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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
The amendment to the Specification filed April 10, 2026 is accepted.
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 10, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment filed April 10, 2026 has rendered the 112(b) rejection in the previous office action moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 8, 10-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al. (US 6451152) in view of Moore (US 20160332434) and Hsu (US 20170072633).
As to claim 8, Holmes discloses an AFP machine comprising of a compaction roller 24, a controller 90 controlling the components of the machine/apparatus, and a laser heat source module 20 (Fig. 1 and 2). Holmes discloses that the laser heat source module may comprise of multiple laser diodes that form an array, that the individual diodes may be arranged so as to heat tapes independently of one another or to use multiple diodes on a tape material with is wider than the diode used (C7, L56-67; C8, L48-60). Holmes discloses that the apparatus may have a collimator in the form of a plurality of lenses 48 (Fig. 1, 3; C1, L45-63). Holmes further discloses that the apparatus may use fiber optic elements and mirrors in conjunction with the lens to guide the laser energy to a desired position (C3, L29 – L45). Hence fiber optic elements would connect to the laser diodes via a fiber optic termination at the lens element.
Holmes fails to teach or disclose that each laser heat source is infrared. Moore discloses that it is well-known and conventional to use infrared lasers to heat a fiber tow during fiber layup (paragraph 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the infrared laser of Moore in the system taught by Holmes because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known conventional and successful laser means for heating a fiber tow during layup. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Holmes fails to specifically teach that the mirror may be placed downstream of the lens (collimator) to direct the infrared energy to a desired point as currently claimed. Hsu discloses a method for laser preheating (Abstract). Hsu discloses that it is known and conventional in the art of laser heating to place a mirror downstream of a lens to direct laser energy to a desired surface (Fig. 2A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the mirror arrangement of Hsu in the apparatus taught by the references as combined because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional means of directing laser energy to a desired surface. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to the claim limitations that there are multiple fiber optic terminations and mirrors, it would have been obvious to use more than one set of laser heating elements if required because this would amount to a mere duplication of parts so as to provide multiple sources of laser energy to heat a desired surface. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As to claims 10 and 11, the apparatus of claim 8 is taught as seen above. It would have been obvious to use as many mirrors as needed (sixteen mirrors divided into two groups) to direct as streams of laser energy required to heat a desired surface, since this would amount to a mere duplication of parts. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As to claims 12 and 14, the apparatus of claim 8 is taught as seen above. It is the position of the Examiner that a chassis/support structure for the mirrors as well as actuators are well known and conventional in the art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because he would recognize that the position of the mirror needs to fairly exact and stable so as to direct laser energy to a desired point during the heating process, with the actuators allowing for the mirrors to be adjusted as needed to direct said energy on a potentially uneven surface.
As to claim 15, the apparatus of claim 8 is taught as seen above. It is the position of the Examiners that fused silica mirrors with a specialized coating to handle infrared/laser energy is known and conventional in the art and would have been obvious at the time of filing.
As to claims 16 and 17, the apparatus of claim 8 is taught seen above. The above references as combined uses a laser diode with fiberoptic which combines multiple infrared energy sources to produce a single infrared energy beam.
As to claim 18, the apparatus of claim 16 is taught as seen above. Holmes discloses that the energy sources are disposed distal from an AFP head.
As to claim 19, the apparatus of claim 18 is taught as seen above. The apparatus of the above references as combined would utilize bundles of fiber optic cables to traverse a required distance so as to connect infrared energy sources to the collimators to which would form a bundle of cables.
As to claim 20, the apparatus of claim 8 is taught as seen above. Claim 20 is rejected for the substantially the same reasons as claim 8 above since it is drawn to method limitations in an apparatus claim. It would be obvious to provide an equal energy output of the heating devices since the apparatus of the above references as combined has a duplication of parts as needed to heat a desired surface.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,023,877 in view of Holmes et al. (US 6451152).
Claim 1 of ‘877 recites all of the same limitations as claim 1 except that it does not specifically recite a collimator. It is the position of the Examiner that using a collimator in a laser heating device in an AFP machine is known and conventional in the art and would have been obvious at the time of the invention. Holmes discloses an AFP machine with laser heating means for heating tows laid down (Abstract; Fig. 1-3). Holmes discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to use collimators in the form of lenses to receive, collmate and direct laser energy onto a desired tow or surface that a tow is to be placed upon (Fig. 1, 3; C1, L45-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the lenses of Holmes in the apparatus taught by ‘877 because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional means for directing laser energy onto a desired surface. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 5 and 6 of ‘877 recites limitations that fall into the recited spacing of less than 0.5 inches of claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9, 13 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 22 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 recites that the AFP machine further comprises a collimator block configured to secure the collimators in a plurality of rows, collimators in each row being transversely offset with respect to collimators in an adjacent row, the transvers offset orienting each row providing a substantially uniform pitch of the collimated infrared energy directed from the respective collimators; a plurality of first mirrors, each first mirror arranged to redirect the collimated infrared energy from a respective collimator toward a second mirror; and the second mirror oriented to direct the collimated infrared energy received from the plurality of first mirrors to the nip point of the respective associated tows. None of the prior art teaches or discloses the recited collimator block arrangement with mirrors for supplying infrared energy to a desired surface as currently claimed.
As to claim 9, none of the prior art teaches or discloses the recited optical assembly for an AFP machine with a plurality of optic terminations arranged in two staggered rows as currently claimed.
As to claim 13, none of the prior art teaches or discloses the recited optical assembly for an AFP machine with the recited small mirrors arranged so as to direct infrared energy to a long mirror which redirects said energy to a substrate as currently claimed.
As to claim 21, none of the prior art teaches or discloses the recited optical assembly for an AFP machine using collimator tubes for fiber optic terminations as currently claimed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 22 recites a method of using an optical assembly in an Automated Fiber Placement (AFP) machine, the method comprising: supplying the optical assembly, the optical assembly including a chassis, a plurality of fiber optic cables, a respective plurality of collimating devices arranged in at least two staggered rows, and a plurality of mirrors respectively arranged to direct infrared energy received from the collimating devices; fixing the optical assembly to the AFP machine and orienting the optical assembly to emit the infrared energy toward nip points of a plurality of fiber tow placement locations; attaching each of the fiber optic cables to a respective collimating device held within the chassis; providing infrared energy to at least one of the fiber optic cables; at least once, adjusting a position of at least a subset of the mirrors to direct infrared energy received from corresponding collimating devices within a predetermined threshold location range at the respective nip points; and independently controlling, with an automated controller, a supply of the infrared energy provided to at least one of the plurality of collimating devices based on whether or not the AFP machine is feeding a corresponding fiber tow to the corresponding nip point. None of the prior art teaches or discloses the recited method of operating an AFP machine with a step of independently controlling, with an automated controller, a supply of the infrared energy provided to at least one of the plurality of collimating devices based on whether or not the AFP machine is feeding a corresponding fiber tow to the corresponding nip point as currently claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will address only those arguments pertinent to the rejection above.
Applicant argues on pages 12-14 that the prior art of record fails to teach or disclose the recited apparatus of claim 8. Applicant specifically argues that Holmes fails to teach how the lens, mirror, and fiber optic element may be implemented. Applicant argues that it is unclear how and why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have incorporated fiber optic terminations. This argument is not persuasive because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when using a fiber optic element to transport the laser diode energy through said fiber optic, a termination is inherent at the end of the fiber optic element going to the lens, ensuring low signal loss and mechanical reliability of said fiber optic element.
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 CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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 (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights