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 .
In the amendment filed on 06/29/26, applicants have amended claims 1, 9-11, 16 &18; and added new claims 19-23. The 112 2nd rejections of 1-2, 7-11 and 16-18 described in the non-final rejection sent 12/29/25 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment. Amended claims 1-2, 7-11 and 16-20 are interpreted under 112-6th paragraph (see below). Newly added claims 21-22 are allowable for the same reason detailed in the non-final action. Claim 1-2, 7-9, 16-18 and 23 have been found rejectable for at least some of the reasons described in the non-final action sent on 12/29/25 (see below).
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 for evaluating a length of said fastener” in claim 1, line 12 and claim 16, lines 19-20.
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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7-9, 16-18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al US 2015/251212A1 in view of Hubert (US 2004/0005411 A1) and Bray et al (US 2012/0168055A1.
As to claims 1 and 16, Ikeda et al discloses (see Fig 8) a device (sealant applying apparatus 21 with sealant cartridge) for performing at least one task on a structure (44 with a base 24) to be worked on, the device (21) comprising: securing elements (base 24,28; cylinder 26 and motion guide 27) to secure the device to a motor-driven handling device (36, 38) able to move the device for performing at least one task at least partially in space relative to the structure (44 with a base 24) to be worked on (see para [0053-0056] and [0064-0066]); securing elements (cylinder 26, motion guide 27 and base 28) to secure the device to the structure (44 with a base 24) to be worked on; at least one functional module (holding members 31-33) able to receive at least one fastener (8) necessary for carrying out the task; and at least one coating device (sealant discharge unit 22) for coating a fastener (8) of the at least one fastener (see para [0106] for fasteners) with a coating material, the device (21) comprising: a dispenser (sealant cartridge 42) for dispensing the coating material and comprising at least one dispensing nozzle (43); a holder (32) for holding the fastener; a drive assembly (biasing section 29 and punch feeder 70) for providing relative movement of the fastener (8) and the at least one dispensing nozzle (43) with respect to each other; and a controller (52) configured to control drive assembly to synchronize the operation thereof to deposit coating material on the fastener (see para [0077] and Fig 10), the at least one functional module (holding members 31-33) comprising the holder (32). Ikeda et al lacks teaching means for evaluating a length of the fastener and at least one dispensing nozzle to deposit at least one bead of sealant, however a sealant applying apparatus depositing beads of sealant is known in the art; for instance; as taught by Hubert (see para [0030] and [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit beads of sealant in Ikeda et al to dispense a quantity of sealant corresponding to a bead of sealant as taught by Hubert (see para [0052]). As to means for evaluating a length of the fastener, Bray et al teaches (see para [0081]) a quality control station using a laser and a detector (feeler) to determine the exact size of the fastener (size of the fastener capable of being length or width of the fastener). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include means for evaluating a length of the fastener to determine the amount of sealant to be applied to the fastener or the amount of time during which sealant will be applied to the fastener as taught by bray et al (see para [0081]).
Regarding 7-8, in Ikeda et al (see para [0045-0071]) as modified, the fastener is capable of having a connection zone between the body and the head (see Fig 8 for the fastener 8), wherein the controller(52) of the coating device (sealant applying apparatus) is able to control the relative movement of the fastener and the nozzle (43), translating the nozzle (along X axial direction) and rotating the fastener (see fastener rotating unit 23 rotating the fastener) and simultaneously activating the dispenser to deposit the coating material as claimed (since the linear motion guide 27 moving the fastener along Z-direction and the sealant is applied to the whole axial portion of the fastener [0071]; the nozzle 43 at a constant discharge quantity while moving the fastener 8 in the Z axial direction (see para [0083]) and the sealant discharging unit 22 relatively move in the axial direction of the fastener 8 while the fastener 8 rotated one revolution (see para [0084])).
Regarding claim 9, Ikeda et al teaches (see Fig 8) a rotatably drivable lead screw (ball screw 39 of motor 38) and a shoe (support 44) able to engage the lead screw, at least one dispensing nozzle (43) being integral with the axis of rotation of the lead screw.
As to claims 17 and 23, Ikeda et al discloses (see Fig 8) a device (sealant applying apparatus 21 with sealant cartridge) for performing at least one task on a structure (44 with a base 24) to be worked on, the device (21) comprising: securing elements (base 24,28; cylinder 26 and motion guide 27) to secure the device to a motor-driven handling device (36, 38) able to move the device for performing at least one task at least partially in space relative to the structure (44 with a base 24) to be worked on (see para [0053-0056] and [0064-0066]); securing elements (cylinder 26, motion guide 27 and base 28) to secure the device to the structure (44 with a base 24) to be worked on; at least one functional module (holding members 31-33) able to receive at least one fastener (8) necessary for carrying out the task; and at least one coating device (sealant discharge unit 22) for coating a fastener (8) of the at least one fastener (see para [0106] for fasteners) with a coating material, the device (21) comprising: a dispenser (sealant cartridge 42) for dispensing the coating material and comprising at least one dispensing nozzle (43); a holder (32) for holding the fastener; a drive assembly (biasing section 29 and punch feeder 70) for providing relative movement of the fastener (8) and the at least one dispensing nozzle (43) with respect to each other; and a controller (52) configured to control drive assembly to synchronize the operation thereof to deposit coating material on the fastener (see para [0077] and Fig 10), the at least one functional module (holding members 31-33) comprising the holder (32). Ikeda et al lacks teaching loading or setting stations for a sealant applying apparatus and at least one dispensing nozzle to deposit at least one bead of sealant, however a sealant applying apparatus depositing beads of sealant is known in the art; for instance; as taught by Hubert (see para [0030] and [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit beads of sealant in Ikeda et al to dispense a quantity of sealant corresponding to a bead of sealant as taught by Hubert (see para [0052]). With respect to loading or setting stations for a sealant applying apparatus, Bray et al teaches (see Figs 10 and 13 for multi-station machine 500) a fastener loading station(feeder assembly 502 or 532) to introduce the at least one fastener into the at least one the functional module, a coating station at which the at least one coating device is located (see para [0090], a setting station [quality control station 514, see para [0084]) for setting the at least one fastener in the structure to be worked on, and the at least one functional module (pick-up station 504 with robotic loading, see para [0078]) being movable from one of the fastener loading, the coating station or the setting station to another of the fastener loading, the coating station or the setting station (see para [0090]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include multiple stations as claimed in Ikeda et al to automatically and continuously process fasteners in carousel-based by using a multi-station machine (see para [0024] and [0091-0092]).
As to claim 18, although Ikeda et al teaches a plurality of fasteners (see para
[0106]), holders supporting different size of fasteners are not taught. However, Bray et
al teaches (see Fig 10) a multi-station machine with a quality control station processing
a plurality of fasteners, a plurality of functional modules (collets 508) each comprising
holding means a respective holder, at each one of the respective holders having a
different size than at least one other respective holder to support fasteners capable of
having different diameters (see para [0081] different sizes of fasteners and Fig 10). It
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to include holders supporting different size of fasteners in Ikeda
et al as modified to efficiently treat different types of fasteners as desired.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al US 2015/251212A1 in view of Hubert (US 2004/0005411 A1) and Bray et al (US 2012/0168055A1; and/or further in view of CN 107044468A.
In Ikeda et al (see para [0045-0071]) the fastener is capable of having a connection zone between the body and the head (see Fig 8 for the fastener 8) and the controller (52) of the sealant applying device of Ikeda et al as modified is capable of ensuring coating of the fastener with annular bead at the end of the body opposite to the head, at the connection zone and a helical bead as claimed (since the linear motion guide 27 moving the fastener along Z-direction and the sealant is applied to the whole axial portion of the fastener [0071], see also Fig 8 for body, head and screw sections of the fastener). In any event, a fastener (bolt 16) provided with annular bead of coating material at the end of the body opposite to the head, annular bead at the connection, thread surface 19 and a plurality of beads along the body (see Fig 3 and English translation for encapsulating beads 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the controller ensuring coating of the fastener as claimed to make the sealant spread out on to additional portions of the surface during the assembly process as taught by CN’468 (see English Translation on page ).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 are allowed.
Claims 10-11 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of claims 10-11, 19-22 is allowable for the same reasons described in the action sent on 12/29/25.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. Applicant argues (see Remarks on pages 13-14 regarding Patentability of independent claim 1) “It is true that, according to Bray et al, after a loading zone, the rivet undergoes an initial inspection during which its length can be measured using a laser and a sensor. However, the laser and sensor are disposed downstream of the machine for producing the rivets but are not integrated in a device for coating rivets as recited in claim 1. According to an exemplary embodiment of Applicant's claim 1, since the means for evaluating the length of the fastener are part of the device for coating the fastener, the length of the fastener can be evaluated prior to producing a coated fastener in order to define the zone where to fastener is coated. This is impossible according to Bray et al. because the laser and sensor are implemented downstream of a loading zone for inspection of the rivet after its fabrication. Therefore, claim 1 is novel and is non-obvious in view of Ikeda taken alone or in combination with Bay”.
In response to applicant's argument above that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the laser and sensor (means for evaluating a length) integrated in a device for coating rivets or fasteners recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In any event, applicant also recites different stations, provided with the coating station to perform at least one task on at least one fastener (see claim 17). For at least the reasons described above the examiner has found amended claims 1-2, 7-9 and 16-18 rejectable.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YEWEBDAR T TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1238. The examiner can normally be reached 7.00-3:30 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, 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.
YEWEBDAR T. TADESSE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
/YEWEBDAR T TADESSE/
Prosecution Insights