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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant is reminded they need to explicitly point out where support for all the newly claimed features come from as required by MPEP 714.02 and 2163.06. See 37 CFR 1.111.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Base support member in claim 1, disclosed in Fig. 1 as a support table;
First rotational support assembly in claim 1, disclosed in Fig. 1 as a support member 12 on a first side of a base support member 19 capable of holding and allowing for the rotation of a mandrel member;
Second opposing support assembly in claim 1, disclosed in Fig. 1 as a support member 20 capable of holding and allowing for the rotation of a mandrel member 1;
Driving member in claim 1, disclosed in Fig. 1 as an actuator on the first rotational support assembly 12;
Support assembly in claim 1, disclosed in Fig. 1 as a vertical support post 30 with a surface for supporting a material worked upon;
Control assembly in claim 1, disclosed as a computer for controlling the apparatus in ¶26 of the Specification;
Horizontal translation member in claim 1, discloses as a structure containing a belt 60 or a plate with rail 114 which resides on rigid vertical support member in Fig. 8 or 11;
Rigid vertical-support surface in claim 1, disclosed as a plate 124 in Fig. 11;
Tension assembly in claim 2, as best can be understood in ¶24 of the Specification as comprising the first rotation support assembly 12 which is placed so as to provide tension upon the piece being worked upon by the apparatus.
Post assembly in claim 11, disclosed as support members 128 and 130 in Fig. 11 which are configured to move vertically and horizontally as needed.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites “a control system configured to control the movement of each post assembly according to a respective series of one or more computer aided manufacturing (CAM) profiles, the CAM profiles in each series being generated for a respective post assembly position along the base support assembly..” Applicant recites in paragraphs 0036-37:
[00036] More specifically, in general, a support post has at least one profile. It could have more if the part is not cylindrical, 7 profiles for each support post in one example. The multiplicity of cam profiles for each post is necessary because the part geometry does not change uniformly as layers of carbon fibers are applied to the tool. Therefore, throughout the building of the part, a single support post will use different cam profiles to support the intermediate shape of the part.
[00037] The cam profiles are all generated the same way, by virtually rotating the 3D part model and obtaining measurements using the 3D design software explained above. At first, the geometry of the bare member is used to generate the initial cam profile. Then, incremental layers of carbon fiber are virtually added to the member. In one example, after roughly 2 mm of carbon fiber has been applied to the member at the specified support post position, then another cam profile is generated by rotating the 3D model, obtaining new measurements. This process of incrementally layering carbon fiber and generating and using a new updated cam profile is repeated until the last cam profile is sufficient to maintain centerline for the tool for the remainder of the AFP process. Again, in one example, the next set up profile would be used for the first 30 plys, another set of profiles after 150 plys, etc.
Applicant discloses that cam profiles are used in a structural manner to describe cams used in the support posts, but does not teach or disclose that CAM is an acronym for “computer aided manufacturing” as currently recited in claim 11.
Claims 11-17 and 19-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “a control system configured to control the movement of each post assembly according to a respective series of one or more computer aided manufacturing (CAM) profiles, the CAM profiles in each series being generated for a respective post assembly position along the base support assembly..” It is unclear as to what cam the claim language is referring to, whether that be a cam that resides within support/post/pivoting head assembly as seen in Fig. 7 of the Drawings, or is it a cam that resides in another part of the system that moves the supporting assemblies, or is it a cam profile for the curved member being held by the support system. For purposes of Examination it is presumed that Applicant meant to recite the support assembly has a cam for controlling the movement of said support assembly.
Claim 17 is unclear for the same reasons as claim 11 above since it recites the same limitations.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "CAM profiles" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 11 above since it is unclear as to what cams the claim refers to.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "CAM profiles" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 19 are allowed.
Independent claims 11 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 1, the closest prior art of Dunn (US 20220242069) in view of Ikezaki et al. (US 20210197501) fails to teach or disclose that the support assembly comprises of a rigid vertical-support portion that is dynamically controlled for consistent and precise displacement along the vertical displacement path and a horizontal translation member disposed vertically adjacent to the rigid vertical-support portion as currently claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 11, the closest prior art of Dunn (US 20220242069) in view of Ikezaki et al. (US 20210197501) fails to teach or disclose the recited post assembly which is configured to move vertically and horizontally relative to the length of the machine/irregular part worked upon as currently claimed.
As to claim 17, the closest prior art of Dunn (US 20220242069) in view of Ikezaki et al. (US 20210197501) fails to teach or disclose that recited support platform is configured to move vertically and transversely/horizontally relative to the length of the machine/irregular part worked upon as currently claimed.
fails to specifically teach or disclose that the post assembly comprises of two members on a platform angled towards one another with ball transfers placed on the surfaces that are angled towards one another. .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in all aspects. Examiner will address only those arguments pertinent to the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments that the amendment to claim 11 reciting that the term cam profile is a reference to computer aided manufacturing is not persuasive. As stated in the rejection above, the recitation of CAM profile is deemed new matter and indefinite for the reasons given above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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 at (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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745