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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Office acknowledges receipt of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted by the applicant on September 12, 2025. The IDS has been reviewed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98, and the examiner has noted the citations provided.
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.
Claims 8 and 9 contain the trademark/trade names “onyx plastic” and “Kevlar.” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade names are used to identify/describe “onyx plastic” for chopped plastic and “Kevlar” for aramid fiber and, accordingly, the identification/descriptions are indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the print bed" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beale et al. (US 11,480,294 B2).
With regards to claim 1, Beale et al. disclose a fitting comprising:
an annular composite interface having a first and opposite a second end (a composite tapered tube 10 in Figs. 1a-1c and 2 extending between a first end 10a and an opposite second end 10b, the tube being annular and formed of composite material, Abstract);
a first insert having a threaded inner surface (a first nut 50, internally threaded and screwed onto the first internal annular wedge 30, col 3, lns 52-55, Fig. 1b);
a second section extending from the first section, where said second section penetrates the annular composite interface (nut 50 is at least partially provided inside of tube 10, extending axially into the bore to reach wedge 30 as shown in Fig. 1b);
a second insert within the annular composite interface and coupled to the first insert second section for retaining the first insert second section with the annular composite interface (the first internal annular wedge 30 fitted inside tube 10 in contact with the tube inner surface 12, wedge 30 being threadedly engaged with the nut 50 as shown in Fig. 1b).
With regards to claim 3, Beale et al. disclose the fitting of claim 1 as set for the above and wherein a portion of the annular composite interface is sandwiched between the first insert first section and the second insert (the end portion of tube 10 being clamps and compress between the first external annular wedge 40 and the first internal annular wedge 30, the clamping load being applied through nut 50, col 3, lns 56-67).
With regards to claim 11, Beale et al. disclose the fitting of claim 1 as set forth above and wherein the annular composite interface comprises an outer surface tapered at a first angle for mating with the inner surface of a composite tube and wherein the first insert threaded inner surface is for threading a connecting member (the inner surface 12 of tube 10 tapering inwardly toward the first end 10a as show in Fig. 1b and first insert 50 with threaded inner surface). The recited phrase “for mating with the inner surface of a composite tube” is a statement of intended use and is given no patentable weight. The composite tube is not positively recited as an element of the fitting, and the phrase describes only how the tapered outer surface is intended to be used rather than any structure of the fitting itself and therefore is not patentable.
With regards to claim 12, Beale et al. disclose the fitting of claim 11 as set forth above, wherein said annular composite interface comprises an inner surface tapered at a second angle, wherein the second angle is the same as the first angle (both the inner surface 12 and the outer surface 11 of tube 10 tapering inwardly toward the first end 10a at the same angle as shown in Fig. 1b).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale et al. (US 11,480,294 B2).
With regards to claim 2, Beale et al. disclose the fitting of claim 1 as set forth above having the first insert (nut 50) screw on to the second insert (first internal annular wedge 30). Beale et al. fail to disclose where the second section of the first insert has a threaded outer surface and wherein the second insert is threaded to the threaded outer surface of the first insert second section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to place the external thread on the second section of the first insert and the cooperating internal thread on the second insert. Such an arrangement is a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device, and it is obvious and not patentable unless it produces a new and expected result. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A).
Claims 4-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale et al. (US 11,480,294 B2) in view of Stumpf et al.(EP 3,915,763 A1).
With regards to claim 4, Beale et al. disclose the fitting of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Beale et al. fails to disclose wherein the second insert is at least partially embedded within the annular composite interface.
Stumpf et al. teach a fitting (component 1 in Fig. 1, paras [0047] and [0048]) with a composite annular interface (receiving space 20) where the second insert (connecting member 60 in Fig. 1) is at least partially embedded within the annular composite interface (receiving space 20 of component 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to embed the second insert of Beale et al. with the annular composite interface, as taught by Stumpf et al., so that the second insert is easier to assemble onto the annular composite interface and cannot be easily displaced during assembly and operation.
With regards to claim 5, Beale et al. disclose the fitting of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Beale et al. fail to disclose wherein the second insert is rotationally retained within the annular composite interface.
Stumpf et al. teach the second insert (connecting component 60) is received in the annular composite interface (receiving space 20 of component 10) and held to form fit for a rotationally fixed arrangement of the second insert (connecting component 60, para [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second insert of Beale et al. with the form fit and rotationally fixed arrangement as taught by Stumpf et al. to prevent the insert from rotating within the annular composite interface.
With regards to claim 6, Beale et al. disclose the fitting of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Beale et al. fail to disclose wherein the second insert is axially retained within the annular composite interface.
Stumpf et al. teach that second insert (connecting component 60) has at least one radially protruding collar 64 forming an undercut 66, which stabilizes the connecting component against being pulled out of the receiving space (receiving space 22, Fig. 1b, para [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second insert with the radially protruding collar to resist axial withdrawal of the second insert from the annular composite interface.
With regards to claim 7, Beale et al. disclose the fitting of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Beale et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the annular composite interface is formed by 3D printing.
Stumpf et al. teach that the annular composite interface (component body 10) is formed by 3D printing (the component body 10 is built up by layer by 3D printing using fused deposition or fused filament (paras [0046], [0047] and [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the annular composite interface of Beale et al. by 3D printing, as taught by Stumpf et al., in order to produce components without machining and at a faster rate and with reduced weight.
With regards to claim 15, Beale et al. disclose the fitting of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Beale et al. fail to disclose wherein the second insert comprises at least a projection or a depression and is mated with the other of a depression or a projection of the annular composite interface.
Stumpf et al. teach that the second insert comprises at least one projection or depression and is mated with the other of the depression or projection of the annular composite interface (the connecting component 60 or second insert has circumferentially arranged toothed areas 62 defining a non-circular outer contour, and that the inner contour of the receiving space 20 or annular composite interface has recesses into which the teeth or projections of the toothed areas engage, para [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the mated projections and recesses interface, as taught by Stumpf et al., between the second insert and the annular composite interface of Beale et al., in order to transmit torque through a mechanical interlock rather than through friction alone.
With regards to claim 16, Beale et al. disclose the fitting of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Beale et al. fails to disclose wherein the annular composite interface is 3D printed over the second insert.
Stumpf et al. teach that annular composite interface is 3D printed over the second insert (wall element 50 is placed on the connecting component 60 within the receiving space 20 and is thereafter overprinted by continued 3D printing to form the outer wall 16, para [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to print the annular composite interface over the second insert, as taught by Stumpf et al., in order to receive the insert within the body and does not require the separate insertion and retention steps. The printed component conforms closely to the second insert’s outer contour to improve force transfer between the two components.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale et al. (US 11,480,294 B2) in view Stumpf et al. (EP 3,915,763 A1) and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art.
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Beale et al. in view of Stumpf et al. discloses the fitting of claim 7 as set forth above. However, Beale et al. fail to disclose wherein the annular composite interface is formed by 3D printing using onyx plastic and continuous fiber.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art discloses 3-D printing of components is well known in the art and identifies onyx and continuous fiber as commercially available materials provided by Markforged (para [0015] of applicant’s specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the additively manufactured annular interface from commercially available continuous fiber to obtain stiffness and strength as required.
With regards to claim 9, the combination of Beale et al. over Stumpf et al. discloses the fitting of claim 8 as set forth above. However, the combination of Beale et al. in view of Stumpf et al. fails to disclose the continuous fiber is selected from the group of fibers consisting essentially of carbon, Kevlar and fiberglass fibers.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art discloses that the continuous fiber may be carbon fiber, an aramid fiber, or a fiberglass (applicant’s specification, para [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any of these three known reinforcing fibers for the printed interface because the substitution of one known continuous reinforcing fiber for another is the simple substitution of one known element for another yielding predictable differences in stiffness, strength, and cost.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale et al. (US 11,480,294 B2) in view of Stumpf et al. (EP 3,915,763 A1) and further in view of Susnjara et al. (US 11,618,209 B2).
With regards to claim 10, the combination of Beale et al. in view of Stumpf et al. discloses the fitting of claim 7 as set forth above. However, the combination of Beale et al. in view of Stumpf et al. fail to disclose wherein the composite interface is 3D printed with its longitudinal axis at an angle between 10 to 65 degrees relative to an axis perpendicular to the print bed.
Susnjara et al. disclose an additive manufacturing apparatus and method in which the angled printing may be performed at angle between about 10 degrees and about 80 degrees with respect to the horizontal direction, and further discloses the narrower ranges of about 20 to about 70 degrees, about 30 to about 60 degrees, and about 40 to about 50 degrees, with an approximately 45 degree angle being preferred (col 13, ln 35 – col 14, ln 9, Figs. 5-7). These angled printing to not exceed a maximum angle of about 45 degrees does not require without any artificial support structures (col 14, ln 62 – col 15, ln 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to 3D print the annular composite interface with its longitudinal axis inclined at an angle to the print-bed normal within the range of 10 to 65 degrees, as taught by Susnjara, in order to permit the forming of the 3D printed object without artificial support structures.
Claims 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Beale et al. (US 11,480,294 B2) in view of Mullen et al. (US 8,205,315 B2).
With regards to claim 13, Beale et al. disclose the fitting of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Beale et al. fails to disclose wherein the annular composite interface comprises a flange extending radially from its outer surface.
Mullen et al. disclose the annular composite interface comprises a flange extending radially from its outer surface (end fitting 12 for a composite tube having an annular flange 126 extending radially outward from the fitting body at a location between the first end portion 122 and the tapered outer surface section 1284, col 4, lns 32-37, Figs. 2 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the annular composite interface of Beale et al. with the radially extending flange, as taught by Mullen et al., in order to allow an easy method to locate the composite tube in the axial direction during assembly. The flange acts as an abutment that indicates the depth of the engagement between the fitting and the tube.
With regards to claim 14, Beale et al. disclose the fitting of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Beale et al. fail to disclose wherein the first insert first section is a polygonal head.
Mullen et al. disclose the first insert first section is a polygonal head (the entry portion 1222 of the fitting may be embodied by a jam nut having a hexagonal outer circumference and a circular, internally threaded inner circumference, the bore 123 being provided with internal screw heads 1228 for receiving a clevis bolt or end rod 14, col 4, lns 32-46, Figs. 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first section of Beale et al.’s nut as a polygonal head, as taught by Mullen et al., in order to permit the fitting to be driven by a wrench during assembly.
With regards to claim 17, Beale et al. disclose the fitting of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Beale et al. do not expressly recite the first and second inserts are made of metal.
Mullen et al. disclose that an end fitting is machined from titanium (fitting 12 is made of titanium, col 5, lns 45-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first and second inserts of Beale et al. from metal, as taught by Mullen et al. because metal is conventional material for threaded fasteners. The selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for its intended use is a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Stumpf et al. (EP 3,915,763 A1) in view of Beale et al. (US 11,480,294 B2).
With regards to claim 18, Stumpf et al. disclose a method comprising 3D printing a composite interface and positioning the second insert in composite interface (3D printing a first part of the composite interface (component body 10) having a wall 12 that at least partially encloses a receiving space 20 using fused element fabrication, pausing the printing and inserting the connecting component 60 in the receiving space 20, closing the space with a wall element 50, and continuing the printing to overprint the wall element 50, paras [0055]-[0060], [0082]-[0087] of the English machine translation, Figs. 1-2 and 11).
Stumpf et al. fail to disclose that the printed composite interface is annular and fails to disclose the step of inserting a first insert into the interface with a first section of the first insert extends over the first end and a second section extends form the first section within the interface and coupling the first insert to the second insert.
Beale et al. disclose that the composite interface 10 is annular as shown in Figs. 1-2 having a first end 10a; a first insert in the form of a nut 50 having a first section abutting on the external wedge 40 and a second section extending into the bore of the composite interface; and a second insert in the form of the internal annular wedge 30 received within the composite interface 10 and threadedly coupled to that second section in col 3, lns 52-55.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a) make the composite interface be annular because the geometrical configuration of the composite interface would be a design choice and b) to apply the 3D printing of Stumpf et al. with placing the first insert of Beale et al. through the first end and coupling it to the second insert. The combination applies a known method of 3D printing as taught by Stumpf et al.to a known structure of Beale et al. to yield the predictable results of a printed annular fitting with threaded connection, MPEP 2143(I)(D).
With regards to claim 19, the combination of Stumpf et al. in view of Beale et al. disclose the method of claim 18 as set for above. Beale et al. disclose wherein the coupling comprises threading the first insert (nut 50) second section to the second insert (wedge 30, Fig. 1b) in col 3, lns 53-55.
With regards to claim 20, the combination of Stumpf et al. in view of Beale et al. disclose the method of claim 18 as set for above. Stumpf et al. disclose printing a first section of the composite interface, placing an insert (connecting component 60) during the pausing of the printing, and then printing a second section of the insert (paras [0055]-[0060], [0082]-[0087] of the English machine translation, Figs. 1-2 and 11).
However, the combination of Stumpf et al. in view of Beale et al. fails to disclose the first step on which the insert is placed, the second step, and the sandwiching between them.
Stumpf et al. teach the first step which then the insert (connecting component 60) is placed and the second step with the insert sandwiched in between the first and second steps (first step at receiving space 20 and second step at the undercut 66 on the body component 10 in Fig. 1, paras [0053] of the English machine translation for stabilizing support for the insert). See annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
572
943
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first and second steps, as taught by Stump et al., on the annular composite interface of Stumpf et al.in view of Beale et al. to support and stabilize the insert.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stumpf et al. (EP 3,915,763 A1) in view of Beale et al. (US 11,480,294 B2) and further in view of Mullen et al. (US 8,205,315 B2).
With regards to claim 21, the combination of Stumpf et al. over Beale et al. discloses the method of claim 20 as set forth above. However, the combination of Stumpf et al. over Beale et al. fails to disclose mating an inner surface of a tube to an outer surface of the 3D printed composite interface.
Mullen et al. disclose mating an inner surface of a tube to an outer surface of the 3D printed composite interface (inserting the second end section 124 and third portion 128 of fitting 12 into an end of composite tube 10 until the tube end abuts flange 126 as shown in Figs. 1-5, col 6, lns 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to complete the fitting of Stumpf et al. over Beale et al. by mating a composite tube over its outer surface as taught by Mullen et al. because such mating of components would provide application to the fitting and allow it to connect with other components.
With regards to claim 22, Stumpf et al. in view of Beale et al. and further in view of Mullen et al. disclose the method of claim 21 as set forth above. Mullen et al. further disclose that the tapered outer surface 1284 tapers from a large diameter at the free end toward a smaller diameter at the flange 126, so that the inner surface of the tube is mated to a surface tapering from a smaller to a larger diameter in the direction of insertion as shown Figs. 2-3.
With regards to claim 23, Stumpf et al. in view of Beale et al. and further in view of Mullen et al. disclose the method of claim 21 as set forth above. Stumpf et al. in view of Beale et al. and further in view of Mullen et al. fail to disclose the tube is a carbon composite tube.
Mullen et al. disclose the tube 10 to be carbon fiber composite tube (col 1, lns 13-20 and col 4, lns 19-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a carbon composite tube because carbon composite offers high stiffness and strength-to-weight ratios. The material selection is the choice of a known material for its known suitability for the intended use. MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,117,362 B2 to van Tooren et al. disclose a 3D printed continuous fiber reinforced part with a print bed and fibers at angles to the cross-sectional plane.
US 11,041,585 B2 to Gill et al., US 11,125,268 B2 and US 10,487,869 B2 to Beal disclose a fitting collar and tube-fitting assemblies.
US 10,612,709 B2 to Bruehler et al. disclose a pipe element with composite pipe and metal connector.
US 11,788,652 B2 to Gill et al. disclose a method of forming a tube assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG BAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7350. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5:30 pm ET).
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, Kristina R Fulton can be reached at 571-272-7376. 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.
/L.B.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
