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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/23/2025 has been entered.
Status of the application
This is a non-final rejection in response to the Applicant's remarks and amendment filed on 09/04/2025. Claim(s) 21, 23, 26, 29 and 35 is/are currently amended, claim(s) 22, 24-25, 27-28, 30-34 and 36-40 is/are previously presented. Accordingly claim(s) 21-40 is/are examined herein.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that claim(s) 21-40 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details). For apparatuses, the claim limitations will define structural limitations (See MPEP 2114-2115) or functional limitations properly recited (See MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
Examiner notes that the recitation “the thermoplastic material” is considered as a material worked upon by the apparatus and it is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus.
Examiner further notes that the term “extruder” is interoperated as a structural component capable of extruding/dispensing materials.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21-25 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldani (US 2012/0090788) in view of Gifford (US 2015/0174824).
Regarding claim 21, Oldani teaches a fiber placement system (100) including positioner and a fiber delivery apparatus, the positioner moves the entire fiber delivery apparatus including a fiber placement head via at least three linear degrees of freedom (Abstract; Fig.1) and the fiber placement head is configured for dispensing fiber material layer-by-layer during a fiber lay-up process (see [0002] and [0013]); thus, the fiber placement system capable of being an additive manufacturing system, comprising:
a first support (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
a second support (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
a gantry (102) extending between the first support and the second support (see annotated Fig. 1 below; [0045]);
an extruder (i.e. a creel assembly (104) includes an internal passage configured for dispensing/extruding materials such as fiber tows or thermoplastic to the fiber placement head) coupled to the gantry (102) (see annotated Fig. 1 below; [0045] and [0048]); and
an applicator head (a fiber delivery apparatus (103)) coupled to the gantry (102) (see annotated Fig. 1 below; [0046]), the applicator head comprising:
a first segment including an opening therethrough (see annotated Fig. 6 below);
a second segment connected to the first segment, wherein a material path (fiber tow path) extends through an internal bore of the second segment and through the opening of the first segment (see annotated Fig. 6 below; [0075] and [0078]);
articulating wrist apparatus (158) configured to pivotally move the second segment with respect to the first segment (see annotated Fig. 6 below;[0060] and [0069]).
PNG
media_image1.png
690
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
650
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Oldani does not explicitly teach a servomotor configured to pivotally move the second segment with respect to the first segment.
In the same field of endeavor, materials delivery apparatuses, Gifford teaches a print head (1910) having a nozzle (1940) for delivering building materials, comprises a firs segment, a second segment, a build material path extending between the first and second segment; and a motor (1970) configured to pivotally move the second segment with respect to the first segment (see annotated Fig. 19A below; [0075], [0175] and [0182]). Gifford discloses that the motor is operably to rotate the nozzle through the axis of the print head for controlling the delivery of printing materials (see [0090] and [0180]).
PNG
media_image3.png
273
272
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus as taught by Oldani in view Gifford of by incorporating a motor configured to pivotally move the second segment with respect to the first segment as such is known in the art of discharging devices given the discussion of Gifford above; and doing so is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of improving and/or automating control/orientation of the nozzle outlet for controlling the delivery of printing materials (see [0090] of Gifford).
Oldani in view Gifford further teaches a nozzle (i.e. a fiber placement head (105)) connected to the internal bore, the nozzle (the fiber placement head (105)) configured for dispensing/extruding materials such as fiber tows and capable for dispensing/extruding bead of thermoplastic material from the extruder (104)) (see annotated Fig. 1 above; [0045], [0048] and [0050] of Oldani; furthermore, Gifford further discloses the nozzle (1940) for extruding a thermoplastic filament; see [0076] and [0083] of Gifford).
Regarding claim 22, Oldani in view Gifford further teaches the system, further comprising a bracket (second bracket) attached to the second segment (see annotated Fig. 6 above of Oldani).
Regarding claim 23, Oldani in view Gifford further teaches the system, further comprising a first bracket connected to the second segment and a second bracket extending down from the first bracket, wherein a roller (141) is connected to the second bracket (see annotated Fig. 6 above; [0050-0051] of Oldani).
Regarding claim 24, Oldani in view Gifford further teaches the system, further comprising a shaft (196) providing a connection between the first segment and the second segment (see Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. 6 above; [0068-0069] of Oldani).
Regarding claim 25, Oldani in view Gifford further teaches the system, further comprising a carrier (i.e. ram (116)) supporting the applicator head (103), the carrier being moveable along the gantry between the first and second supports (see Fig. 1; [0046-0047] and [0053] of Oldani).
Regarding claim 27, Oldani in view Gifford further teaches the system, wherein the second segment has a passageway passing defined by the internal bore (i.e. the passageway passing defined by the internal bore receives the fiber twos as depicted by Figs. 5-6 of Oldani) capable to receive any material such as fiber tows or thermoplastics material (see annotated Fig. 6 above; [0048] and [0050] of Oldani; and [0076] and [0083] of Gifford).
Regarding claim 28, Oldani in view Gifford further teaches the system, wherein the material path extends through upper and lower ends of the internal bore of the second segment (see annotated Fig. 6 above of Oldani).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldani (US 2012/0090788) in view of Gifford (US 2015/0174824) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Hamlyn (US 2011/0272126).
Regarding claim 26, Oldani in view Gifford teaches the system as discussed in claim 21 above.
Oldani in view Gifford does not teach the system further comprising a flexible conduit coupled to the first segment and the second segment, and through which the material path extends.
In the same field of endeavor, materials delivery apparatuses, Hamlyn teaches a fiber placement machine for producing composite material parts (Abstract), comprises a placement head (203) connected to a fiber storage means (204), a flexible conduit coupled to a first segment and a second segment, and through which a material path extends and connecting the placement head (203) connected to fiber storage means (204) (see annotated Fig. 12 below; [0006], [0062]). Hamlyn further teaches that the flexible tube being capable of receiving a fiber in its internal passage, wherein the flexible tube is suitable for external cooling, in mass, by conduction, so that its internal passage, as well as the fiber passing through its internal passage, are cooled (see [0015] and [0048]).
PNG
media_image4.png
360
491
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system as taught by Oldani in view Hamlyn with a flexible conduit coupled to the first segment and the second segment, and through which the material path extends as such is known in the art of fiber placement apparatus given the discussion of Hamlyn above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would provide a flexible tube suitable for external cooling, in mass, by conduction, so that its internal passage, as well as the fiber passing through its internal passage, are cooled (see [0015] and [0048] of Hamlyn).
Claim(s) 29-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldani (US 2012/0090788) in view of Khoshnevis (US 2010/0318222 - of record).
Regarding claim 29, Oldani teaches a fiber placement system (100) including positioner and a fiber delivery apparatus, the positioner moves the entire fiber delivery apparatus including a fiber placement head via at least three linear degrees of freedom (see Abstract; Fig.1) and the fiber placement head is configured for dispensing fiber material layer-by-layer during a fiber lay-up process (see [0002] and [0013]); thus, the fiber placement system capable of being an additive manufacturing system, comprising:
an extruder (i.e. a creel assembly (104) includes an internal passage configured for dispensing/extruding materials such as fiber tows or thermoplastic to the fiber placement head) (see annotated Fig. 1 above; [0045]);
a proximal segment (first segment proximate/adjacent to the upper end) including an opening therethrough (see annotated Fig. 6 above);
a distal segment (second segment distal form the upper end) connected to the proximal segment, wherein a material path (fiber tows path) extends through (i) an internal bore of the distal segment (second segment), and (ii) the opening of the proximal segment (see annotated Fig. 6 above);
a nozzle (i.e. a fiber placement head (105)) capable to be configured to extrude a bead of thermoplastic material from the extruder (104) (see annotated Fig. 1 above; [0045], [0048] and [0050] of Oldani). However, Oldani does not explicitly teach a first servomotor configured to change an orientation of the distal segment relative to the proximal segment; a second servomotor configured to cause movement of the extruder, the proximal segment, the distal segment, and the first servomotor.
In the same field of endeavor, discharging devices, Khoshnevis teaches nozzle assembly (101, 301) for discharging plastic material (see Figs. 1-3; [0011], [0022], [0079] and [0087]), comprises a proximal segment and a distal segment (see annotated Fig. 5 below); a first servomotor (501) configured to change an orientation of the distal segment relative to the proximal segment; a second servomotor (505) configured to cause movement of an extruder (519,521,523), the proximal segment, the distal segment, and the first servomotor (501) (see Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 5 below;[0093-0095]). Khoshnevis discusses the advantage of having servo motors (501,503) as orientation control mechanism to control the nozzle outlet to be pointed in almost any direction (see [0070] and [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus as taught by Oldani in view of Khoshnevis by incorporating a first servomotor configured to change an orientation of the distal segment relative to the proximal segment; a second servomotor configured to cause movement of the extruder, the proximal segment, the distal segment, and the first servomotor as such is known in the art of extrusion/discharging devices given the discussion of Khoshnevis above; and doing so is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of effectively controlling the nozzle outlet to be pointed in almost any direction (see [0070] and [0095] of Khoshnevis).
PNG
media_image5.png
685
503
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, Oldani in view of Khoshnevis further teaches the system, wherein the distal segment is connected to the proximal segment via a joint, such that the first servomotor (501) is configured to change an angular orientation of the distal segment relative to the proximal segment (see annotated Fig. 5 above;[0093-0095] of Khoshnevis).
Regarding claim 31, Oldani in view of Khoshnevis further teaches the system, further comprising a gantry (102) supporting the extruder (104), the proximal segment (first segment), and the distal segment (second segment) (see annotated Fig. 1 above; [0045] of Oldani).
Regarding claim 32, Oldani in view of Khoshnevis further teaches the system, further comprising a gantry (102) (see annotated Fig. 1 above; [0045] of Oldani), wherein the second servomotor (505) is configured to move the extruder (519,521,523), the proximal segment, the distal segment, and the first servomotor in a horizontal direction with respect to the gantry (see annotated Fig. 5 above; [0093-0095] of Khoshnevis).
Regarding claim 33, Oldani in view of Khoshnevis further teaches the system, further comprising a gantry (102) (see annotated Fig. 1 above; [0045] of Oldani), wherein the second servomotor (505) is configured to move the extruder (519,521,523), the proximal segment, the distal segment, and the first servomotor in a vertical direction with respect to the gantry (see annotated Fig. 5 above; [0093-0095] of Khoshnevis).
Regarding claim 34, Oldani in view of Khoshnevis further teaches the system, further comprising a controller (servo controller) configured to control the first servomotor (501) and the second servomotor (505) (see [0095] of Khoshnevis).
Regarding claim 35, Oldani teaches a fiber placement system (100) including positioner and a fiber delivery apparatus, the positioner moves the entire fiber delivery apparatus including a fiber placement head via at least three linear degrees of freedom (see Abstract; Fig.1) and the fiber placement head is configured for dispensing fiber material layer-by-layer during a fiber lay-up process (see [0002] and [0013]); thus, the fiber placement system capable of being an additive manufacturing system comprising:
a proximal segment (first segment) including an opening therethrough (see annotated Fig. 6 above);
a distal segment (second segment) connected to the proximal segment, wherein a material path (fiber tows path) extends through an internal bore of the distal segment and through the opening of the proximal segment (see annotated Fig. 6 above; [0075] and [0078]);
a nozzle (i.e. a fiber placement head (105)) capable to be configured to extrude a thermoplastic material, wherein the nozzle is attached to the distal segment (see annotated Fig. 1 above; [0045], [0048] and [0050]). However, Oldani does not explicitly teach a servomotor connected to the proximal segment and the distal segment, the servomotor configured to change an orientation of the distal segment relative to the proximal segment.
In the same field of endeavor, In the same field of endeavor, discharging devices, Khoshnevis teaches nozzle assembly (101, 301) for discharging plastic material (see Figs. 1-3; [0011] and [0022]), comprises a plurality of movable segments including a first segment (proximal segment) and a second segment (distal segment) (see annotated Fig. 5 above;[0093]); and a servomotor (503) connected to the first segment and configured to change an orientation of the distal segment relative to the proximal segment (see Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 5 above; [0093-0095]). Khoshnevis discusses the advantage of having servo motors (501,503) as orientation control mechanism to control the nozzle outlet to be pointed in almost any direction (see [0070] and [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus as taught by Oldani in view of Khoshnevis by incorporating a servomotor connected to the proximal segment and the distal segment, the servomotor configured to change an orientation of the distal segment relative to the proximal segment as such is known in the art of extrusion/discharging devices given the discussion of Khoshnevis above; and doing so is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of effectively controlling the nozzle outlet to be pointed in almost any direction (see [0070] and [0095] of Khoshnevis).
Regarding claim 36, Oldani in view of Khoshnevis further teaches the system, further comprising a controller (servo controller) configured to control the servomotor (503) to change the orientation of the distal segment relative to the proximal segment (see annotated Fig. 5 above; [0070] and [0095] of Khoshnevis).
Regarding claim 37, Oldani in view of Khoshnevis further teaches the system, wherein the distal segment (second segment) is connected to the proximal segment (first segment) via a pivot point (152) (see annotated Fig. above; [0060] of Oldani), such that the servomotor (503) is configured to change an angular orientation of the distal segment (second segment) relative to the proximal segment (first segment) (see annotated Fig. 5 above; [0093-0095] of Khoshnevis).
Regarding claim 38, Oldani in view of Khoshnevis further teaches the system, further comprising an applicator head (a fiber delivery apparatus (103)) connected to the distal segment (second segment) (see Fig. 1, Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. 6 above; [0045] of Oldani).
Regarding claim 39, Oldani in view of Khoshnevis further teaches the system, further comprising a second bracket extending down from a first bracket, wherein a roller (141) is connected to the second bracket (see annotated Fig. 6 above; [0050-0051] of Oldani).
Regarding claim 40, Oldani in view of Khoshnevis further teaches the system, further comprising a second bracket extending orthogonal to a first bracket (see annotated Fig. 6 above of Oldani).
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, 29 and 35 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,491,696.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are coextensive in scope.
Independent claims 21, 29 and 35 of the instant application reads on claims 1-20 of the patented claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2025 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objection(s), applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the objection(s).
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s).
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s). Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Oldani (US 2012/0090788) and Gifford (US 2015/0174824). Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 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, 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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 1743