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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction in the reply filed on 11/14/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all the elements of claim 1 are in claim 6 and that there is no evidence the apparatus might be used to apply thin sheets of metal or paper. Examiner agrees that claim 1 contains all the elements of claim 6 and thus is not a subcombination restrictible from claim 6. Claims 1-5 have therefore been rejoined. Applicant argues that groups II and II are not restrictible because group I is configured to layup layers without adhesive. That is exactly examiner’s reason for restricting- the method requires one of the layers to be adhesive, the apparatus does not. The structure is no different between an apparatus configured to layup two fiber layers versus a fiber layers and an adhesive layer. Examiner is not required to provide evidence in order to have a restriction. Nonetheless, for evidence that a device for laying up a fiber layer and an adhesive layer can also be used for laying up two fiber layers see the following 102a1 rejection over Kreimeyer et al.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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: a compactor figured to compact in claim 1, a compaction system configure to compact in claim 2, a joining system configured to join and a layup system configured to lay up in claim 6, a compaction system configure to compact in claim 7, an inspection system configured to inspect in claim 8, and a movement system configured to move and a compactor figured to compact in claim 9.
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The workpiece and composition of the fiber product layer are material worked upon which do not further limit the apparatus. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 11, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kreimeyer et al.(DE 102012017594A)).
Kreimeyer et al. teaches a device for making a composite comprising a joining system(z9) configured to join two layers(z1, z2), and a layup system configured to lay up the joined layer onto the surface of a workpiece.(z14) The structure of the device would be able to layup a fiber layer and an adhesive layer instead of a fiber layer and a release layer and meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 10, the layup system compacts the joined layer.(z14)
Regarding claim 11, Kreimeyer et al. discloses an actuatable carriage which moves relative to the workpiece and a roller(z11) which presses the layers against the workpiece.(Figure 29)
Regarding claim 14, the workpiece can be multiple layers of fiber composite.(Pg .1)
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the joining system is located in an end effector connected to a gantry.(Figure 19)
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, 10, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Duan et al.(CN 104354302A)
Duan et al. discloses a composite layup system comprising a movement system configured to move and align(unlabeled rollers between start of webs and joining location) a fiber layer(7) an a resin layer(adhesive 8), a heater(4-1) configured to heat the aligned layers, a compactor(4-2) configured to compact the aligned layers and form the joined layers, a moveable carriage to move relative to the workpiece(Figure 2), and a layup device configure to compact the layup against the workpiece.(5-1)
Regarding claim 14, the workpiece can be overlapping layers of fiber composite.[0003]
Regarding claim 15, the fiber layer can be a tow.[0017]
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the joining system is located in an end effector connected to a gantry.(Figures 1 and 2)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Kreimeyer et al.
Duan et al. discloses a composite layup system comprising a movement system configured to move and align(unlabeled rollers between start of webs and joining location) a fiber layer(7) an a resin layer(adhesive 8), a heater(4-1) configured to heat the aligned layers, a compactor(4-2) configured to compact the aligned layers and form the joined layers, a moveable carriage to move relative to the workpiece(Figure 2), and a layup device configure to compact the layup against the workpiece.(5-1) It does not disclose a layup roller which presses the joined layer to the workpiece, instead using a shoe. Kreimeyer et al. shows it is well-known and conventional in the composite fiber arts to use a roller to press the composite layer against the workpiece(z11) and it would have been obvious to do so for this reason.
Regarding claim 5, the joining system is located in an end effector connected to a gantry.(Figures 1 and 2)
Regarding claim 13, while Duan et al does not discloses a radius seating roller, the compaction roller of Duan et al. and Kreimeyer et al. would be capable of seating a radius filler.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. and Kreimeyer et al. as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Knutson et al.(US Patent 2021/0001573).
The references cited do not disclose compacting the workpiece prior to the end effector laying up the joined layer. Knutson et al. teaches a plurality of end effectors which lay up the joined layers to top of one another.(Figure 11) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use a plurality of end effectors which lay up a plurality of layers on top of one another since this is well-known and conventional in the art as shown for example by Knutson et al. The compaction roller of the first end effector would apply compaction to the workpiece prior to the end effectors after it, meeting the claim limitation.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. and Kreimeyer et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson et al.(US Publication 2019/0061282).
The references cited do not disclose heating the workpiece prior to applying the joined layer. Johnson et al. discloses an end effector which includes a heater to heat the workpiece prior to applying the joined layer in order to enhance tack prior to application of the joined layer.[0006] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to heat the workpiece surface prior to applying the joined layer since this would enhance the material tack as taught by Johnson et al.[0003].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Thompson et al.(US Publication 2018/0031491).
Duan et al. does not disclose an inspection system to detect foreign debris on the workpiece. Thompson et al. teaches a device which detect foreign debris on the surface of a composite part(Abstract) to prevent contamination and save money.[0004] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to include an inspection system to detect foreign debris in the apparatus of Duan et al. since this would prevent contamination and save money as taught by Thompson et al.[0004]
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Johnson et al.(US Publication 2019/0061282).
The references cited do not disclose heating the workpiece prior to applying the joined layer. Johnson et al. discloses an end effector which includes a heater to heat the workpiece prior to applying the joined layer in order to enhance tack prior to application of the joined layer.[0006] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to heat the workpiece surface prior to applying the joined layer since this would enhance the material tack as taught by Johnson et al.[0003].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 3, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a radius seating roller which seats a radius filler in the channel in the surface of the workpiece in response to the seating roller applying pressure while moving over the radius filler in the channel in addition to a layup roller which joins the joined layer to the workpiece.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746