Detailed Office action
The communication dated 6/10/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 4, 16-17, and 20-21 are cancelled. Claims 6, 9, and 22 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-3, 5-15, 18-19 and 22 remain pending.
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 without traverse of Invention I and species A2/B2 in the reply filed on 6/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6, 9, and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II and species A1/B1.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 14, 3rd paragraph, the mating connector is referred to as numeral 21. There is no numeral 21 on the figures. It appears that the mating connector is numeral 2 on figure 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-15, 18-19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2: replace “relative the base portion” with “relative to the base portion”.
Claim 1, line 15: replace “to a surface on a mold” with “to a surface on the mold”. The limitation of mold is already recited in claim 1, line 8.
In line 1 of claims 2-3, 5-15, 18-19, replace “A fibre applicator” with “The fibre applicator”, since claim 1 already recites a fibre applicator.
Claim 5, line 2: replace “wherein biasing device” with “wherein the biasing device”.
Claim 11, line 3: replace “25’%” with “25%”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-15, 18-19 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “such as” in lines 11 and 15 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear where the limitations (s) following the phrase are part of claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05 (d). In line 11, claim 1 recites, before the phrase “such as”, a fiber which is a broader limitation than carbon fiber recited after the phrase “such as”. In line 15, claim 1 recites, before “such as”, a mold which is a broader limitation than concave mold surface recited after “such as”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Claim 1 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-3, 5-15, 18-19 are dependent on claim 1 and are rejected as well. For the purpose of examination, and in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner considers all the limitations of claim 1 as part of the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the third diameter" and “the second diameter”. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first and/or the second diameter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MILLER (US-2021/0078265), hereinafter MILLER, in view of GUILLON (FR-3095609-A1 and its English translation), hereinafter GUILLON. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1, MILLER discloses A fiber applicator {[abstract]} comprising a base portion {[FIGs. 4-6] 147 is the base portion} and a movable portion that is arranged to be movable relative to the base portion {[FIGs. 4-6] 180 is the movable portion that moves relative to 147}, wherein the base portion comprises a first guiding wheel {[FIGs. 4-6] 192 is the first guiding wheel that guides fiber 30} and wherein the movable portion comprises a second guiding wheel and an applicator wheel {[FIGs. 4-6] 182 is the second guiding wheel and is on the movable portion 180, [0041] note roller/applicator 117 is the applicator wheel, [FIG. 1] note 117 is connected to 110, [0036] note 110 is movable, thus a movable portion},
wherein the first guiding wheel is arranged to guide a fiber to the second guiding wheel, the second guiding wheel is arranged to guide the fiber to the applicator wheel {[FIGs. 4-6] note that fiber 130 coming out of wheel 182 is eventually guided to the applicator wheel 117},
and the applicator wheel is arranged to apply the fiber to a mold {[FIG. 1] 117 applies 130 to mold 140; the Examiner also notes that mold is an article worked upon by the claimed apparatus and may not limit the claim (see MPEP 2115), however, the Examiner has mapped this claim in the interest of compact prosecution},
and wherein the first guiding wheel and the second guiding wheel are arranged to keep tension in the fiber as the movable portion moves relative the base portion {[0045] note the role of this system as tow tensioner},
wherein the fiber is a pre-impregnated composite fiber, such as a towpreg carbon fibre {[0039] the Examiner also notes that fiber is an article worked upon by the claimed apparatus and may not limit the claim (see MPEP 2115), however, the Examiner has mapped this claim in the interest of compact prosecution},
and wherein the fiber applicator further comprises a biasing device arranged to provide a biasing force to the movable portion to enable the applicator wheel to apply the fiber at a maintained pressure to a surface on the mold, such as to a concave surface on the mold {[FIGs. 4-6] 184 is the biasing device acting on the movable portion 180 that eventually helps the applicator wheel with proper operation, note that a maintained pressure is needed to apply the fiber, [FIG. 1] note the concave surface 141 of the mold 140}.
In the alternative, and if it is argued that there is only one single movable portion that comprises both the second guiding wheel and the applicator wheel, MILLER is silent on this limitation.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to lay-up head for pre-impregnated fiber, GUILLON discloses and wherein the movable portion comprises a second guiding wheel and an applicator wheel {[FIG. 1] note the movable portion 12 comprises both the applicator wheel 20 and a second guiding wheel 26}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of GUILLON in the fiber applicator of MILLER and have duplicated the second guiding wheel of MILLER and have placed it in the movable portion 110 of MILLER that also comprises the applicator wheel 117 {[FIG. 1]}.
As disclosed by GUILLON the advantage of this adjacent second guiding wheel 26 to the applicator wheel 20 is that the application head 12 is kept oriented relative to the composite element 16, so that the thermoplastic reinforcing tape 14 has a first bearing area 25 here adapted to be pressed flat against the application surface 18 of the composite element 16 by means of the support roller 20, and a second area 28 bearing on the return roller 26 (the second guiding wheel), kept away from the application surface 18 (emphasis added by the Examiner) {[0026], [FIG. 1]}.
Regarding claims 2-3, modified MILLER discloses wherein the base portion further comprises a tow receiving device for receiving the fibre and guiding the fibre to the first guiding wheel (claim 2), wherein the tow receiving device comprises a receiving wheel and, optionally, a pair of rollers arranged to receive and guide the fibre to the receiving wheel (claim 3) {[FIG. 2] spool 160 is the tow receiving device, note 160 is in pair}.
Regarding claim 5, modified MILLER discloses wherein biasing device is also configured to keep tension of the fibre {[0045]}.
Regarding claim 7, modified MILLER discloses wherein the biasing device comprises a pneumatic spring {[0059]}.
Regarding claim 8 limitation of “wherein the first guiding wheel and the second guiding wheel are of a (same) first diameter”, modified MILLER is silent on the diameter of these guiding wheels in relation to each other.
However, the Examiner submits that the relation between the diameters of these two wheels would have been the result of choosing from a very finite number of identified cases: (1) same, (2) first wheel bigger than the second wheel, and (3) first wheel smaller than the second wheel.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen option (1), since it has been held that choosing from a limited, identified, and predictable solutions that have reasonable expectation of success would have been obvious to try by an artisan {see MPEP 2143 (I)(E)}. The Examiner submits that in certain cases a same diameter may result in optimum operation of the fiber applicator.
Regarding claim 10 limitation of “wherein the third diameter of the applicator wheel is smaller than the second diameter of the second guiding wheel”, modified MILLER is silent on the diameter of the second guiding wheels in relation to the diameter of the applicator wheel.
However, the Examiner submits that the relation between the diameters of these two wheels would have been the result of choosing from a very finite number of identified cases: (1) same, (2) applicator wheel bigger than the second wheel, and (3) applicator smaller than the second wheel.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen option (3), since it has been held that choosing from a limited, identified, and predictable solutions that have reasonable expectation of success would have been obvious to try by an artisan {see MPEP 2143 (I)(E)}. The Examiner submits that in certain cases a smaller diameter of the applicator wheel may result in optimum operation of the fiber applicator.
Regarding claim 11, modified MILLER discloses wherein the movable portion is movable around a joint, and wherein the first and/or the second diameter is less than 25%, 30%, 33% or 50% of the distance between the joint and the applicator wheel {[FIGs. 1 &4] 167 is the joint and based on these two figures the diameters of 182 and/or 192 meets the claimed limitation}.
Regarding claim 12, modified MILLER discloses wherein the first and the second guiding wheels each have a groove with a depth, and wherein the depth of the first guiding wheel and/or of the second guiding wheel is deeper than a depth of the fibre {[0053], [FIG. 3] note fiber 130 sits inside the groove of wheel 182 with edges of grooves of wheel 182 rising up from the fiber, thus deeper depth}.
Regarding claim 14, modified MILLER discloses wherein the length of the movable portion is selected to allow for small angular movements, less than 5 degrees {[0071] note that the pivot of arm movement control is immediate and movement is limited, thus small angular movement}.
Modified MILLER, however, is silent on the numerical value of the angular movement being less than 5 degrees.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have programmed the controller of MILLER {[0071]} to respond immediately to the required tension so that this limited movement does not exceed more than 5 degrees. The advantage of such smaller adjustment is to speed up the process, since limited movement requires less time.
Regarding claim 15, modified MILLER discloses wherein the fibre applicator further comprises more than one movable portion, whereby the fibre applicator is configured to apply more than one fibre simultaneously {[FIG. 3] note two movable portions 180 and plurality of fibers 130}.
Regarding claim 18, modified MILLER discloses wherein the fibre applicator further comprises or is configured to be connected to a fibre cartridge {[FIG. 2] 160 is the fiber cartridge}.
Regarding claim 19, modified MILLER discloses wherein the fibre applicator (10)further comprises a mating modular connection {[FIG. 1] 106/158/157}.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MILLER and GUILLON as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of BECKER (DE-102016123505-A1 and its English translation), hereinafter BECKER.
Regarding claim 13, combination of MILLER and GUILLON discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent of the limitation of claim 13 reciting “wherein the applicator wheel has a groove with a depth that is less than a depth of the fibre and with a width less than a width of the fibre”.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to fiber laying device, BECKER teaches that to increase the force that can be transmitted between a roller and the fiber, a groove with narrowing depth can be designed into the roller {[0015] thus lower depth} and this groove has a smaller width than the dimension of the fiber {[0014]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of BECKER in the fiber applicator of the combination of MILLWER and GUILLON and have made narrower width/depth grooves (than fiber 130) in applicator roller 117 of MILLER {[FIG. 1]}.
As disclosed by BECKER, the advantage of this groove is to increase the force between the fiber and roller which in the case of the applicator roller 117 of MILLER helps depositing and transferring fiber 130 from applicator roller 117 to the surface 141 of the mold 140 of MILLER {[FIG. 1]}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights