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
Applicant filed a response, amended claims 1, 5, 6, 11, and 13, and cancelled claim 3 on 05/26/2026.
The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in view of amendments.
Drawings
It appears drawings have not been provided. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered.
Regarding the 112(f) interpretations made, Applicant argues:“In particular, terms such as "placement unit," "temperature measuring unit,"
"prestressing unit," and "handling unit" are used in the context of a mechanical placement device/system and connote known structural components or assemblies for guiding, measuring temperature, applying longitudinal tension, and moving the placement device, respectively. The mere inclusion of functional language does not overcome the presumption that §112(f) does not apply.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. "Temperature measuring unit,"
"prestressing unit," and "handling unit" are not known structural components. In said limitations, “unit” is a generic placeholder is modified by functional language, not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Accordingly, limitations "temperature measuring unit," "prestressing unit," and "handling unit" are interpreted under 112(f) interpretations.
Regarding the previously presented claim 3 and amended claim 1 limitation “a process housing through which the towpreg semi-finished product can be passed”, Applicant argues Holmes does not teach a process housing, but rather a plate on which components are assembled (Remarks, Page 2 and 3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Holmes does not explicitly teach the device components are assembled on a plate.
However, based on Figure 2 and other teachings of Holmes, Examiner believes the structure head of the placement head (12) is not clear. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Holmes in view of Budge.
Applicant argues:
“Moreover, due to the significantly higher intensity of the laser radiation within the
process housing compared to the prior art, the towpreg semi-finished product can be heated more rapidly and brought to the desired temperature over a shorter guiding path, thereby shortening the preheating path and enabling significantly higher process speeds. By heating the towpreg in the heating region within the process housing, the laser beam is shielded from the external environment, thereby improving protection for operators in the vicinity of the placement device. Furthermore, a complete housing of the placement device can be avoided.”
Examiner notes the claims as presented require a process housing through which the towpreg semi-finished product can be passed, and a partial or complete enclosure around a tape-laying device appears to read on the claim. Arguments do not appear to be commensurate in scope with the claims. The inventive feature of a process housing enclosing a laser beam to provide said benefits as argued while avoiding a complete housing of the placement device does not appear to be present in the claims as presented.
Applicant argues:
“Applicant respectfully asserts that the region of the heating surface (32) is not part of the tape placement device (20) as it is away from the device (20). While the region in which the tape (30) is heated by the heating unit could be regarded as a heating region of the tape placement device (20), the tape (30) is not irradiated with a laser beam in this region, but only heated by the heating unit (70), i.e. by infrared diodes, an oven, or convectively. Therefore, Kok also does not disclose the following feature a heating area (8), wherein the laser unit ( 4) is arranged and configured to apply the laser beam to the towpreg semi-finished product in the heating area.
Furthermore, the feature of a process housing, in which the heating area is arranged is not disclosed. Kok merely teaches that the tape placement device (20) is intended for thermoplastic material (see paragraph [0076], claim 1). Whether the tape placement device (20) would also be suitable for thermosetting towpregs would therefore be speculative.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Heating area” as claimed is merely a location capable of heating from a laser unit configured to apply a laser beam. Kok teaches a heating area, or a location capable of heating from a laser unit, within the placement device ([0079], “[t]he device furthermore comprises at least one irradiation module 100, which, in turn, comprises at least one laser diode array 110.)
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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:
“a first temperature measuring unit”;
“a second temperature measuring unit”;
“prestressing unit for generating a longitudinal tension in the towpreg semi-finished product”; and
“handling unit”.
The following interpretations are made:
based on [0064]-[0065], “temperature measuring unit” is interpreted as a temperature sensor and its equivalents thereof;
based on [0034] and Figure 1, “prestressing unit” is interpreted as a roller and its equivalents thereof; and
based on [0043], “handing unit” is interpreted as an articulated arm robot or a gantry machine and their equivalents thereof.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (PG-PUB 2003/0145932) in view of Budge (PG-PUB 2019/0315059).
Regarding claim 1, Holmes teaches a placement device capable of producing a component from a thermoset towpreg semi-finished product, comprising:
a placement unit for guiding a product (Figure 2, item 12 and [0021]),
a laser unit for emitting a laser beam (Figure 2, item 7 and [0022]), and
a heating section (Figure 4, area being heated by item 7),
wherein the laser unit is arranged and configured to apply the laser beam to the product in the heating section (Figure 4).
Holmes does not teach a thermoset towpreg semi-finished product.
However, inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP § 2115). Given that the material worked upon by the apparatus of Holmes is a fiber tape, it appears that the apparatus of Holmes would also be capable of use with a thermoset towpreg semi-finished product.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Holmes does not explicitly teach the placement unit comprises a process housing through which the towpreg semi-finished product can be passed, wherein the heating area is located within the process housing.
Budge teaches a print head for discharging a continuous reinforcement comprising a matrix material and reinforcement [0016]-[0018], the head comprising a housing 20 that is configured to hold, enclose, contain, or otherwise provide mounting for a guiding module 22, a feeding module 24, a cutting module 26, a compacting
module 28, a curing module 30, and additional modules [0022]. Budge teaches
housing 20 may include any number of panels connected to each other to form a multi-sided enclosure that supports the remaining components of head 16, while also
restricting penetration of ambient energy (e.g., UV light), which could negatively affect print quality [0023]. Budge teaches using four-sided enclosure having a receiving or upper end 32 and a discharging or lower end 34 that are both at least partially open or using the enclosure may have a greater or lesser number of sides, if desired [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Holmes with a housing as taught by Budge, a known suitable structure for enclosing and mounting necessary modules for processing reinforcement material, to yield the predictable result of integrally moving and operating the components of the device head as desired.
Given that the laser unit and heating area are disposed in the housing of Holmes in view of Budge, the material passes through the process housing.
Regarding claim 2, Holmes in view of Budge teaches the apparatus as applied to claim 1, wherein the laser unit is arranged and configured to apply the laser beam to at least a first outer surface of the product within the heating section (Holmes, Figure 4 and [0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Holmes in view of Budge teaches the apparatus as applied to claim 1, wherein the laser unit is coupled to the process housing (i.e., arranged in or on the process housing) (Holmes, Figure 2, items 7 and 12 and [0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Holmes in view of Budge teaches the apparatus as applied to claim 1, wherein the laser unit is arranged and configured such that the laser beam impinges substantially orthogonally on the product (Holmes, Figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Holmes in view of Budge teaches the apparatus as applied to claim 5, comprising a first temperature measuring unit (i.e., temperature sensor) arranged and configured to determine a first temperature of the product in the heating section (Holmes, Figure 3, item 8 and [0025]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 7, Holmes in view of Budge teaches the apparatus as applied to claim 1, comprising a second temperature measuring unit (i.e., temperature sensor) arranged and configured to detect a second temperature of a second outer surface of the product opposite to a first outer surface of the product (Holmes, [0025]-[0027]) .
Regarding claim 8, Holmes in view of Budge teaches the apparatus as applied to claim 1, comprising a prestressing unit (i.e., a roller) capable of generating a longitudinal tension in the product, wherein the pressing unit would be capable of applying longitudinal tension between 0 N to more than 200 N (Holmes, Figure 2, items 13 and [0020]).
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 10, Holmes in view of Budge teaches the apparatus as applied to claim 1, comprising a control device, signal-technically coupled to the laser unit and/or the placement unit (Holmes, [0024]-[0027]), for controlling at least one laser parameter of the laser unit (e.g., function on/off [0024], or rate of heating [0025]), wherein the control device is set up to control the laser unit such that the product is heated to a desired temperature (Holmes, [0023]-[0025]).
Given that the control device is capable of controlling the laser unit to heat to a desired temperature, the control device is capable of controlling the laser unit to a curative temperature of a towpreg semi-finished product.
Examiner notes claim 10 limitation “a control device, signal-technically coupled to the laser unit and/or to the placement unit, for controlling and/or loop-controlling at least one laser parameter of the laser unit, a feed speed of the towpreg semi-finished product and/or a longitudinal tension of the towpreg semi-finished product” do not appear to present structural limitations directed towards the configuration of the controller. Claim 10 does not require a control device configured to perform the claimed functions. Accordingly, the limitation appears to be functional limitations directed to the capability of a controller to perform such functions.
Regarding claim 11, Holmes in view of Budge teaches the apparatus as applied to claim 1, comprising a control device arranged to control the laser unit based on a first temperature of the product in the heating section (Holmes, [0024]-[0025]).
Examiner notes claim 11 limitation “a control device arranged to control the laser unit based on…” do not appear to present structural limitations directed towards the configuration of the controller. Claim 11 does not require a control device configured to perform the claimed functions. Accordingly, the limitation appears to be functional limitations directed to the capability of a controller to perform such functions.
Regarding claim 12, Holmes in view of Budge teaches a placement system capable of producing a component from a thermoset product, comprising:
the placement device as applied to claim 1, and
a head drive assembly comprising a plurality of drive devices (i.e., handling unit, a functionally equivalent structure to a gantry system or robotic arm that allows for movement of the placement device) (Holmes, Figure 1 and 2, item 22 and [0021]),
wherein the handing unit is arranged and configured to move the placement device (Holmes, Figure 1 and 2 and [0021]).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (PG-PUB 2003/0145932) in view of Budge (PG-PUB 2019/0315059), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Kok (PG-PUB 2017/0320242).
Alternatively, regarding claim 5, Holmes in view of Budge teaches the apparatus as applied to claim 1, wherein the laser unit is a laser diode array [0027].
Holmes in view of Budge does not explicitly teach the laser unit is arranged and configured such that the laser beam impinges substantially orthogonally on the product
Kok teaches a device for producing a reinforcing structure comprising a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic material onto a molded body, the device comprising a laser diode array (Figure 1 and 2). Kok teaches laser diodes of the laser diode array are spaced apart in a non-equidistant manner. Kok teaches by means of the non-equidistant spacing of the laser diodes, the nonuniform radiation intensity on the
heating surface of the strip and/or on the heating surface of the molded body can be achieved or assisted [0030]-[0031]. Kok teaches spacings between laser diodes which
irradiate the heating surfaces at a relatively large angle, the spacings between these laser diodes can be smaller than the spacings between the laser diodes which irradiate the heating surfaces at a more acute angle or approximately perpendicularly ([0032], [0079]-[0080] and Figures 9-12). Kok teaches it is possible to change the angular position of the individual segments of the irradiation module for adjusting the different geometries and intensity profile on a heating surface [0022]-[0026], [0088]-[0089].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Holmes in view of Budge, in particularly the laser unit, with a laser diode array of Kok, a known suitable laser unit for irradiating a heating surface of a resin-based fiber material, for the benefit of adjusting emission angle and desired intensity profiles.
Regarding claim 6, Holmes in view of Budge and Kok teaches the apparatus as applied to claim 5, comprising a first temperature measuring unit (i.e., temperature sensor) arranged and configured to determine a first temperature of the product in the heating section (Holmes, Figure 3, item 8 and [0025]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 9, Holmes in view of Budge teaches the apparatus as applied to claim 1.
Holmes in view of Budge does not teach a preheating station arranged upstream of the heating section with respect to a direction of movement of the product.
Kok teaches a device for producing a reinforcing structure which comprises a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic material on a molded body surface ([0030], [0076]-[0077] and Figures 1 and 2). Kok teaches the device includes a laser unit [0079] and a heating unit (Figure 2, item 70) situated ahead of a heating surface to heat both front and rear side of the strip [0102] to ensure that the strip is heated to a predetermined temperature [0103]. Kok teaches since the strip has been pre-heated to a temperature, all that is required is that the strip should be heated further by a reduced amount by means of the laser light emitted by the laser diode array in order to be joined materially to the surface of the molded body [0104]. Kok teaches the heating unit brings about further improved thermalization of the strip, as a result of which even lower thermal stresses remain in the reinforcing structure after said structure cools, whereby the reinforcing structure has a further increased stability [0105]. Kok teaches it is also possible to use strips with a greater thickness since the strip is heated and thus thermalized both on the front side and on the rear side thereof [0106].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Holmes with a pre-heating station as taught by Kok, for the benefit of using a combination of pre-heating from a heating unit and heating from a laser unit for improved thermalization and suitability of the apparatus with other materials.
Alternatively, regarding claim 12, Holmes in view of Budge teaches a placement system capable of producing a component from a thermoset product, comprising:
the placement device as applied to claim 1, and
a head drive assembly comprising a plurality of drive devices (Figure 1 and 2, item22 and [0021]),
wherein the handing unit is arranged and configured to move the placement device (Figure 1 and 2, item22 and [0021]).
Holmes in view of Budge does not teach the head drive assembly is a robot arm or gantry system (i.e., handling unit).
Kok teaches a device for producing a reinforcing structure comprising a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic material onto a molded body, the device comprising a laser diode array (Figure 1 and 2), wherein the device is disposed on a robot for moving and rotating [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Holmes, in particularly the drive mechanisms, with a robot as taught by Kok, a suitable handling unit for allowing movement of the placement device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights