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 .
Claims 1-16 are now pending in the application.
Claims 1-13 have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 7/8/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the product claims cannot be made by a materially different process. This is not found persuasive because the manner of forming the claimed structures can include forming the inner surface in a post processing feature rather than dependent upon the mandrel surface of the claimed method claims. After further reconsideration, the arguments are not persuasive and the restriction of the claims stand.
Further, new claim 16 is of a separate invention from the method claims that would be grouped with the Invention Group II, product claims 14-15. Whereby, the claim would be treated as non-elected as the applicants have elected Inventive group I, the method claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN113883411A (HAIYING) (see IDS).
Re 1, HAIYING teaches of a method (see claim 6) of manufacturing a fibre-reinforced polymer structure (claim 6: aluminum alloy liner high-pressure full-wound gas cylinder; Fig. 1), the method comprising:
providing a tubular mandrel (Fig. 1 (100) wound gas cylinder with an aluminum alloy liner) with a roughened outer surface having an average surface roughness of at least 2 pm (see [claim 2], see teaching of less than 3.2 micrometers);
applying one or more tows of continuous fibre (see claim 1, see teaching of the winding to form the composite material reinforcement layer by winding carbon fibers in a spiral and hoop winding manner and curing with resin, and the further of the wrapping with winding glass fibers and carbon fibers and glass fibers) to the roughened outer surface (see claim 2) of the tubular mandrel (see Fig. 1 (100) under tension (see claim 4, see teaching of winding tension, see claim 6, Steps S1104,S1205) and introducing a polymer matrix resin either with or to the continuous fibre (see claim 6, Steps S1101-S1205); and
curing (see claim 6, Step S13) the polymer matrix resin to form a tubular fibre-reinforced polymer casing (see Fig. 1; 200, 300);
wherein the roughened outer surface (see claim 2) of the tubular mandrel (see Fig. 1 (100)) provides a high friction interface with the one or more tows of continuous fibre (see claim 1) to mitigate slipping (see claim 6, Step S1104, Step S1205) as the one or more tows of continuous fibre (see claim 1) are applied to the tubular mandrel (see Fig. 1; 100).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAIYING as applied to claim 1 as shown above, and further in view of CN1100665C (TORAY) (see IDS).
Re 2 (upon 1), wherein applying the one or more tows of continuous fibre comprises filament winding or braiding.
It is of note that HAIYING in claim 1 teaches of winding. In regards to the particular statement of filament winding or braiding, the TORAY reference teaches in claims 38, 39 specifically of filament winding or tape winding.
It would have been obvious for one for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified HAIYING with the specific filament winding as taught by TORAY, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, see as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 5 (upon 1), HAIYING does not specifically state wherein the roughened outer surface has an average surface roughness of at least 5 pm.
However, this feature is known in the analogous art of TORAY, see in [0047], wherein the average roughness is of 10-200 micrometers.
It would have been obvious for one for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the outer roughness of HAIYING with the particular roughness as taught by TORAY, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, see as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 7 (upon 1), wherein the mandrel extends along a central axis about which the tows are applied to the mandrel, regarding HAIYING, see teaching in Fig. 1, dashed line.
Further, the manner of application is known in the art, see teaching by TORAY, see Figs. 1 and 4, wherein the inner shell 2 or core (or mandrel) being used in the filament or tape winding method to form the outer shell 3.
It would have been obvious for one for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process with winding with the mandrel of HAIYING with the arrangement as taught by TORAY, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, see as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 8 (upon 7), wherein the mandrel comprises at least one portion in which the outer surface curves towards or away from the central axis.
See in HAIYING, Fig. 1, right and left dome sections of the pressure vessel. See also in TORAY, Fig. 1, see dome sections of the pressure vessel,
Re 9 (upon 7), further comprising: applying one or more tows of fibre reinforcement to the mandrel at an angle of more than 400 to the central axis.
See in HAIYING, see claims 1 and 6, see Steps S1104, S1205.
See in TORAY, see claims 40-43.
Re 10 (upon 1), wherein the fibre-reinforced polymer structure is a pressure vessel.
See in HAIYING, see claims 1, and 2, see also Fig. 1.
See in TORAY, Fig. 1, and claim 1.
Re 11 (upon 10), wherein the pressure vessel has a capacity of 500 L or less and/or a maximum internal operational pressure of 10 bar or more. (the claimed 10 bar or more being converted as 1 MPa or more)
See in HAIYING, see claim 2, see teaching of 20, 30 MPa, and also 280, 2800 L, which overlaps with the claimed requirements. Although the reference does not explicitly state the claimed range, there is an overlapping ranges taught in the reference and the claimed range. Here, regarding the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
See also in TORAY, see [0204].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAIYING as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of D2 CN1100665C (TORAY) (see IDS) or D4 WO2022/208065A1 (ULTIMA) (see IDS).
Re 3 (upon 1), HAIYING does not state of further comprising providing a tubular mandrel with a smooth outer surface and roughening the outer surface using one or more of: grit blasting, chemical etching or knurling.
However, this additional processing is known in the art, see in analogous prior art references of TORAY and/or ULTIMA. Wherein, TORAY teaches in [0168] of the use of knurling to form unevenness in a part. In addition the use of chemical etching and blasting are known from ULTIMA, see page 6, line 21 to page 7 line 1, where said methods are used to roughen the outer surface of a metallic liner.
The additional features of the claim can be derived from the person skilled in
the art by using common knowledge as suitable, obvious and know in the art
methods to roughen a smooth surface. Thereby the person skilled in the art would also use this method to roughen the outer surface of the mandrel. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of HAIYING with the conditioning of the mandrel surface with process taught in TORAY and/or ULTIMA, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAIYING as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2022/208065A1 (ULTIMA) (see IDS).
Re 13 (upon 1), HAIYING doesn’t specifically state of further comprising removing the fibre-reinforced casing from the mandrel.
This additional process step regarding the formation of the pressure vessel can be seen in the teaching by ULTIMA, see claim 2, regarding removal of the mandrel from the formed vessel to form an internal cavity having the desired vessel configuration. This additional process step is applicable as the ULTIMA reference is analogous to the HAIYING reference that one skilled in the art would recognize and incorporate this additional step in forming pressure vessels.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of HAIYING with the removal step as taught by ULTIMA, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAIYING in view of TORAY, or ULTIMA, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of DACKWEILER NPL (see IDS).
Re 4 (upon 3), HAIYING does not specifically teach of comprising roughening the outer surface by grit blasting with a grit size of 120 or less.
See in analogous reference of DACKWEILER, see page 2 column 2, 4th paragraph, regarding teaching of the grit size of 120, in the form of sandpaper, is used to roughen a surface of a mandrel), and obvious grit size range used in grit blasting to roughen a surface. This teaching by DACKWEILER regarding of filament winding process and of frictional behavior, which is relevant to one skilled in the art as this is in the same field of endeavor as the HAIYING reference.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the mandrel of HAIYING regarding the roughening the outer surface regarding the grit size as taught by DACKWEILER, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAIYING as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DACKWEILER NPL (see IDS).
Re 6 (upon 1), HAIYING does not specifically teach of wherein the high friction interface has a coefficient of friction of at least 0.4.
See in analogous reference of DACKWEILER of the friction coefficient for the contact surface during tests for winding and slippage, see page 8, column 1, 1st and 2nd paragraphs, see also Table 8. This teaching by DACKWEILER regarding of filament winding process and of frictional behavior, which is relevant to one skilled in the art as this is in the same field of endeavor as the HAIYING reference.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the mandrel of HAIYING regarding the friction interface teaching as taught by DACKWEILER, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAIYING as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2015093448 A (TOYOTA) (see IDS).
Re 12 (upon 1), HAIYING does not teach of wherein the mandrel also comprises a smooth outer surface in one or more areas.
Wherein, the feature to provide a differential anchoring effect of the tow in areas of the mandrel where it is needed, see in TOYOTA, see Fig. 3, smooth part 34a1 Ra=0.8, part 34a2 Ra=3.4, part 34a3 Ra=12.5, see [0031, 0032, 0033] for the case of a guide roller of the winding process in the manufacturing of a pressure vessel.
Therefore, the person skilled in the art to have modified the mandrel of HAIYING with the smooth areas as taught by TOYOTA, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, see as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form, of particular note:
US 5,007,343 A (MARKS), see mandrel 14 that can have roughened surface to frictionally grip ribbon 12 as it lays upon the mandrel, see Col. 6, lines 14-17.
US 2019/0022919 A1 (VERLAEK), see [0034] with mandrel 30, that includes “an outer surface that is textured, defines recesses and/or ridges, includes an adhesive, and/or the like, such that, for example, the mandrel physically resists (e.g., premature) separation and/or movement of wound section(s) of layer(s) of material… from and/or relative to the mandrel”.
US 2015/0147504 A1 (KUNISHIMA), see abstract and [0009, 0061, 0076], wherein the surface roughening process of the outer surface of the mandrel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights