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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending and the subject of this NON-FINAL Office Action. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Interpretations – Intended Uses of Claimed Machine
The claims contain numerous statements of intended uses of the claimed machine that fail to distinguish the machine over prior art. For example, in claim 1: “for guiding at least one fiber (F1, F2) towards said application roller along a guide plane (P1, P2)”; and “able to drive.” In claim 2: “so that the fiber (F1, F2) exiting from the tension limiting system is arranged in the guide plane (P1, P2).” Claim 3 describes method of passing fiber bundles over cylinders, and the ability to guide fibers in the form of a band. Claim 4 describes methods of actuating rollers and driving cylinders. Applicants are encouraged to amend the claims to recite physical structures that accomplish these uses.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5 and 6 recite “claim1”; a space is missing between “claim” and “1.”
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)- Means-Plus-Function
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 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 function without reciting 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.
In claim 3, “guide means” is interpreted as channels per page five of the specification: “According to an embodiment, the guide means comprise first channels and second channels intended respectively to individually receive the fibers of 10 the first and second bundles, preferably the first channels are formed at the assembly interface between a first outer plate and a central plate, and the second channels are formed at the assembly interface between central plate and a second outer plate.” This is the only means disclosed.
In claim 5, “conveying means” is interpreted as flexible tube per page six of the specification: “According to one embodiment, the conveying means comprise at least one flexible conveying tube, each conveying tube being able to receive a fiber in its internal passage.” This is the only means disclosed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112- Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the potential point of novelty and non-obviousness is confusing. Specifically, claim 1 requires “tension limiting system [TLS] is mounted on the movable portion of the application head.” However, the specification never describes the TLS directly mounted to the movable portion. Instead, the specification describes a single embodiment in which “[t]he rollers 41-44 of the [TLS] are rotatably mounted in a cantilevered manner on a support plate 45 which is assembled to the moving portion” (Spec., pg. 12). This is shown in Figure 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
444
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To simplify, the TLS 4 is never “mounted” to the movable portion 22; rather, cantilevered to it via support plate 45. In light of this single, specific cantilevered embodiment, it is unclear what other arrangements are encompassed by “tension limiting system [TLS] is mounted on the movable portion of the application head.” For example, does this encompass direct mounting? If so, it is not supported by the specification. Yet, a plain reading of the claim language, without consulting the specification, indicates such a scope. Thus, the scope of the claim under a plain reading is in tension with the specification, which renders the scope of the claim unclear.
To clarify this problem, Applicants are encouraged to amend the claim to specify the TLS comprises rollers that are rotatably mounted by a cantilevered support plate, the cantilevered support plate assembled to the moving portion.
In claim 1, the “fibre fiber system” is confusing because this system is never described in the specification, nor is it a phrase used in the art. Simply put, it is impossible to determine what is this.
In claim 4, “the rerouting system” is confusing because it lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 6, “the method” is confusing because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HAMLYN (US20080216963).
As to claim 1, HAMLYN teaches a fiber application machine (“head for applying fibers”; Abstract) for the production of composite material parts comprising a fiber application head comprising a fixed portion 1 and a movable portion 2/6/7 (1 & 5), the movable portion comprising:
a compaction system R comprising at least one application roller R (1 & 5),
a guide system 3 for guiding at least one fiber (F1, F2) towards said application roller along a guide plane (P1, P2) (Figs. 1 & 5), and
a fiber cutting system 4 (Figs. 1 & 5),
the movable portion being slidably mounted on the fixed portion, and being biased by at least one compaction jack 81 mounted between the fixed portion and the movable portion (Figs. 1, 4 & 5),
the machine further comprising a tension limiting system comprising at least one cylinder 51a/51b on which each fiber is able to be partially wound, and drive means able to drive the cylinder in rotation (“drive rollers”; Figs. 5 & 9 and paras. 0061-63, for example),
wherein the tension limiting system (“drive rollers” with tension system 84/85/861/862/863; Figs. 4-5, para. 0063) is mounted on the movable portion 2/6/7 of the application head, upstream of the guide system (Figs. 1, 4, 5 & 9).
As to claim 2, HAMLYN teaches the tension limiting system is mounted on the movable portion of the application head so that the fiber (F1, F2) exiting from the tension limiting system is arranged in the guide plane (P1, P2) (Figs. 4-5, para. 0063).
As to claim 3, HAMLYN teaches guide system is able to guide a plurality of fibers (F1, F2) towards the application roller in the form of a band, the guide system comprises first and second guide means (guide channels C1 and C2; para. 0047, for example) for guiding the fibers towards the application roller in the form of two bundles along two guide planes (P1, P2), the tension limiting system comprising a first set of at least one cylinder over which the fiber(s) (F1) of a first bundle passes, and a second set of at least one cylinder over which the fiber(s) (F2) of a second bundle passes (Figs. 1, 4, 5 & 9).
As to claim 4, HAMLYN teaches a rerouting system comprises, for each fiber, a counter-roller actuated by an actuation system between a rest position and an active position to press the fiber against at least one drive roller, the drive roller and the cylinder(s) of the tension limiting system being able to be driven in rotation by a common drive motor, mounted on the moving portion, via a transmission system, so that the peripheral speed of the cylinders is greater than the peripheral speed of the drive roller (Figs. 1, 4, 5 & 9).
As to claim 5, HAMLYN teaches a second tension limiting system (second drive roller 51b; Figs. 4-5, para. 0063), arranged upstream of conveying means 61/62 (flexible tubes; para. 0046) able to convey one or more fibers from storage means to the application head.
As to claim 6, HAMLYN teaches method for manufacturing a composite material part comprising the application of continuous fibers onto an application surface, wherein the application of fibers is carried out by means of a fiber application machine according to claim 1, by relative displacement of the application head with respect to the lay-up surface according to lay-up trajectories (applying fibers to a surface using head for applying fibers of the figures; Abstract).
Prior Art
The following prior art teaches familiar tensioning systems in fiber layup heads: WO2017203109; US 20210078265; US 20220009217; US 20210237379; US 20180207850; US9109312.
Allowable Subject Matter
The head configuration of Figure 2 is allowable. Figure 2 shows:
PNG
media_image1.png
444
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner is not aware of prior art that teaches compaction jack mounted onto fixed portion and configured to drive a compaction roller; guide system and roller mounted to movable portion; and rollers of tension limiting system mounted to a cantilever plate attached to movable portion. Although fiber tensioning systems utilizing rollers/wheels/pulleys are well-known (see Prior Art and Anticipation Rejection, above), yet this specific cantilever plate configuration is not found in this art.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743