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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Van Der Schaaf et al. (US 2018/0202076 A1) teaching a dispensing a filament adhesive as evidenced in the rejection below.
In response to applicant's argument that the Applicant’s invention solves the specification recited problem of feeding filament adhesives into a dispensing system, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention 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. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case the claim is silent to the problems argued by the Applicant and further claim is directed to the dispensing device not the material to be dispensed. There is nothing different structurally from the prior art as applied to the claims and thus the device of Wolfrom as modified below is capable of accomplishing the intended use of dispensing a filament adhesive.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7-9, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfrom (US Patent No 3,750,905), and further in view of Van Der Schaaf et al. (US 2018/0202076 A1), Beck (US Patent No. 2,813,302), Schippers (US Patent No. 3,360,824), and Meyer (US Patent No. 4,957,372).
Re: Claim 1, Wolfrom discloses a dispensing system including:
a rope like thermoplastic adhesive fed into the system (Col. 1, lines 24-28, thermoplastic adhesives in rope form) except for the claimed filament adhesive. However, Van Der Schaaf teaches a filament adhesive comprising a core-sheath adhesive having a pressure-sensitive adhesive core that is viscoelastic at ambient temperature (Para. 10-19, core-sheath filament adhesive to be fed into a dispensing system, Para. 19, with a pressure sensitive core and viscoelastic qualities).
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to include the adhesive filament as taught by Van Der Schaaf, since Van Der Schaaf states in paragraph 18 that such a modification provides a higher mechanical stability compared to filaments prepared from the same core material but without the shell material. In particular, the inventive filaments can be rolled on a spool, while filaments without shell material are usually too brittle and therefore are not suited to be spooled.
A dispensing head comprising:
a barrel 22 including one or more heating elements (see fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 33-57);
a rotatable screw (50) received in the barrel 22 extending from a first end portion to a second end portion along a longitudinal axis (see fig. 1), an inlet 42 extending through a side of the barrel 22 (see figs. 1 and 6), the inlet 42 including a beveled nip point to prevent breakage of the filament adhesive as it is drawn into the barrel 22 (see marked-up fig. 6 and col. 4, lines 17-25), wherein the inlet 42 has a plurality of sidewalls including a front sidewall (see marked-up fig. 6), wherein the beveled nip point is defined in part by a surface of the front sidewall of the inlet 42 that extends at an acute angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the rotatable screw 50 (see fig. 1 and marked-up fig. 6), the front sidewall converging with an outer surface of the rotatable screw 50; an outlet 24 at a distal end of the barrel 22 for dispensing the filament adhesive in molten form (see fig. 1, col. 1, lines 23-35 and col. 3, lines 33-34); and a rotatable screw 50 received in the barrel 22 (see fig. 1);
Wolfrom discloses the claimed invention except the shaft progressively increasing and a mixing element of rotatable posts at the shaft second end. However, Beck teaches a rotatable screw having a shaft (5) that has a diameter that progressively increases from the first end portion to the second end portion (Fig. 1, Col. 4, lines 34-36, gradually increasing shape diameter), and said rotatable screw having at least one mixing element (24), wherein the mixing element includes a plurality of posts (33) disposed on a rotatable shaft (see figs. 4), and wherein the mixing element is located on an opposite end of the rotatable screw from that adjacent to the inlet 14 (see figs. 1-2),.
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to include the shaft having a diameter that progressively increases from the first end portion to the second end portion, and a mixing element of a plurality of posts as taught by Beck, since Beck states in column 4, lines 26-29 that such a modification increases the diameter thus having the desirable effect of subjecting the material to gradually increasing compression as it is moved away from the inlet to compact the material and permit escape of gases, and further Beck states in column 5, lines 35-37 that the modification of the plurality of posts provides further homogenization by subjecting the material to continual shearing or rubbing action during the passage of the material
PNG
media_image1.png
352
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Marked-up Fig. 6
Wolfrom discloses wherein the rotatable screw 50 includes a feed element (screws) adjacent the inlet 42 (see fig.1) except for a plurality of gripping lugs. However, Meyer teaches wherein the dispensing head including a rotatable screw 1 having a feed element (screws) adjacent to the inlet 13 (see fig. 1), wherein the feed element includes a plurality of gripping lugs (created by cuts 27; see figs. 1, 4 and 5), wherein the gripping lugs define a pitch height along the longitudinal axis (see figs. 1, 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the feed element of the combination of Wolfrom with a plurality of gripping lugs, as taught by Meyer, since Meyer states in col. 4, lines 48-51 that such a modification provides edges to grip the fresh feed so that this is pulled into the screw strictly in ratio to the speed of rotation, enhancing gripping and/or advancing of the filament.
Wolfrom discloses the claimed invention including the front sidewall surface defines a recess and a bevel length along the longitudinal axis (Figs. 6-7), and the rotatable screw extending in one circumferential direction as the recess extends toward the second end portion (Depicted in Fig. 1, screw extends in one circumferential direction and recess extends toward the second end) except for the bevel length being at least the pitch length and expressly depicting a complex compound curvature with an axial and circumferential components. However, Schippers teaches the front sidewall surface defines a recess (15) and a bevel length along the longitudinal axis, wherein the bevel length is at least the pitch height (Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 20-22, bevel length at least as long as pitch length), and having a complex compound curvature such that a recess circumscribed by the inlet extends along both axial (Depicted in 1, the recess extending axially) and circumferential directions relative to the rotatable screw (Depicted in Figs. 9, the recess extends in a circumferential direction). The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wolfrom in view of Schippers by causing the bevel length to be at least the pitch length, since Schippers notes in column 3 & 4, lines 49-52 & 64-65 that various recess shapes may be employed and that this length is beneficial for providing a full rotation of degassing of the material and it appears that the device of Wolfrom in view of Schippers would work appropriately if made within the claimed lengths.
Re: Claims 3, 4, 7 and 9, Wolfrom as modified above discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except the teaching of the particular claimed ranges, i.e. the acute angle being from 13 degrees to 53 degrees; the inlet extends along 10 percent to 40 percent of the nominal screw length of the rotatable screw; the rotatable screw has a length: diameter ratio of from 8:1 to 20:1; and the overall weight of the dispensing head is no more than 10 kg.
It is noted that applicant has not provided any criticality to the particular claimed ranges, i.e. the acute angle being from 13 degrees to 53 degrees; the inlet extends along 10 percent to 40 percent of the nominal screw length of the rotatable screw; the rotatable screw has a length: diameter ratio of from 8:1 to 20:1; and the overall weight of the dispensing head is no more than 10 kg. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the modified device of Wolfrom with the acute angle being from 13 degrees to 53 degrees; the inlet extends along 10 percent to 40 percent of the nominal screw length of the rotatable screw; the rotatable screw has a length: diameter ratio of from 8:1 to 20:1; and the overall weight of the dispensing head is no more than 10 kg, since applicant has not disclosed that the acute angle being from 13 degrees to 53 degrees; the inlet extends along 10 percent to 40 percent of the nominal screw length of the rotatable screw; the rotatable screw has a length: diameter ratio of from 8:1 to 20:1; and the overall weight of the dispensing head is no more than 10 kg, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs. See MPEP 2144.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to the criticality of the acute angle being from 13 degrees to 53 degrees; the inlet extends along 10 percent to 40 percent of the nominal screw length of the rotatable screw; the rotatable screw has a length: diameter ratio of from 8:1 to 20:1; and the overall weight of the dispensing head is no more than 10 kg, the particular arrangements are deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fails to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. See MPEP 2144.
Re: claim 8, Wolfrom discloses wherein a drive mechanism (i.e. motor) operatively coupled to the rotatable screw 50 (see col. 3, lines 47-61).
Re: Claim 13, Wolfrom as modified by Van Der Schaaf in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention including the core-sheath adhesive comprises a sheath that is non-tacky at ambient temperature (Van Der Schaaf: Para. 19, non-tacky sheath cover tacky core).
Re: Claim, 14, the device of Wolfrom as modified in the rejection of claim 1 above is capable of performing the claimed method of feeding the filament adhesive through an inlet of the heated barrel, the inlet including a beveled nip point that reduces shearing of the filament adhesive as it is drawn into the heated barrel (Col. 4, lines 17-21, material fed into device), melting the filament adhesive within the heated barrel to provide a molten adhesive (Col. 4, lines 35-45, melted as it moves through barrel); mixing the molten adhesive (inherently mixes as it advances by the screw thread and using the mixing element of Beck from the modified device as incorporated into this rejection from the rejection of claim 1), and dispensing the molten adhesive through an outlet at a distal end of the heated barrel (Col. 3, lines 33-36, dispenses at a distal end).
Re: Claim 15, the device of Wolfrom as modified above in the rejection of claim 1 above is capable of dispensing at 4 kg per hour except for expressly saying so. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the modified device of the Wolfrom with the molten adhesive being dispensed at a rate of at least 4 kg per hour, since applicant has not disclosed that the molten adhesive being dispensed at a rate of at least 4 kg per hour, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs. See MPEP 2144. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to the criticality of the molten adhesive being dispensed at a rate of at least 4 kg per hour, the particular arrangements are deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fails to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. See MPEP 2144.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References cited on the PTO-892 provide additional examples adhesive dispensing systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754