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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on September 11, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I-II do not lack Unity of Invention because the modification combines references that are not analogous prior art and that there is no rationale to modify because RU 2704995 already achieves the feature that is modified with an active return system. This is not found persuasive because both references solve the same problem of returning a structure to an initial position during the manufacturing process. As to the modification itself, [0079] of Dardanis teaches a known element to predictably pull a structure back up to its initial position as taught by [0079] of Dardanis, which would be predictably perform the same function as the electric motor 42 as RU 2704995. It is the nature of modifications to replace one working feature with another. Pointing this out does not rebut the rationale. Further, as presented below, claim 10 is rejected over (RU 2704995) in view of Sydow (US 2019/0184633) and therefore there is no unity of invention between claim 10 and claim 16.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 11, 2025.
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.
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: “elastic return element” in claim 10.
“Elastic return element” is interpreted as a spring as disclosed in [0062] of Applicant’s disclosure.
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
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 14 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 interphase material." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “an interphase material.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (RU 2704995) in view of Sydow (US 2019/0184633).
Regarding claim 10, RU 2704995 discloses system for manufacturing a composite construction material comprising a printed matrix and a continuous fiber embedded in said matrix ([0007]), the system comprising a print head configured to deposit the matrix by deposition of material in successive layers on a deposition plane (nozzle unit 3 with outlet opening 4, [0012], Figs. 1, 3-4), and an injection device configured to introduce the continuous fiber into the matrix deposited by the print head (reinforcement feed unit 5 injecting reinforcing cord 8 from reel unwinder 7, [0012], Figs. 1, 11-12, 14-15), the injection device comprising: a distribution head configured to deliver the fiber (hollow needle 44 of reinforcement unit 5 delivers reinforcing cord 8, [0012], Figs. 1, 11-12, 14-15), said distribution head being movable in a vertical direction perpendicular to the deposition plane (electric motor 42 moves carriage 41 up and down, [0012], Figs. 11-12), between a high position (elevated carriage 41, [0012]) and a low position (lowered carriage 41, [0012], Figs. 11-12); a drive device configured to oscillate the dispensing head between the high position and the low position (electric motor 42 drives carriage 41 down, [0012], Figs. 11, 12).
RU 2704995 teaches a system substantially as claimed. RU 2704995 does not disclose an elastic return element configured to passively return the dispensing head from the low position to the high position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing and solving the same problem of vertical movement of the print head ([0010]), Sydow teaches an elastic return element configured to passively return the dispensing head from the low position to the high position (return spring 36, [0028]; carriage 45 provides vertical movement with return spring 36 returning from the low position to the high position, [0028], claims 10-11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of RU 2704995 to modify carriage 41 to be structured as carriage 45 and return spring 36 of Sydow because a spring is a known element to predictably pull a structure back up to its initial position as taught by [0010] of Sydow, which would be performing the same function as the electric motor 42 of RU 2704995 when it moves carriage 42 up.
Regarding claim 11, RU 2704995 as modified teaches the distribution head comprises a hollow needle capable of being traversed by the continuous fiber (hollow needle 44 that reinforcing cord 8 passes through, [0012], [0025] Figs. 1, 11-12, 14-15).
Regarding claim 12, RU 2704995 as modified teaches wherein the distribution head is configured to deliver an interphase material with the fiber (glass cord is impregnated with an adhesive composition, RU 2704995 [0024]; the adhesive composition constitutes an interphase material as explained in [0020] of Applicant’s disclosure).
Regarding claim 13, RU 2704995 as modified teaches wherein the distribution head is configured to deliver an interphase material with the fiber (glass cord is impregnated with an adhesive composition, RU 2704995 [0024]; the adhesive composition constitutes an interphase material as explained in [0020] of Applicant’s disclosure)
Regarding claim 15, RU 2704995 as modified teaches wherein the drive device is configured to oscillate the dispensing head between the high position and the low position at a predetermined frequency and a predetermined amplitude (Fig. 17 shows a predetermined frequency and amplitude for the placement of fiber, indicating that RU 2704995 is at least capable of performing as claimed).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (RU 2704995) in view of Sydow (US 2019/0184633) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Clark (US 2004/0031563).
Regarding claim 14, RU 2704995 as modified teaches delivering [an] interphase material to the distribution head ([0025] of RU 2704995 teaches that an adhesive composition is fed from container 6 to tank 48 for impregnation of glass cord). RU 2704995 as modified teaches a system substantially as claimed.
RU 2704995 does not disclose a pump with controllable flow for delivering the interphase material to the distribution head.
However, solving the same problem of delivering adhesive to impregnate a fiber ([0024-25] of RU 2704995, [0033] of Clark), Clark teaches a pump with controllable flow for delivering the interphase material to the distribution head (adhesive supplied by adhesive pump 3, [0033]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of RU 2704995 to deliver the adhesive from container 6 to tank 48 using an adhesive pump because RU 2704995 is silent on how the adhesive moves from container 6 and tank 48 and [0033] of Clark teaches an adhesive pump to do so, where it in turn impregnates a fiber, matching the function taught in [0024-25] of RU 2704995. As modified, with a pump delivering controlled flow, adhesive is being delivered to a distribution head (glass cord is impregnated in tank 48 by the adhesive, and in turn is distributed with the fiber).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sydow (US 11,312,070) teaches subject matter similar to Sydow (US 2019/0184633), cited above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744