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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on July 22, 2026 was received. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 were amended, claim 4 was cancelled and claim 25 was newly added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued March 7, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites a new limitation requiring that “the filter is parallel with the inner surface about an entire height of the annular chamber” which is new matter because nothing in the disclosure as filed supports this limitation. Applicant points to figure 2 for support, but figure 2 quite clearly shows that the part of the inner surface (2c), particularly around the suction opening (23) is clearly not parallel to the surface of the filter. Therefore, as there is no written portion of the disclosure which even remotely suggests this claimed feature, and the figure contradicts it, it is clearly new matter.
Furthermore, despite the scope of this limitation including new matter as discussed above, it remains broad because the language merely describes an element- the filter- being “parallel with the inner surface”, which is not a usual or well-defined usage of the term “parallel”- usually, the term parallel references lines or surfaces that extend in the same single direction, whereas in this case it appears to be reciting an entire tubular structure being parallel to a circumferential surface. As such, while this limitation isn’t particularly unclear, it is nonetheless very broad, and one of ordinary skill in the art could read the two elements’ concentricity as them being parallel to each other. A more definite way to describe what Applicant is likely intending would be to specifically refer to the cross sectional outer surface of each element, but as of now the claim remains broad, despite its scope containing new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 4,974,646) in view of Aschenbeck (US 2002/0160108), Aschenbeck (US 2012/0183684, hereinafter referred to as Aschenbeck 2) and Gualtieri et al. (US 2014/0270994) on claims 1-9, 16 and 18-24 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. in view of Aschenbeck, Aschenbeck 2 and Gualtieri et al.
Regarding claim 1: Martin et al. discloses a powder dispensing nozzle (33) having a through-channel with a longitudinal axis having an inlet and an outlet (32), further including a vacuum pump (40) which connects to a plenum (34) through a port (35) to apply a vacuum pressure to the nozzle (33), such that it comprises a suction means, in order to form an accumulation of powder which obstructs the channel and prevents the flow of material out of the outlet (32) (col. 2 lines 54+, col. 3 lines 1-40, figures 5 and 11). Martin et al. further teaches that the pneumatic system (15) which controls the pressurizing port (35) and vacuum pump (40) operates on a predetermined time cycle of pressurizing and depressurizing the plenum chamber (34) (see abstract, claim 1).
Martin et al. also discloses that the port (35) is formed in a wall of the nozzle holder (25), the nozzle holder (25) having an inner surface, the nozzle (33) is made of a porous material such that it effectively serves as a filter within the dispensing channel (col. 3, lines 10-22), where the plenum chamber (34) is an annular chamber concentric with the nozzle (33) and arranged between the inner wall of the nozzle holder (25) and the nozzle (33), and where the nozzle (33) and plenum chamber (34) are coaxial such that their axes are parallel throughout their entire height (see figures 5, 11). Alternatively, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply modify the shape of either the nozzle (33) or holder (25) of Martin et al. such that their cross sectional surfaces are parallel, because simple changes in size and shape are not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Martin et al. shows that the lower end of the nozzle wall (33b) has a cylindrical section as compared to the frustoconical section (33a) above which converges towards the center, and therefore the lower cylindrical section (33b) can be considered to have a diverging shape towards the outlet aperture (32) as it diverges downwardly, especially when compared to the frustoconical section above it (33a) (see figure 5). Alternatively, figure 11a shows another embodiment in which the lower walls near the outlet aperture (32) diverge away from each other horizontally. Still further, Martin et al. explicitly disclose that the powder flow path can be either converging like the frustoconical section (33a), parallel, and/or diverging in the downward direction (col. 1 lines 43-61), and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make any of the sections of the flow path of Martin et al. diverging, because Martin et al. teaches that the flow path can equivalently be either converging, parallel or diverging (col. 1 lines 43-61) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06), choosing from a finite number of solutions is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E) and simple changes in shape are not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Martin et al. fails to explicitly disclose a dispensing bar having two of the above nozzles arranged side by side along an alignment direction perpendicular to a transport direction, and also fails to explicitly disclose using a processor to control the vacuum pump. However, Aschenbeck discloses a similar powder application device which includes a structure which can be considered a bar comprising application stations (22) arranged side by side along a transport direction and along the same plane with outlets also arranged side by side in the same plane facing the same direction to define a deposit front on which powder is deposited along the alignment direction, where conveyor belts (30) are provided beneath the stations (22) which include cells (70) to hold the dispensed granules and thereafter by way of motion of a roller (38) deposit those granules from the cells (70) onto an asphalt coated sheet (20) traveling below (pars. 28-31, figures 1-3). Aschenbeck further discloses that each application station (22) can supply multiple streams of blend drops, such that they have multiple outlets which can each be considered its own dispensing device, such that a plurality of such devices is arranged side by side in the width direction of the sheet (20) which is perpendicular to the transport direction (13) (par. 29, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the manufacturing plant arrangement of Aschenbeck while using the nozzles of Martin et al. because Aschenbeck teaches that this is a well-known and advantageous method for accurately dropping powders onto a sheet (pars. 11-12) and using known techniques with known technology is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Martin et al. fails to explicitly disclose a processor which controls the vacuum cycle, but does teach that it is controlled by an electronic control system (col. 3 lines 67+, col. 4 lines 1-14, figure 1). However, Aschenbeck further discloses a control device and teaches that the controller can be any suitable controller such as a computer-controlled system (par. 46) which comprises a processor. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a computer-controlled system like in Aschenbeck for the electronic controller of Martin et al. because Aschenbeck shows that it is functionally equivalent to any other suitable control means (par. 46) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Martin et al. and Aschenbeck teach using multiple streams of blend drops but fail to explicitly disclose how the multiple outlets are arranged next to each other, specifically that they are joined at the sidewalls of adjacent dispenser bodies. However, Aschenbeck 2 discloses a similar granule applicator device in which a plurality of applicators (22’) are connected to each other laterally across the entire width of the sheet (20) such that they are joined by their sidewalls (par. 75-78, figure 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange multiple applicators in this way as taught by Aschenbeck 2 for the apparatus of Martin et al. and Aschenbeck because Aschenbeck 2 teaches that this is functionally equivalent to having one applicator (pars. 75-78) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Martin et al. fails to explicitly disclose that a cross-section of each of the outlet openings is in a flattened form in one dimension perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the outlet. However, Gualtieri et al. discloses a similar granule dispensing system in which the outlet (510) of the nozzle (500) supplying the granules is in a flattened form in a cross sectional direction perpendicular to its longitudinal axis (Y’-Y’), further noting that it has a quadrilateral shape with all right angles (par. 43, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a similar flattened quadrilateral shape as that of Gualtieri et al. for the nozzle outlet of Martin et al. because Gualtieri et al. teaches that this shape is preferential in order to help ensure precisely controlled granule dose (250) sizes and densities (pars. 9-17, 34, 43).
The limitation “for dry decoration of ceramic slabs or tiles” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case the powder dispensers of Martin et al. and Aschenbeck are certainly capable of being used to decorate ceramic slabs or tiles.
Regarding claim 2: Martin et al. discloses that the vacuum pump (40) connects to a plenum (34) inside of the nozzle (33) in order to form an accumulation of powder which obstructs the channel and prevents the flow of material out of the outlet (32) (col. 3 lines 30-40, figure 5).
Regarding claim 3: Martin et al. discloses that the vacuum pump (40) connects to the plenum (34) via a port (35) which is a suction opening (col. 3 lines 23-29, figure 5).
Regarding claims 4-5: Martin et al. discloses that the nozzle (33) has a cylindrical wall (33b) portion between the port (35) and the channel (col. 3 lines 10-22, figure 5). Martin et al. further discloses that the nozzle is made of a porous material such that it effectively serves as a filter (par. 3 lines 10-22).
Regarding claim 6: Martin et al. discloses that the nozzle wall (33b) is cylindrical in shape and inserted into the channel (figure 5, 11).
Regarding claim 7: Martin et al. discloses a nozzle holder (25) which is an annular wall surrounding the nozzle (33) forming an annular plenum (34) around the nozzle (33) (col. 3 lines 23-29, figure 5).
Regarding claim 8: Martin et al. discloses a source of air pressure (48) which is a blowing means that is placed in communication with the channel arranged to produce a pressure that is greater than the vacuum suction pressure in order to release the powder retained on the wall due to use of the vacuum pump (40) (col. 3 lines 30+, col. 4 lines 1-14, figures 5, 11).
Regarding claim 9: Martin et al. discloses a similar embodiment in which two zones are arranged in the plenum (34) in order to individually control pressure to each section, which requires two separate openings for vacuum and pressurized air (col. 4 lines 57+, col. 5 lines 1-19).
Regarding claim 16: Martin et al. fails to explicitly disclose a support element with a plurality of cavities and an unloading device arranged to move the cavities from a loading position to an unloading position. However, Aschenbeck discloses a similar powder application device which includes a structure comprising two application stations (22) arranged side by side along a transport direction with outlets arranged in the same plane, where conveyor belts (30) are provided beneath the stations (22) which include cells (70) to hold the dispensed granules at a loading position and thereafter by way of motion of a roller (38) reach an unloading position to deposit those granules from the cells (70) onto an asphalt coated sheet (20) traveling below, where the conveyor belts (30) can be considered unloading devices (pars. 28-31, figures 1-3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the manufacturing plant arrangement of Aschenbeck while using the nozzles of Martin et al. because Aschenbeck teaches that this is a well-known and advantageous method for accurately dropping powders onto a sheet (pars. 11-12) and using known techniques with known technology is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 18: Martin et al. and Aschenbeck disclose that the cells (70) move from an upward facing position in which they collect the granules to a position on the lower flight (36) of the belt (30) such that they face downwardly Aschenbeck par. 41, figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 19: Martin et al. and Aschenbeck disclose that the cells (70) are provided on a flexible belt (32) surface (Aschenbeck par. 43, figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 20: Martin et al. and Aschenbeck disclose that the belt system (30) includes two rollers (38, 40) around which the belt (32) is wound causing the belt (32) to rotate (Aschenbeck par. 31, figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 21: Martin et al. and Aschenbeck disclose more than one dispensing station (22) dispensing into multiple cavities (Aschenbeck figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 22: Martin et al. and Aschenbeck disclose an asphalt coated sheet (20) formed as a plane placed below the unloading position of the cells (70) to receive the granules therefrom (Aschenbeck pars. 29-30, figure 1-3).
Regarding claim 23: Martin et al. and Aschenbeck disclose that the dispensing stations (22) are located above the movable belt system (30) (see Aschenbeck figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 24: Martin et al. and Aschenbeck disclose that the dispensing stations (22) are arranged to deposit powder over the entire width of the belt system (30) (Aschenbeck figure 2).
Regarding claim 25: Martin et al. discloses another embodiment provided with two, smaller plenums (34b, 34c) which each have a height less than that of the nozzle (33) for both the plenums and their inner surfaces (col. 4 lines 57+, col. 5 lines 1-19, figure 11), such that each can individually read on the claimed annular chamber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Martin et al. shows that the nozzle and surface of the nozzle holder are not parallel as now claimed, and modifying it would not allow it to function because there would be insufficient volume in the plenum.
In response:
As discussed above, the limitation “parallel to” is new matter, but is also quite broad in this case as Applicant is referring to two distinct types of elements, a tubular element and a circumferential surface. One of ordinary skill in the art could consider these two disparate elements as being “parallel” if they share a central axis, which in the case of Martin et al. they do, as they are coaxial. Therefore Martin et al. still reads on this rather broad limitation. Further as disclosed above making such a modification would be an obvious change in shape as there is no criticality for the claimed shape. Applicant’s arguments that making this modification would result in the plenum not having enough volume to create the required suction are not persuasive, because nothing about changing these shapes requires the actual volume of the plenum to change. As long as the plenum wall extends out further than the nozzle, there is no reason to believe there would be any reduction in volume if the shape of the plenum is changed. In fact, Martin et al. already shows a very different plenum shape in figure 11- changing the inner wall of the plenum to match the cross-sectional direction of the nozzle is easily doable for one of ordinary skill in the art without changing how close the inner wall is to the nozzle, and therefore without changing the volume.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
9/3/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights