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 claims received on October 1st, 2025 have been entered. Claim 8 has been amended. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection filed on July 3rd, 2025 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 1st, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Park, Walter, and Rettig, alone and or in combination, fail to teach or suggest a guide ring provided at a center of a spool assembly in a direction oblique to a spool surface, as recited in claim 1. More specifically, the applicant states that Walter's circular ring (28) is not provided obliquely with respect to the circular flange plate (9) on which the reels (11) are disposed. The examiner notes that the definition and understanding of the word “oblique” is defined as an object having a slanting or inclined path that is neither parallel nor perpendicular to a reference line or plane. The image below depicts Walter’s circular ring (28) and flange plate (9) with a drawn reference line to emphasize the oblique direction. It should also be noted that an object can be both oblique and coaxial depending on where a person skilled in the art may view the reference planes. The examiner further strengthens the argument that the prior art reference defines an oblique guide by point to Rettig’s figures 3-4. The carrier ring (24) and the distributing device (4) are both oriented in an oblique manner. Rettig focuses on winding curved objects and thus as it moves in a path the carrier ring (24) becomes exceedingly oblique. 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 Rettig’s oblique carrier ring (24) to the winding device in order to maintain specific winding patterns while winding on curved or unusually shaped objects.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
442
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Image 1: Walter's Fig. 5 with a drawn dashed reference line)]
The applicant further argues that Park, Walter, and Rettig fail to disclose that the spool surface of the spool assembly is disposed in a direction oblique to a spiral wire, as recited in claim 1. More specifically, the applicant states there is no motivation to modify Park in view of Rettig to accommodate a spiral wire, since this would destroy the purpose of Park's device for winding fibers on a doughnut-shaped liner to form a toroidal gas tank. The examine recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the att. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). references are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the arc, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA) 1969. In this case, although both Park and Rettig wind fibers on differing materials, both deal specifically with winding materials onto uncommonly shaped objects such as a torus shaped tank or a curved tube. Thus, both aim to solve issues similar to that of the claimed invention.
The applicant also argues that modifying the device of Walter in view of the teachings of Rettig would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. More specifically, the applicant states modifying the cylindrical flange (9) to be disposed obliquely relative to the axis of element (5) would destroy the purpose of Walter's arrangement for providing a backup flange plate to maintain the same winding operation without interruption and would also run completely counter to Walter's use of controls to adjust rotational and axial speeds for changing the winding pitch. The examiner points to the further teachings of Rettig. Rettig teaches a robot arm (52) which, when taught in, renders the winding device of Park, in combination with Walter, to move the guide ring in any manner so as to adjust for varying shapes and sizes and thus emphasizing the obliqueness of the taught carrier ring (24) without destroying the purpose of Walter’s arrangement. Incorporating a robotic arm to the device of Walter would further improve its functionality by giving Walter’s winding device a sort of extension to the winding range. The examiner argues that, although Walter and Rettig may be combined to disclose a winding device, both Walter and Rettig are meant to each teach elements to be combined with the disclosed device of Park.
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) 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 10-1,595,863 B1), and in view of Walter (US 3,736,739 A) and Rettig (US 2010/0252182 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a fiber winding device comprising (Pg. 3, ¶11):
a spool assembly (Figs. 1-2, fiber supply unit 30) provided around a wire in a circumferential direction (Figs. 1, liner 3), the spool assembly being configured to form a spool surface (Figs. 1-2, third piece 21c); and
a wire transfer unit configured to transfer the spiral wire to pass through the guide ring (Figs. 1-2, rotor 21), but fails to disclose a plurality of bobbins, and a guide ring at the center of the spool assembly. However, Walter teaches a fiber winding device comprising a plurality of bobbins (Fig. 4-5, reels 11), and a guide ring provided at a center of the spool assembly in a direction oblique to the spool surface (Fig. 4-5, circular ring); and wherein the wire is disposed to perpendicularly pass through a center of the guide ring, the spool surface of the spool assembly is disposed in a direction oblique to the wire, and fibers from the plurality of bobbins are wound on the spiral wire along the guide ring (as depicted in in Fig. 5-6). It is understood that the guide ring taught by Walter are considered to be oblique as it is translated forward and resized so as to angle the fibers as they are being laid. 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 plurality of bobbins with their corresponding guide ring to the fiber winding device disclosed by Park to provide a an efficiently fast guide for the fibers to be laid on a wire or pipe.
It is also understood that both Park and Walter do not disclose a spiral wire. However, Park does disclose winding fibers on a doughnut shaped liner (Fig. 1, Liner 3) and Rettig teaches a fiber winding device which lines a fiber on a curved object (Pg. 4-5, ¶71). If there is a need for winding fibers unto a spiral wire, such as disclosed by the applicant, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, faced with the existing curved objects (the doughnut-shaped disclosed in Park and curved shaped taught by Rettig, to be motivated to modify them into a spiraled object or wire. The inherent curvature in both references would suggest the ability to manipulate their shape further. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Rettig further teaches and emphasizes a guide ring provided at a center of the spool assembly in a direction oblique to the spool surface (Figs. 3-4 & Pg. 17, ¶89). The carrier ring (24) and the distributing device (4) are both oriented in an oblique manner. Rettig focuses on winding curved objects and thus as it moves in a path the carrier ring (24) becomes exceedingly oblique. 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 Rettig’s oblique carrier ring (24) to the winding device in order to maintain specific winding patterns while winding on curved or unusually shaped objects.Park, Walter and Rettig are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of composite fiber winding devices.
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses wherein all of the bobbin is configured to move in one direction to wind fibers in one direction (Pg. 15, ¶78), but fails to discloses wherein the bobbins rotate in directions opposite each other. However, Walter teaches wherein some bobbins are configured to move in directions opposite to each other to wind fibers in a woven form (best depicted in Fig. 5-6 wherein some of the reels 11 having fibers being unwound in the opposite direction as the other reels 11). 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 modified some of the bobbins to rotate in opposite directions of the rest of the bobbins to the fiber winding device to provide a means of winding fibers in a woven form.
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses further comprising a bobbin carrier to which a tension control unit configured to control tension of fibers is attached (Pg. 13, ¶65).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Park fails to discloses having a plurality of transfer units. However, Walter teaches wherein the wire transfer unit and the fiber winding device are installed in plurality along the spiral wire (depicted in Fig. 1-2). 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 plurality of transfer units to the fiber winding device to provide a means for simultaneously winding a wire for a faster and efficient process.
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses wherein the wire transfer unit comprises a first roller configured to provide a transferring force to the spiral wire (Pg. 7, ¶29, first liner rollers 11) and a second roller configured to prevent the spiral wire from leaving (Pg. 7, ¶31, second liner rollers 12), the first roller is disposed on both sides of the spiral wire, and the second roller is disposed on at least one of the inside or outside of the spiral wire (best depicted in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses further comprising a wire transfer speed measurement unit, and a roller motor rotation speed control unit configured to control a rotation speed of a motor driving rollers of the wire transfer unit (Pg. 8, ¶36).
Regarding claim 8, Park fails to discloses wherein the bobbin speed is controlled. However, Rettig teaches wherein a bobbin rotation speed control unit is configured to control rotation speeds of the bobbins (Pg. 4, ¶59). 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 control unit to control the speed of the bobbin to provide a means to control the rate at which the wire or object is wound.
Regarding claims 10-11, Park discloses a composite structure manufactured using the fiber winding device of claim 1 and the fiber winding system of claim 9 (Pg. 6, ¶24).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 10-1,595,863 B1), and in view of Walter (US 3,736,739 A) and Rettig (US 2010/0252182 A1), and in further view of Butler (US 2,937,436 A).
Regarding claim 6, Park fails to disclosed tapered rollers. However, Butler teaches wherein the first roller has a tapered shape, and a taper portion having a wide diameter of the first roller is disposed toward the outside of the spiral wire (Col. 2, Ln. 44-58). 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 tapered rollers to the fiber winding machine to provide a means for secure the wound material in place and ensuring it does not slip out while further providing improved fiber winding means.
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
Prosecution Insights