduction. However, Mizuno teaches that the value of tension reduction is selected to produce the effect of suppressing resin seepage from between the fibers for the inner reinforcing layers as the outer layers are wound (para. 0043).
Thus, the feature of setting the tension reduction to a range of 1.00-4.50 N is merely optimization of a result-effective variable and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. “[Discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art,” and the presence of such a known result-effective variable would be one … motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and also MPEP § 2144.05.II. In view of the Mizuno’s teachings and the above considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the tension reduction to a value or range where adverse resin seepage from the inner layers is suppressed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference in view of Mizuno, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Miyoshi (JP 2022030873A), previously made of record and with citation to attached translation made of record herein.
Regarding claim 7, Mizuno teaches the winding process is performed in a layer thickness direction of the reinforcing layer by hoop winding (as shown in Fig. 4 and per para. 0042), but does not teach the hoop winding is combine with helical winding.
However, Miyoshi teaches a method for making a high pressure tank wherein the combination of hoop winding and helical winding is used to ensure reinforcement of both the cylindrical body and dome end portions and/or of both the axial and radial directions of the tank by the windings (para. 0021 and as shown in Fig. 2b).
In view of Miyoshi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mizuno’s method to utilize Miyoshi’s combination of hoop and helical winding to predictably ensure reinforcement of both the cylindrical body and dome end portions and/or of both the axial and radial directions of the tank by the windings by the windings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection to the claim and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and all intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record does not teach or render obvious the feature recited in this claim in combination with the features in parent claims 1 and 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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 on 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.
/JIMMY R SMITH JR./Examiner, Art Unit 1745