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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the disclosure should be amended to include the subject matter of claims 9 and 14.
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 (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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102014004157 in view of Drain et al. (US 4,892,764).
DE 102014004157 discloses a method (reference paragraphs are to the English translation attached to this office action) of manufacturing a composite connector ([0031]-[0035], fiber-reinforced plastic composite with screws holes for connection), for a fluid transfer conduit ([0002], pipelines), the method comprising:
manufacturing a tubular hub portion 2 which extends substantially parallel to a central axis (fig. 2a), the hub portion 2 comprising a thermoplastic polymer reinforced with circumferentially-oriented fibre reinforcement (fig. 2a, [0033], [0085], thermoplastic polymer (e.g., PEEK), the hollow profile 2 is manufactured as a tubular hub portion 2 which is fibre-reinforced in a thermoplastic polymer matrix, wherein the fibres 16 are circumferentially-oriented at an angle of 40 to 50 degrees (fig. 5c; [0084]-[0085]);
placing the hub portion 2 into a mould featuring at least one cavity (fig. 2c, [0068]); and
introducing polymer into the mould so as to fill the at least one cavity to form a flange portion 11 around the hub portion 2 (figs. 2c, 2b);
However, DE 102014004157 does not disclose the hub portion comprising a thermoplastic polymer reinforced with continuous, circumferentially-oriented fibre reinforcement.
Drain et al. (US 4,892,764) discloses manufacturing a fibre reinforced composite tubular hub portion (col. 1, lines 24-26 and 59-68, fiber-reinforced pipes or tubes), wherein the hub portion includes a thermoplastic polymer reinforced with continuous, circumferentially-oriented fibre reinforcement (col. 1, lines 32-42; col. 13, lines 4-45; fig. 2 shows continuous, circumferentially-oriented fibre reinforcement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the hub portion of DE 102014004157 to include a thermoplastic polymer reinforced with continuous, circumferentially-oriented fibre reinforcement, as disclosed by Drain et al. (US 4,892,764) because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the method capable of making products including continuous, circumferentially-oriented fibre reinforcement. DE 102014004157 discloses that continuous reinforcement fibre is known in the art ([0006]) and that the hub portion 2 can be made by pultrusion [0085]. Drain et al. (US 4,892,764) discloses making fiber-reinforced pipes or tubes (i.e., hub portion) by pultrusion (col. 1, lines 43-58).
DE 102014004157 further discloses the method:
(Claim 2) wherein the polymer introduced into the mould comprises a thermoplastic polymer ([0088], the injection moulding compound can correspond to the thermoplastic matrix material (i.e., thermoplastic polymer); [0085], thermoplastic polymer (e.g., PEEK ));
(Claim 4) wherein the method comprises an injection moulding process to form the flange portion around the hub portion [0068];
(Claim 5) wherein chopped-fibre reinforcement is introduced into the mould with the polymer ([0020], [0055], short(i.e., chopped) fiber reinforced injection molding compound);
(Claim 6) wherein the continuous, circumferentially-oriented fibre reinforcement contains at least some individual constituent filaments which extend entirely around a circumference of the
hub portion (fig. 2a, [0033], [0085], the hollow profile 2 is manufactured as a tubular hub portion 2 which is fibre-reinforced in a thermoplastic polymer matrix, wherein the fibres 16 are continuous (fig. 5c, [0006]) and circumferentially-oriented at an angle of 40 to 50 degrees (fig. 5c; [0084]-[0085]); as shown in fig. 5c, as the fibres 16 are circumferentially-oriented at an angle of 40 to 50 degrees, the fibres will extend entirely around a circumference of the hub portion);
(Claim 7) wherein the hub portion 2 comprises a tube with an overmoulding section (i.e., section on which the flange 11 is overmoulded) in which an inner wall of the hub portion 2 extends parallel to a central axis (fig. 2d);
(Claim 8) wherein the flange portion 11 is formed around the overmoulding section of the tube (fig. 2d);
(Claim 9) wherein no fibre reinforcement in the hub portion 2 extends into the flange portion 11 (fig. 2c; [0068], flange portion 11 is injection moulded onto the hub portion 2, and thus no fibre reinforcement in the hub portion 2 extends into the flange portion 11 because the flange portion 11 is ON the hub portion 2);
(Claim 12) wherein the mould comprises one or more features which form corresponding features on the composite connector (figs. 1a, 2b-2c show the mould including bosses (not labeled) that form through holes 14 in the flange portion, [0035], [0068]-[0069]); and
(Claim 13) wherein the mould comprises at least one boss that forms at least one corresponding through hole 14 in the flange portion of the composite connector (figs. 1a; 2b-2c show the mould including bosses (not labeled) that form through holes 14 in the flange portion, [0035], [0068]-[0069]).
As to claim 3, Drain et al. (US 4,892,764) further discloses manufacturing a fibre reinforced composite tubular hub portion (col. 1, lines 24-26 and 59-68, fiber-reinforced pipes or tubes), wherein manufacturing the tubular hub portion comprises an automated fibre placement (AFP) (fig. 1), a commingled yarn winding process (fig. 1) or a braiding process (col. 11, lines 11-22; col. 13, lines 4-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method wherein manufacturing the tubular hub portion comprises an automated fibre placement (AFP), a commingled yarn winding process or a braiding process, as disclosed by Drain et al. (US 4,892,764) because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the method known to be operable in the art.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102014004157 in view of Drain et al. (US 4,892,764) as applied to claims 1-9 and 12-13 above, and further in view of CN 103982778.
DE 102014004157 and Drain et al. (US 4,892,764) do not disclose the limitations of claim 10.
CN 103982778 discloses a pipeline wherein the compatibility, such as for thermal expansion/contraction, of pipe sections (i.e., fluid transfer conduits) and couplers/linkers (i.e., connectors) should be considered, wherein the pipe sections and the couplers/linkers are made of the same material (i.e., are matching).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method to further comprise determining a coefficient of thermal expansion and/or a stiffness of a fluid transfer conduit and selecting a composition and orientation of the continuous, circumferentially-oriented fibre reinforcement within the hub portion that a coefficient
of thermal expansion and/or a stiffness of the hub portion matches that of the fluid transfer conduit because such a modification would have been found with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the teachings of CN 103982778. The fluid transfer conduit and the hub portions are sections of a pipeline. As taught by CN 103982778, the parts of a pipeline should be considered relative to their compatibility, such as thermal expansion, wherein the same material is used. Since the combination of DE 102014004157 and Drain et al. (US 4,892,764) above discloses a fibre-reinforced pipeline including continuous, circumferentially-oriented fibre reinforcement, as mentioned above, in view of the teachings of CN 103982778, pipe sections for the pipeline would be made of the same fibre-reinforced pipe material (i.e., matching composition, stiffness and orientation of the continuous, circumferentially-oriented fibre reinforcement). Thus, it would be further obvious when building a pipeline to determine what material is used for a pipe section (e.g., a fluid transfer conduit) and to select the same material for the adjacent pipe section (e.g., a connector).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102014004157 in view of Drain et al. (US 4,892,764) as applied to claims 1-9 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Foltuz et al. (US 6,146,127).
DE 102014004157 and Drain et al. (US 4,892,764) do not disclose the limitations of claim 14.
Foltuz et al. (US 6,146,127) discloses an injection molding method for manufacturing a plurality of different products, including forming a plurality of different products using a plurality of different moulds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method with an injection molding method for manufacturing a plurality of different products, as disclosed by Foltuz et al. (US 6,146,127), because such a modification is known in the art (i.e., injection molding) and would provide an alternative configuration for the method capable of manufacturing a plurality of products (i.e., a plurality of composite connectors). In view of the combination, since a plurality of different composite connectors is to be made, it would be further obvious that the method would include manufacturing a plurality of common tubular hub portions, and placing the plurality of hub portions into a plurality of different moulds to form a respective plurality of different flange portions (i.e., the different injected molded products) around the plurality of hub portions, so as to form a plurality of composite connectors with different flange portions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,976,686 in view of DE 102014004157.
DE 102014004157 is applied as above. DE 102014004157 discloses the method substantially as claimed, as mentioned above except for continuous, circumferentially-oriented fibre reinforcement and the limitations of claims 10-11. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,976,686 discloses continuous, circumferentially-oriented fibre reinforcement and limitations as recited by claims 10-11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the method of DE 102014004157 with continuous, circumferentially-oriented fibre reinforcement and the limitations of claims 10-11, as recited by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,976,686, because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the method capable of producing a composite connector relative to a fluid transfer conduit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S LEYSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 5712705343. 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.
/J.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/John J. DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights