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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 6, Line 5, “between the fibers” should read “between the fiber or fibers”.
In Claim 10, Line 4, “according to one of claim 1” should read “according to claim 1”
Appropriate correction is required. The list of informalities cited is not necessarily exhaustive. Applicant should review the specification and correct any other potential errors.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In Claim 1:
fiber storage means which is being interpreted as a remote spool creel as recited in [0004] of the published specification and equivalents thereof,
conveying means which is being interpreted as “flexible tubes, each flexible tube is adapted to receive a fiber in its internal passage and is preferably provided with at least one longitudinal flexible blade, said flexible blade being arranged substantially parallel to the plane of transport of the fiber received in the internal passage of the flexible tube” as recited in [0004] and [0040] of the published specification and equivalents thereof, and
drive means which is being interpreted as motorized rollers as recited in [0038] of the published specification and equivalents thereof
In Claim 3:
blocking means which is being interpreted as a blocking bar mounted at the end of the rod of at least one blocking jack as recited in [0051] and [0052] and shown in Fig. 2 of the published specification and equivalents thereof
In Claim 4:
downstream blocking means and upstream blocking means which is being interpreted as a blocking bar mounted at the end of the rod of at least one blocking jack as recited in [0051] and [0052] and shown in Fig. 2 of the published specification and equivalents thereof
In Claim 5:
downstream blocking means and upstream blocking means which is being interpreted as a blocking bar mounted at the end of the rod of at least one blocking jack as recited in [0051] and [0052] and shown in Fig. 2 of the published specification and equivalents thereof
tensioning means which is being interpreted as a tensioning roller as recited in [0027] of the published specification and equivalents thereof
In Claim 10:
means of a fiber application machine which is being interpreted as the fiber application machine recited in Claim 1 and equivalents thereof
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 8 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.
Claim 8 recites “a belt” in Line 2 and 3. It is unclear whether these limitations refer to the same or different belts. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the second recitation of “a belt” should read “the belt”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the circular peripheral surface of an intermediate part.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a circular peripheral surface of an intermediate part was not previously established. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as if antecedent basis was properly established.
In Claim 8, it is unclear whether for each fiber a belt is mounted around all of the cylinder, or each single belt is mounted on a corresponding single cylinder. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that each single belt is mounted on a corresponding single cylinder.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art to independent Claim 1 is Hamlyn et al (WO2006092514 cited in IDS with references to equivalent US Publication PGPub 2009/0229760 for ease of reference).
Hamlyn teaches a fiber application machine (Abstract) comprising
a fiber application head (Fig. 1- placement head 3),
fiber storage means (Fig. 1- ball storage racks 71),
conveying means (Fig. 1- pipes 75) for conveying at least one fiber from the storage means to the application head [0060], further comprising
a displacement system (Fig. 1- robot arm 21) able to effect a relative displacement of the application head with respect to a lay-up surface (Fig. 1- mold M1; [0058]), and
at least one tension limiting system (Fig. 1- tension limiting system 9) comprising at least two cylinders parallel to each other (Figs. 7-8- cylinders 91; Figs. 9-10- cylinders 191), on which each fiber is able to be partially wound [0030], and
drive means for driving said cylinders in rotation (Figs. 7-8 motor 92; [0081]; Figs. 9-10- motor 192; [00907],
wherein the tension system comprises at least a first cylinder and at least a second cylinder cantilever-mounted on a support structure (Fig. 9- showing cylinder 191 cantilever-mounted on support 190).
However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the first cylinder and/or the second cylinder being mounted mobile on the support structure between at least one active position in which each fiber is able to be partially wound on cylinders, and an inactive position in which the first cylinder and the second cylinder are spaced apart from each other.
Further, there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the device of Hamlyn to include the first cylinder and/or the second cylinder being mounted mobile on the support structure between at least one active position in which each fiber is able to be partially wound on cylinders, and an inactive position in which the first cylinder and the second cylinder are spaced apart from each other. Thus, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.
Claims 2-7 and 9-10 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 1/22/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748