9DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is in response to Application filed on September 22, 2025 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1 contain more than one figure within the figure numbers. Each Figure should be labeled with a separate figure number (see 37 C.F.R. 1.84(u) or be provided with connecting lead lines or brackets to show how the parts are interconnected.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 10 and 11 and dependent claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,480,236. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1, 10 and 11 and dependent claims are anticipated by the conflicting patented claims 1, 10 and dependent claims as shown in the table below. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Present Application
Patent No. 12,480,236
1. An apparatus for bonding a fiber structure by means of a fluid,
comprising: a fluid jet fiber entanglement head having a plurality of nozzles for emitting the fluid,
a manipulator, and
a fiber receptacle for arranging the fiber structure,
wherein the fluid jet head is arranged as an effector on the manipulator, and
wherein the manipulator is provided in such a way that the fluid jet head arranged thereon is movable therewith relative to the fiber receptacle,
wherein the fluid jet head comprises at most 500 nozzles for emitting the fluid.
2. The apparatus according to claim 1, in which the manipulator is provided in such a way that the fluid jet head arranged thereon can be moved in three spatial directions relative to the fiber receptacle.
1. Apparatus for bonding a fiber structure by means of a fluid,
comprising a fluid jet fiber entanglement head having a plurality of nozzles for emitting the fluid,
a manipulator, and
a fiber receptacle for arranging the fiber structure,
wherein the fluid jet head is arranged as an effector on the manipulator, and
wherein the manipulator is provided in such a way that the fluid jet head arranged thereon is movable therewith in three spatial directions relative to the fiber receptacle.
17. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the fluid jet head comprises at most 500 nozzles for emitting the fluid.
3. The apparatus according to claim 1, in which the manipulator is provided in such a way that, in a respective relative position of the fluid jet head to the fiber receptacle, an angle of incidence which has a main emission direction of the nozzle with respect to the fiber receptacle can be varied.
2. Apparatus according to claim 1, in which the manipulator is provided in such a way that, in a respective relative position of the fluid jet head to the fiber receptacle, an angle of incidence which has a main emission direction of the nozzle with respect to the fiber receptacle can be varied.
4. The apparatus according to claim 1, in which a surface of the fiber receptacle, which is provided for a contact against the fiber structure, is bulged at least in regions.
3. Apparatus according to claim 1, in which a surface of the fiber receptacle, which is provided for a contact against the fiber structure, is bulged at least in regions.
5. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the fiber receptacle provided for a contact against the fiber structure has a plurality of openings for discharging the fluid emitted from the nozzle after exposure to the fiber structure.
4. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the fiber receptacle provided for a contact against the fiber structure has a plurality of openings for discharging the fluid emitted from the nozzle after exposure to the fiber structure.
6. The apparatus according to claim 1, in which at least a surface part of the fiber receptacle, which forms a surface intended for a contact against the fiber structure,is an additively manufactured component.
5. Apparatus according to claim 1, in which at least a surface part of the fiber receptacle, which forms a surface intended for a contact against the fiber structure, is an additively manufactured component.
7. The apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a further manipulator, wherein the fiber receptacle is arranged as an effector on the further manipulator.
6. Apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a further manipulator, wherein the fiber receptacle is arranged as an effector on the further manipulator.
8. The apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a fiber emission unit with which fibers can be applied to the fiber receptacle or the fiber structure.
7. Apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a fiber emission unit with which fibers can be applied to the fiber receptacle or the fiber structure.
9. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the fluid jet head comprises at most 10 nozzles for emitting the fluid.
8. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the fluid jet head comprises at most 10 nozzles for emitting the fluid.
10. An apparatus for bonding a fiber structure by means of a fluid, comprising: a fluid jet fiber entanglement head having a plurality of nozzles for emitting the fluid, a manipulator, and a fiber receptacle for arranging the fiber structure, wherein the fluid jet head is arranged as an effector on the manipulator, and wherein the manipulator is provided in such a way that the fluid jet head arranged thereon is movable therewith relative to the fiber receptacle, wherein the nozzles on the fluid jet head occupy a total area of at most 5 cm2.
1. Apparatus for bonding a fiber structure by means of a fluid, comprising a fluid jet fiber entanglement head having a plurality of nozzles for emitting the fluid, a manipulator, and a fiber receptacle for arranging the fiber structure, wherein the fluid jet head is arranged as an effector on the manipulator, and wherein the manipulator is provided in such a way that the fluid jet head arranged thereon is movable therewith in three spatial directions relative to the fiber receptacle.
9. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the fluid jet head comprises a plurality of nozzles, wherein the plurality of nozzles occupy a total area of at most 5 cm.sup.2.
20. The apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the fluid jet head comprises at most 10 nozzles.
8. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the fluid jet head comprises at most 10 nozzles for emitting the fluid.
11. A method for bonding a fiber structure, by means of an apparatus according to A method for bonding a fiber structure, by means of an apparatus according to in which method a fluid jet head, which has a plurality of nozzles, and a fiber receptacle, in which a fiber structure is arranged, are moved relative to one another by means of a manipulator, wherein during this relative movement a fluid is emitted at least temporarily from the nozzles of the fluid jet head in order to bond the fiber structure, wherein the fluid is emitted from at most 500 nozzles.
19. The method according to claim 11, wherein the nozzles on the fluid jet head occupy a total area of at most 5 cm2.
1. Apparatus for bonding a fiber structure by means of a fluid,
comprising a fluid jet fiber entanglement head having a plurality of nozzles for emitting the fluid,
a manipulator, and
a fiber receptacle for arranging the fiber structure,
wherein the fluid jet head is arranged as an effector on the manipulator, and
wherein the manipulator is provided in such a way that the fluid jet head arranged thereon is movable therewith in three spatial directions relative to the fiber receptacle.
17. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the fluid jet head comprises at most 500 nozzles for emitting the fluid.
9. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the fluid jet head comprises a plurality of nozzles, wherein the plurality of nozzles occupy a total area of at most 5 cm.sup.2.
12. The method according to claim 11, in which the readily bonded fiber structure has different properties in different areas.
11. Method according to claim 10, in which the fiber structure has different properties in different areas.
13. The method according to claim 12, in which the different properties of the fiber structure in different areas are at least also due to fibers which differ in the different areas of the fiber structure in at least one of their lengths, their thickness, their material and their color.
12. Method according to claim 11, in which the different properties of the fiber structure in different areas are at least also due to fibers which differ in the different areas of the fiber structure in at least one of their lengths, their thickness, their material and their color.
14. The method according to claim 11, in which the fiber structure already has a three- dimensional shape before solidification.
13. Method according to claim 10, in which the fiber structure already has a three-dimensional shape before solidification.
15. The method according to claim 14, in which the fiber structure is assembled of a plurality of three-dimensional fiber web components before bonding.
14. Method according to claim 13, in which the fiber structure is assembled of a plurality of three-dimensional fiber web components before bonding.
16. The method according to claim 11, in which, in another operating mode, the fluid emitted from the nozzle of the fluid jet head is used to open or separate a part of the fiber structure.
15. Method according to claim 10, in which, in another operating mode, the fluid emitted from the nozzle of the fluid jet head is used to open or separate a part of the fiber structure.
17. A method of manufacturing a part for a body part, a housing part, a garment, a seat or backrest cushion, a packaging cushion or an insulating component by solidifying a fiber structure in a method according to claim 9.
16. Method of manufacturing a part for a body part, a housing part, a garment, a seat or backrest cushion, a packaging cushion or an insulating component by solidifying a fiber structure in a method according to claim 10.
11. A method for bonding a fiber structure, by means of an apparatus according to A method for bonding a fiber structure, by means of an apparatus according to in which method a fluid jet head, which has a plurality of nozzles, and a fiber receptacle, in which a fiber structure is arranged, are moved relative to one another by means of a manipulator, wherein during this relative movement a fluid is emitted at least temporarily from the nozzles of the fluid jet head in order to bond the fiber structure, wherein the fluid is emitted from at most 500 nozzles.
1. Apparatus for bonding a fiber structure by means of a fluid, comprising a fluid jet fiber entanglement head having a plurality of nozzles for emitting the fluid, a manipulator, and a fiber receptacle for arranging the fiber structure, wherein the fluid jet head is arranged as an effector on the manipulator, and wherein the manipulator is provided in such a way that the fluid jet head arranged thereon is movable therewith in three spatial directions relative to the fiber receptacle.
9. Apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the fluid jet head comprises a plurality of nozzles, wherein the plurality of nozzles occupy a total area of at most 5 cm.sup.2.
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: “means” in claim 1, line 1. That is, “by means of a fluid” is not being interpreted under 112(f) since the term is not being used as a means-plus-function limitation.
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 5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
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 1-10, 12, 16-18 and 20 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.
Claim 1 recites “the fluid jet head”, in lines 6, 7 and 9, which is indefinite since it is unclear if the fluid jet head is the same structure of in addition to the fluid jet fiber entanglement head recited in line 2.
Claim 3 recites “the nozzle”, which is indefinite since it is unclear if the nozzle recited in claim 3 is part of the plurality of nozzles recited in claim 1, or if a new nozzle is introduced. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the limitation of the nozzle as being part of the previously recited plurality of nozzles.
Claim 5 recites “the nozzle”, which is indefinite since it is unclear if the nozzle recited in claim 5 is part of the plurality of nozzles recited in claim 1, or if a new nozzle is introduced. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the limitation of the nozzle as being part of the previously recited plurality of nozzles.
Claim 7 recites “a further manipulator” which is indefinite since it is unclear as to what a further manipulator is referring to.
Claim 9 recites “at most 10 nozzles for emitting the fluid”, which is indefinite since claim 1 recites “wherein the fluid jet head comprises at most 500 nozzles for emitting the fluid”, here, does claim 9 require at most 500 nozzles (recited in claim 1) or at most 10 nozzles, making it is unclear as to the number of nozzles that are required by the claim. Examiner suggests amending the claim limitation to read as -- wherein the “at most 500 nozzles is at most 10 nozzles”, which would be a proper limiting limitation.
Claim 10 recites “the fluid jet head”, in lines 6, 7 and 9, which is indefinite since it is unclear if the fluid jet head is the same structure of in addition to the fluid jet fiber entanglement head recited in line 2.
Claim 12 recites “the readily bonded fiber”, which is indefinite since the recitation lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear if this “readily bonded fiber” is the previously recited “fiber structure”. Also, this recitation is indefinite because the scope of the term “readily” cannot be ascertained.
Claim 16 recites “the nozzle”, which is indefinite since it is unclear if the nozzle recited in claim 16 is part of the plurality of nozzles recited in claim 11, or if a new nozzle is introduced. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the limitation of the nozzle as being part of the previously recited plurality of nozzles.
Claim 17 recites “in a method according to claim 9”, which is indefinite since claim 9 does not set forth a method. Claim 9 is directed to an apparatus.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the fluid is emitted from at most 10 nozzles”, which is indefinite since claim 11 recites “wherein the fluid is emitted from at most 500 nozzles”, here, does claim 18 require at most 500 nozzles (recited in claim 11) or at most 10 nozzles, making it is unclear as to the number of nozzles that are required by the claim. Examiner suggests amending the claim limitation to read as -- wherein the “at most 500 nozzles is at most 10 nozzles”, which would be a proper limiting limitation.
All dependent claims are rejected for depending from a rejected base claim.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9-11, 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greenway et al. (2001/0018786)[Greenway].
Regarding claim 1, Greenway teaches, an apparatus for bonding a fiber structure by means of a fluid, comprising a fluid jet fiber entanglement head (50, Figure 5) having a plurality of nozzles for emitting the fluid ([0017], [0020], [0054-0056], Figure 5), a manipulator (the device which moves manifold 50 in Figure 5, [0020], [0031], [0054-0056]), and a fiber receptable (the conveyor for supporting the fabric 12; [0055], Figure 5) for arranging the fiber structure (12, Figure 5); wherein the fluid jet head (50) is arranged as an effector on the manipulator (see elongated manipulator which moves the manifold 50 as shown in Figure 5); and wherein the manipulator is provided in such a way that the fluid jet head (50) arranged thereon is movable therewith relative to the fiber receptacle (the conveyor for supporting the fabric 12), see two directions of movement shown in Figure 5; [0020] and [0054-0056]). Also see the embodiment of Figure 6 and the embodiment of Figure 8, both of which also provide a fluid jet head and manipulator which moves the fluid jet head relative to the fiber receptacle [0057-0062]), wherein the fluid jet head (50) comprises at most 500 nozzles for emitting the fluid ([0058] discloses the use of the manifold of U.S. Pat. No. 4,995,151, which has less than 500 nozzles; see Figure 2 showing eight nozzles 36 and see Figure 3 showing five nozzles 36).
Regarding claim 3, Greenway teaches, in which the manipulator is provided in such a way that, in a respective relative position of the fluid jet head (50) to the fiber receptable, an angle of incidence which has a main emission direction of the nozzle with respect to the fiber receptable can be varied (the angle relative to the machine direction of the fiber receptacle may be varied; see [0057], Figure 6 and [0061], Figure 8).
Regarding claim 5, Greenway teaches, wherein a surface of the fiber receptable (the conveyor on which the fabric is supported) provided for a contact against the fiber structure (12) has a plurality of openings for discharging the fluid emitted from the nozzle after exposure to the fiber structure (the conveyor has an open mesh structure as described in [0056]).
Regarding claim 6, Greenway teaches, in which at least a surface part of the fiber receptable, which forms a surface intended for a contact against the fiber structure (12), is an additively manufactured component ([0055-0056]), Examiner notes: that “an additively manufactured component” is a product-by-process limitation since it is directed to the manner by which the component is made (additive manufacturing). A component which has the structure implied by the product-by-process recitation satisfies this claim limitation. The structure of the conveyor (fiber receptacle) of Greenway, as described in the above mentioned paragraphs, satisfies this claim limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Greenway teaches, wherein the fluid jet head (50) comprises at most 10 nozzles for emitting the fluid ([0058] discloses the use of the manifold of U.S. Pat. No. 4,995,151, see Figure 2 showing eight nozzles 36 and see Figure 3 showing five nozzles 36).
Regarding claim 10, Greenway teaches, an apparatus for bonding a fiber structure by means of a fluid, comprising a fluid jet fiber entanglement head (50, Figure 5) having a plurality of nozzles for emitting the fluid ([0017], [0020], [0054-0056], Figure 5), a manipulator (the device which moves manifold 50 in Figure 5, [0020], [0031], [0054-0056]), and a fiber receptable (the conveyor for supporting the fabric 12; [0055], Figure 5) for arranging the fiber structure (12, Figure 5); wherein the fluid jet head (50) is arranged as an effector on the manipulator (see elongated manipulator which moves the manifold 50 as shown in Figure 5); and wherein the manipulator is provided in such a way that the fluid jet head (50) arranged thereon is movable therewith relative to the fiber receptacle (the conveyor for supporting the fabric 12), see two directions of movement shown in Figure 5; [0020] and [0054-0056]). Also see the embodiment of Figure 6 and the embodiment of Figure 8, both of which also provide a fluid jet head and manipulator which moves the fluid jet head relative to the fiber receptacle [0057-0062]), wherein the nozzles on the fluid jet head occupy a total area of at most 5 cm2 (Greenway discloses the use of the manifold of U.S. Pat. No. 4,995,151 [0058], which discloses a nozzle (36) having an effective diameter of about 0.43 inches (col. 5, ln. 3-4). Therefore, the nozzle occupies a total area of at most 5 cm2 , as claimed).
Regarding claim 11, Greenway teaches, a method for bonding a fiber structure, by means of an apparatus according to claim 1, in which method a fluid jet head (50), which has a plurality of nozzles (see Figure 5), and a fiber receptable (the conveyor; [0055]), in which a fiber structure (12) is arranged, are moved relative to one another by means of a manipulator (see Figure 5; see manipulator which moves fluid manifold 50; [0055-0056]; also see Figures 6 and 8 [0057-0061]), wherein during this relative movement a fluid is emitted at least temporarily from the nozzle of the fluid jet head (50) in order to bond the fiber structure ([0017], [0020], and [0054-0062]), wherein the fluid is emitted from at most 500 nozzles ([0058] discloses the use of the manifold of U.S. Pat. No. 4,995,151, which has less than 500 nozzles; see Figure 2 showing eight nozzles 36 and see Figure 3 showing five nozzles 36, therefore, wherein the fluid is emitted from at most 500 nozzles as claimed).
Regarding claim 14, Greenway teaches, in which the fiber structure already has a three-dimensional shape before solidification (a fiber or yarn which forms the fabric 12 has a three dimensional shape, due to the shape of a fiber or yarn).
Regarding claim 15, Greenways teaches, in which the fiber structure (12) is assembled of a plurality of three-dimensional fiber web components before bonding (a fiber or yarn itself is a three-dimensional structure; since each individual fiber/yarn presents a three-dimensional structure, the fibers are considered to be “a plurality of three-dimensional fiber web components” which make up the fiber web 12, therefore, the fiber structure (12), is assembled of a plurality of three-dimensional fiber web components before bonding as claimed).
Regarding claim 17, Greenway teaches, A method of manufacturing a part for a body part, a housing part, a garment, a seat or backrest cushion, a packaging cushion or an insulating component by solidifying a fiber structure in a method according to claim 9 (Greenways discloses a method of manufacturing a “part” (the fabric disclosed by Greenway [0002]), here, the part as disclosed could be used for a garment or for a body part in as much as Applicant has claimed in claim 17. The hydroenhancement disclosed by Greenway is a solidifying of the fiber structure, therefore, Greenway teaches A method of manufacturing a part for a body part, a housing part, a garment, a seat or backrest cushion, a packaging cushion or an insulating component by solidifying a fiber structure in a method according to claim 9, as claimed).
Regarding claim 18, Greenway teaches, wherein the fluid is emitted from at most 10 nozzles ([0058] discloses the use of the manifold of U.S. Pat. No. 4,995,151, see Figure 2 showing eight nozzles 36 and see Figure 3 showing five nozzles 36, therefore, wherein the fluid is emitted from at most 10 nozzles, as claimed).
Regarding claim 19, Greenway teaches, wherein the nozzles on the fluid jet head occupy a total area of at most 5 cm2 (Greenway discloses the use of the manifold of U.S. Pat. No. 4,995,151 [0058], which discloses nozzles (36) having an effective diameter of about 0.43 inches (col. 5, ln. 3-4). Therefore, the nozzles occupies a total area of at most 5 cm2 , as claimed).
Regarding claim 20, Greenway teaches, wherein the fluid jet head (50) comprises at most 10 nozzles for emitting the fluid ([0058] discloses the use of the manifold of U.S. Pat. No. 4,995,151, see Figure 2 showing eight nozzles 36 and see Figure 3 showing five nozzles 36).
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanamoto et al. (2015/0299920)[Yanamoto].
Regarding claim 1, Yanamoto teaches, an apparatus for bonding a fiber structure by means of a fluid, comprising a fluid jet fiber entanglement head (2) having a plurality of nozzles (21) for emitting the fluid ([0050], [0053], Figure 1); a manipulator (the robot arm disclosed in para. 0077); and a fiber receptable (1/10) for arranging the fiber structure (3) ([0051], Figure 2D); wherein the fluid jet head (2) is arranged as an effector on the manipulator (robotic arm) ([0077]); and wherein the manipulator is provided in such a way that the fluid jet head (2) arranged thereon is movable therewith relative to the fiber receptacle (a robotic arm capable of aimed spraying as disclosed in [0077], and therefore would permit movement relative to the fiber receptacle as claimed), wherein the fluid jet head (2) comprises at most 500 nozzles for emitting the fluid (see Figure 1, which shows less than 500 nozzles 21, 21a).
Regarding claim 4, Yanamoto teaches, in which a surface (10) of the fiber receptable (1), which is provided for a contact against the fiber structure (3), is bulged at least in regions ([0023], [0029], Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Yanamoto teaches, wherein a surface of the fiber receptable (1) provided for a contact against the fiber structure (3) has a plurality of openings (11) for discharging the fluid emitted from the nozzle (21) after exposure to the fiber structure ([0020], [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, Yanamoto teaches, in which at least a surface part of the fiber receptable (1), which forms a surface (10) intended for a contact against the fiber structure (3), is an additively manufactured component ([0023, 0029, 0051-0052]). Examiner notes: that “an additively manufactured component” is a product-by-process limitation since it is directed to the manner by which the component is made (additive manufacturing). A component which has the structure implied by the product-by-process recitation satisfies this claim limitation. The structure of the mold (1/10) of Yanamoto, as described in the above mentioned paragraphs, satisfies this claim limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Yanamoto teaches, comprising a fiber emission unit with which fibers can be applied to the fiber receptacle or the fiber structure (Yanamoto discloses that the fibers forming the nonwoven web (3) are dry-laid or wet-laid to form the web (see [0056] disclosing a dry process or wet process). Such a dry-laying or wet-laying process comprises a fiber emission unit (the dry-laying or wet-laying device) with which fibers can be applied to the fiber structure, therefore, Yanamoto discloses a fiber emission unit with which fibers can be applied to the fiber receptacle or the fiber structure as claimed).
Regarding claim 11, Yanamoto teaches, a method for bonding a fiber structure, by means of an apparatus according to claim 1, in which method a fluid jet head (2), which has a plurality of nozzles (21), and a fiber receptable (1,10), in which a fiber structure (3) is arranged ([0050-0054], Figures 1 and 2D), are moved relative to one another by means of a manipulator (robot arm; [0077]); wherein during this relative movement a fluid is emitted at least temporarily from the nozzle (21) of the fluid jet head (2) in order to bond the fiber structure (3) ([0050-0055], [0059-0061], and [0077], Figures 1 and 2D), wherein the fluid is emitted from at most 500 nozzles (see Figure 1, which shows less than 500 nozzles 21, 21a, therefore, wherein the fluid is emitted from at most 500 nozzles as claimed).
Regarding claim 12, Yanamoto teaches, in which the readily bonded fiber structure has different properties in different areas (as disclosed in [0009] and [0018], the fiber structure has different densities in different areas; as disclosed in [0019] the fiber structure has different degrees of entanglement or thickness in different areas).
Regarding claim 13, Yanamoto teaches, in which the different properties of the fiber structure in different areas are at least also due to fibers which differ in the different areas of the fiber structure in at least one of their lengths, their thickness, their material and their color ([0018] discloses areas of different thickness provide different properties of the fiber structure in different areas due to fibers which differ in the different areas of the fiber structure in their thickness (the fibers differ in their thickness since they are provided as a thicker layer of fibers), therefore, the different properties of the fiber structure in different areas are at least also due to fibers which differ in the different areas of the fiber structure in at least one of their lengths, their thickness, their material and their color as claimed).
Regarding claim 14, Yanamoto teaches, the fiber structure already has a three-dimensional shape before solidification (see three-dimensional structure shown in Figures 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 15, Yanamoto teaches, in which the fiber structure (3) is assembled of a plurality of three-dimensional fiber web components before bonding (a fiber itself is a three-dimensional structure; since each individual fiber presents a three-dimensional structure, the fibers are considered to be “a plurality of three-dimensional fiber web components” which make up the fiber web 3).
Regarding claim 16, Yanamoto teaches, in which, in another operating mode, the fluid emitted from the nozzle (21) of the fluid jet head (2) is used to open or separate a part of the fiber structure (2) (the protrusions of the mold are pierced through the web to form holes, as described in [0025]; therefore the fluid is used to “open or separate” a part of the fiber structure as claimed).
Regarding claim 17, Yanamoto teaches, the method is used for manufacturing a part for a body part (a mask [0065]), a garment (a mask [0065]), a seat component [0065] or an insulating component (the reinforcing material [0065] could be used to insulate) by solidifying a fiber structure per the method according to claim 9 ([0063-0065]).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanamoto et al (2015/0299920)[Yanamoto] in view of Olry et al (US 5,226,217).
Regarding claim 2, Yanamoto teaches, which the manipulator is provided in such a way that the fluid jet head arranged thereon can be moved in directions relative to the fiber receptacle (a robotic arm is provided in such a way that the fluid jet head arranged thereon can be moved in directions relative to the fiber receptacle, here, the robotic arm is capable of providing partly-aimed spraying as disclosed in [0077], and therefore would permit movement relative to the fiber receptacle as claimed).
Robotic arms typically provide movement in at least three directions, however, Yanamoto fails to teach, in which the manipulator is provided in such a way that the fluid jet head arranged thereon can be moved in three spatial directions relative to the fiber receptacle.
Olry teaches, an apparatus for reinforcing fibrous preforms by entanglement of fibers using a needling head 30 attached to a robotic arm 20 (Fig. 1). Olry teaches that the robotic arm (20) provides movement in three spatial directions (col. 2, ln 5-12, col. 2-3, ln 55-10, Examiner notes col. 3, ln 6-10 disclose six degrees of freedom of movement). Olry teaches that this enables formation of the fibrous preform into complex shapes (col. 1, ln 45-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the robotic arm of Yanamoto with movement in at least three spatial directions relative to the fiber receptable as taught by Olry, in order to facilitate formation of the fibrous preform into complex shapes, col. 1, ln 45-52.
Regarding claim 7, Yanamoto teaches, an apparatus as claimed and teaches that the fiber receptable (1/10) is movable in the direction of the fluid jet head (2) (see arrow in Figure 2D and [0054] and [0059]).
Yanamoto fails to teach, comprising a further manipulator, wherein the fiber receptacle is arranged as a effector on the further manipulator.
Olry teaches, that the fiber receptable 10 is supported on a table 19 which has a manipulator (see table 19 and its support in Figure 1) to move the table and fiber receptacle 10 in various directions (see Figure 1). Olry teaches that the fiber receptable is thereby displaceable along the X and Y axes and may include rotation or tiling movement (col. 3, ln. 11-22; col. 4, ln 57-62). Olry teaches that the movement of the robotic arm and the table manipulator may be coordinated and are controlled by the control unit 28 to bring the needling head into the desired position relative to the fiber receptable (col. 3, ln. 11-22). This facilitates formation of a fibrous preform which is complex in shape (col. 1, lines 49-52), therefore, Orly discloses comprising a further manipulator, wherein the fiber receptacle is arranged as a effector on the further manipulator, as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a further manipulator in the apparatus of Yanamoto, such that the fiber receptable is arranged as an effector on the further manipulator as taught by Orly, in order to coordinate movement between the robotic arm and the fiber receptable to facilitate formation of a complex shape, col. 1, lines 49-52.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanamoto et al (US 2015/0299920).
Regarding claim 10, Yanamoto teaches, an apparatus for bonding a fiber structure by means of a fluid, comprising a fluid jet fiber entanglement head (2) having a plurality of nozzles (21) for emitting the fluid ([0050], [0053], Figure 1); a manipulator (the robot arm, [0077]); and a fiber receptable (1/10) for arranging the fiber structure (3) ([0051], Figure 2D); wherein the fluid jet head (2) is arranged as an effector on the manipulator (robotic arm, [0077]); and wherein the manipulator is provided in such a way that the fluid jet head (2) arranged thereon is movable therewith relative to the fiber receptacle (a robotic arm capable of aimed spraying as disclosed in [0077], and therefore would permit movement relative to the fiber receptacle as claimed).
While Yanamoto discloses nozzles 21, 21a, the size of the nozzles are not discloses, therefore, Yanamoto fails to teach, wherein the nozzles on the fluid jet head occupy a total area of at most 5 cm2 .
However, nozzles are typically less than 5 cm2, and it is within the routine skill in the art to determine the optimal size for the nozzle depending upon the water pressure, the type of entanglement which is desired to be carried out, the fiber structure which is to be entangled, and other standard considerations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the nozzle of Yanamoto of a size (area) of at most 5 cm2 , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. 6,105,222 by Fleissner discloses an apparatus with a fluid jet fiber entanglement head having a plurality of nozzles, a manipulator and a fiber receptacle.
2. 4,995,151 by Siegal discloses an apparatus with a fluid jet fiber entanglement head having a plurality of nozzles, a manipulator and a fiber receptacle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JILLIAN PIERORAZIO whose telephone number is (571)270-0553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/Jillian K Pierorazio/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732