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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 19th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims and specification received on March 19th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 14, 21 and 24-28 have been amended, claims 29-31 have been added. Objections to the specification filed on December 20th, 2026 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 19th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues, regarding claims 14 and 28, that the Examiner broadened the claim language by alleging that "it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to position the rollers anywhere around the axis in a misaligned or staggered state". It should be noted that the context of the quoted statement from the previous Office Action was in relation to the positioning of the plane relative to an axis. The idea that a plane being perpendicular or parallel to an axis may be viewed in multiple orientations within a three-dimensional coordinate plane. Had the applicant defined the plane to be constrained to two axes, as opposed to one, then it would be considered a defined plane. It should be further noted that the claim language of the relationship of the axis and the plane is broad on its own, thus, allowing for multiple depictions or configurations. This relationship is important to the claimed invention since the claimed rollers are positioned on said plane.
Applicant further argues that neither Hardy nor Hamlyn disclose or teach pairs of line rollers being configured to operate with only one strand. It should be noted that the primary reference of Hardy discloses the pairs of pulleys but does not necessarily depict wherein each pair comprises only one strand. Figure 4 of Hardy clearly depicts the staggering orientation, furthermore, Hamlyn teaches a similar configuration having multiple pairs of rollers, depicted in figure 9 of Hamlyn, wherein the top set and bottom set each have their own strand which is further visualized in Hamlyn’s figure 12.
The applicant further argues that the pulleys 37, 29, 33 and 31 from Hardy are equivalent to the cylinders 91a-91d from Hamlyn. It should be noted that the cylinders 91a-91d from Hamlyn refer to a first embodiment of the invention which, while similar the invention of Hardy, is not relied on. Rather, the second embodiment of Hamlyn’s invention is relied on for the teachings of the missing limitations. The second embodiment of the invention is depicted in Hamlyn’s Figures 9 through 14 (see paragraphs 50 to 53 of Hamlyn). In the applicant’s arguments, the first embodiment of Hamlyn’s invention is used, however, the first embodiment is not mentioned in the previous office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “16, 19, 20, 22” has been used to designate both pivots and a dispenser, an annular groove, a strand, and a laying head respectively. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 14-15, 19-27 and 29-31 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 14 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis" on page 3, in the 9th line of the claim. The limitation of “the longitudinal axis” is essential for understanding the positioning of the rollers and bobbins in relation to each other, and is not properly introduced, thus the limitation should read “a longitudinal axis”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what element “the longitudinal axis” is referring to. More specifically, the claim discloses “wherein axes of rotation of the rollers are perpendicular to the longitudinal axis” but the confusion lies as to which element the longitudinal axes is defined by. Claims 15, 19-27 and 29-31are also rejected as they depend on rejected claim 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.
Claims 14-15 and 19-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardy (WO 2017/203109 A1) in view of Hamlyn (US 2009/0229760 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Hardy discloses a laying head comprising: a plurality of pairs of line rollers configured to roll a plurality of strands from a plurality of bobbins, each strand originating from a respective bobbin (Pg. 8, ¶¶44-45), each pair of the plurality of pairs of line rollers comprising an upstream roller and a downstream roller with respect to the direction of unwinding of the strands, the plurality of pairs of line rollers being independent of each other in rotation (Fig. 4; Pg. 10, ¶52, pulley sets 37, 29, 33, 31 corresponding to roller pairs & Fig. 11 showing the sets comprising a plurality of pulleys); wherein axes of rotation of the rollers are perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (depicted in Fig. 4); and the upstream roller and the downstream roller of a first pair of line rollers are arranged staggered with respect to the upstream and downstream rollers of a second pair of rollers in a plane perpendicular to the axes of rotation of the rollers and containing the longitudinal axis (best depicted in Fig. 4).
Hardy fails to disclose each pair of line rollers being in operation with only one strand. However, Hamlyn teaches each pair of line rollers being intended to be associated in operation with only one given strand (best depicted in Fig. 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a single strand to be controlled by each pair of rollers in order to ensure minimal failures due to entanglement.
Regarding claim 15, Hardy discloses wherein each pair of line rollers is associated with a release roller, said release rollers being coaxial (Fig. 4 pulley sets 37, 29, 33, 31 corresponding to roller pairs & Fig. 11 showing the sets comprising a plurality of pulleys) and rotatable independently of each other (Pg. 10, ¶52).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Hardy discloses wherein at least two upstream rollers of two pairs of rollers are arranged coaxially in rotation on a same upstream pivot (Fig. 11 showing the sets comprising a plurality of pulleys).
Regarding claim 21, Hardy discloses wherein each roller of the plurality of pairs of line rollers comprises an annular groove configured to receive a respective strand of the plurality of strands, each annular groove having a concave curved bottom surface (Fig. 5 depicting the pulleys having a concavity).
Regarding claim 22, Hardy discloses wherein the axis of the downstream roller of each pair of rollers is located off the plane containing the axis of rotation of the upstream roller and the axis of rotation of the release roller (Fig. 11 showing the sets comprising a plurality of pulleys some being off the plane of the first set of pulleys).
Regarding claim 23, Hardy discloses wherein the longitudinal axis of the laying head is positioned so that there is a plane such that all axes of rotation of the rollers are arranged on the same side of said plane (Fig. 4 pulley sets 37, 29, 33, 31 being on the same plane).
Regarding claims 24 and 27, Hardy discloses wherein a respective strand of each bobbin is associated with each pair of line rollers, and wherein each strand further comprises reinforcing fibers that are made of carbon fiber and impregnated with a curable matrix (Pg. 3, ¶10, Ln. 91-100).
Regarding claims 25 and 31, Hardy discloses a device comprising the laying head according to claim 14 wherein said laying head further configured to rotate around the longitudinal axis (Pg. 9, ¶46), and a robot configured to move an object entirely or partially covered by said at least one strand of the plurality of bobbins (Pg. 9, ¶46).
Regarding claim 26, Hardy discloses a unit comprising the laying head according to claim 14 and a robot configured to move an object entirely or partially covered by said at least one strand of the plurality of bobbins (Pg. 9, ¶46).
Regarding claim 28, Hardy discloses a laying head comprising: a plurality of pairs of line rollers configured to roll a plurality of strands from a plurality of bobbins (Pg. 8, ¶¶44-45), each strand originating from a respective bobbin (Fig. 4 pulley sets 37, 29, 33, 31 corresponding to roller pairs & Fig. 11 showing the sets comprising a plurality of pulleys), wherein: each pair of the plurality of pairs of line rollers is comprises an upstream roller and a downstream roller with respect to a direction of unwinding of the plurality of strands, the plurality of pairs of line rollers being independent of each other in rotation (Fig. 4; Pg. 10, ¶52, the pulley sets being freely in rotation correspond to the rollers being independent from each other), and the upstream roller and the downstream roller of a first pair of the plurality of pairs of line rollers are arranged staggered with respect to the upstream and downstream rollers of a second pair of the plurality of pairs of line rollers in a plane parallel to axes of rotation of the rollers (best depicted in Fig. 4).
Hardy fails to disclose each pair of line rollers being in operation with only one strand. However, Hamlyn teaches each pair of line rollers being intended to be associated in operation with only one given strand (best depicted in Fig. 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a single strand to be controlled by each pair of rollers to ensure minimal failures due to entanglement.
Regarding claim 29, Hardy discloses wherein each line roller comprises two ball bearings (Pg. 10-11, ¶53).
Regarding claim 30, Hardy discloses wherein odd-numbered rollers are carried by a first pivot and even-numbered rollers are carried by a second pivot (Pg. 10, ¶50 disclosing three sets and Fig. 3 showing an even number of rollers).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art references refer to a laying head assembly with similar configurations in rollers to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIA E MELIKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Victoria P. Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
ERMIA E. MELIKA
Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights