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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the drawings and claims received on September 30th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 14, 19, 20, and 24-26 have been amended, claims 27 and 28 have been added, and claims 16-18 have been canceled. Objections to the drawings and claims as well as the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections to the claims filed on June 30th, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the applicant’s replacement drawings, the examiner notes that character 17 has been changed to character 13. However, character 13 is not disclosed within the specification, which is assumed to be the bobbin. Proper correction is advised.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the rollers of Hardy are not arranged staggered in a plane parallel to the rotation axes of the rollers as described in amended claim 14. The examiner points that amended claim 14 states that the upstream and downstream rollers are staggered in a plane perpendicular, and not parallel, to the rotation axes of the rollers. Rather, it is the newly added claim 28 which discloses a staggered arrangement in a parallel plane. Furthermore, it should be noted that Hardy does indeed disclose rollers staggered in a plane parallel and perpendicular to the rotation axes. In drawing 1 below, it clearly depicts a plane (characterized by the dashed box) disposed in a perpendicular configuration to the axes of rotation of both the applicant’s and Hardy’s rollers. It should be noted that it is obvious to one skilled in the art to
PNG
media_image1.png
1077
1771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Drawing 1: Applicant's figure (left) and Hardy's figure (right) with planes perpendicular to the roller axes)]depict a staggered, or a zig-zagged configuration of the rollers.
The examiner also points to drawing 2 below, wherein a side view of a plane parallel to the axes of the rollers’ rotation is depicted in dashed thick lines. It should be noted that both the applicant and Hardy provide an arrangement of rollers which are staggered in a parallel plane wherein the rollers are disposed on said plane but remain in a staggered orientation. The examiner would like to note that a plane that is parallel to an axis could be placed anywhere around said axis and because both the applicant and Hardy provide an orientation where the rollers fall on it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to position the rollers anywhere around the axis in a misaligned or staggered state.
PNG
media_image3.png
869
1429
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Drawing 2: Applicant's figure (left) and Hardy's figure (right) with a sideview of planes parallel to the roller axes)]
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s. However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01 subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: character 13 of the replacement figure 1 is not disclosed within the specification and is assumed to correlate to a bobbin, but further clarification is needed. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: character 13 of the replacement figure 1 is not disclosed within the specification and is assumed to correlate to a bobbin, but further clarification is needed. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 14-15 and 19-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardy (WO 2017/203109 A1) in view of Colin (GB 921, 138 A).
Regarding claim 14, Hardy discloses a head for laying a plurality of strands each originating from a bobbin (Pg. 8, ¶¶44-45), the laying head comprising a plurality of pairs of line rollers for rolling the strands from the bobbins (Fig. 4 pulley sets 37, 29, 33, 31 corresponding to roller pairs & Fig. 11 showing the sets comprising a plurality of pulleys), each pair of line rollers being intended to be associated in operation with only one given strand (Pg. 3, ¶13, Ln. 119-120) and comprising an upstream roller and a downstream roller with respect to the direction of unwinding of the strands (best depicted in Fig. 4 & Pg. 10, ¶52), the line rollers being independent of each other in rotation (Pg. 10, ¶52, the pulley sets being freely in rotation correspond to the rollers being independent from each other), and wherein the upstream roller and the downstream roller of a pair of line rollers are arranged staggered with respect to the upstream and downstream rollers of another pair of rollers in a plane parallel to the axes of rotation of the rollers and containing the longitudinal axis (Fig. 4 pulley sets 37, 29, 33, 31).
Hardy fails to disclose the axes of rotation of the rollers being perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the bobbin. However, Colin teaches plurality of strands each originating from a bobbin and having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1, spindles 4) wherein the axes of rotation of the rollers are perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and wherein the upstream roller and the downstream roller of a pair of line rollers are arranged staggered with respect to the upstream and downstream rollers of another pair of rollers in a plane perpendicular to the axes of rotation of the rollers and containing the longitudinal axis (depicted in Fig. 1, spindles 4, straightening device 7 and emphasized in Fig. 3). 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 the longitudinal bobbin with an axis perpendicular to the axes of rotation of the rollers as the bobbin where the strands originate so that the laying head may orient itself around the bobbin to prevent tangling.
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 and two downstream rollers of two pairs of rollers are arranged coaxially in rotation on a same pivot (Fig. 11 showing the sets comprising a plurality of pulleys).
Regarding claim 21, Hardy discloses wherein each roller comprises an annular groove for receiving a strand, this 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 strand of the bobbin is associated with each pair of rollers, the reinforcing fibers, and wherein the reinforcing fibers are made of carbon fiber, of each strand being impregnated with a curable matrix (Pg. 3, ¶10, Ln. 91-100).
Regarding claim 25, Hardy discloses the unit comprising a device according to the preceding claim or laying head being movable in rotation around the longitudinal axis (Pg. 9, ¶46).
Regarding claim 26, Hardy discloses a unit for winding at least one strand from the bobbin, the unit comprising a device according to the preceding claim a robot for moving an object intended to be entirely or partially covered by said at least one strand of the bobbin (Pg. 9, ¶46).
Claim(s) 28 is/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 28, Hardy discloses a head for laying a plurality of strands each originating from a bobbin (Pg. 8, ¶¶44-45), the laying head comprising a plurality of pairs of line rollers for rolling the strands from the bobbins (Fig. 4 pulley sets 37, 29, 33, 31 corresponding to roller pairs & Fig. 11 showing the sets comprising a plurality of pulleys), and comprising an upstream roller and a downstream roller with respect to the direction of unwinding of the strands (best depicted in Fig. 4 & Pg. 10, ¶52), the line rollers being independent of each other in rotation (Pg. 10, ¶52, the pulley sets being freely in rotation correspond to the rollers being independent from each other), and wherein the upstream roller and the downstream roller of a pair of line rollers are arranged staggered with respect to the upstream and downstream rollers of another pair of rollers in a plane perpendicular and a plane parallel to the axes of rotation of the rollers (Fig. 4 pulley sets 37, 29, 33, 31).
Hardy does not necessarily disclose a bobbin having a longitudinal axis. However, Hamlyn teaches a head for laying a plurality of strands each originating from a bobbin and having a longitudinal axis, wherein the axes of rotation of the rollers are perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and the rollers and containing the longitudinal axis (best depicted in Fig. 4, roller 31). 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 the bobbin to have a longitudinal axis so as to provide efficient fiber dispensing means.
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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Anna M. Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619