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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 24th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims received on January 22nd, 2026 have been entered. Claim 1 has been amended and claims 5 and 6 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The applicant argues that the amendment of claim 1, which incorporates the limitations of canceled claims 5 and 6, is sufficient to overcome the prior art rejection. The applicant argues that none of the prior art references discloses or teaches a wire transfer unit comprising a first and second roller where the first rollers are disposed to diverge from each other toward an outside of a radius of the spiral. More specifically, the applicant argues that Park (KR 10-1,595,863 B1) fails to describe “diverging” first rollers. It is understood that when two elements “diverge” from one another they stray from each other’s path. Referring to rollers (11) of Park, it is understood that the elements fall within the description of “diverging” although they are depicted to be vertically parallel. Since elements that are parallel may be separated in distance, said elements do not necessarily fall on the same path, and thus, one skilled within the art may view the rollers (11) of Park to be “diverging” or strayed from one another. The applicant further argues that Butler (US 2,937,436 A) does not teach the limitation of diverging tapered rollers. It should be noted, as explained above, the term for “diverging” is not properly defined within the claims and that one may understand any two rollers that are separated from one another to be “diverging”. Furthermore, the prior art reference of Butler is brought in to teach the shape of the already disclosed first rollers of Park. Changing the shape of the rollers would merely require one skilled in the art as it would provide a means for secure the wound material in place and ensuring it does not slip out while further providing improved fiber winding means.
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 1-4 and 7-11 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 1 recites the limitation "the first rollers " in the 12th line of the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is attempting to duplicate an existing singular element or if they are referring to the previously-introduced singular element. Furthermore, line 15 of the claim only recites a single “first roller”, but this raises the question that if there is only a single first roller (as introduced and further discussed in line 15), how is it "disposed to diverge” (as claimed in line 12) from itself. It is therefore recommended to clarify the plurality of said first roller and properly introduce the first instance of the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-4 and 7-11 are also rejected as the depend on rejected claim 1.
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 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 10-1,595,863 B1), in view of Walter (US 3,736,739 A), in view of Rettig (US 2010/0252182 A1) and in further view of Butler (US 2,937,436 A).
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), 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), and.
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.
Furthermore, 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.
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, Rettig and Butler 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 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).
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 devices of similar structure to the claimed invention. More specifically, the cited references refer fiber winding devices for unusually shaped materials.
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