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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 20, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on November 20, 202 5. Claims 1, 3, and 14 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christie et al. (US 10,518,076 B2).
With regard to claim 1, Christie discloses a tip cover (10), comprising: a first housing portion (14a) comprising a first inner wall curved to form a first cavity (Fig. 1E), the first housing portion (14a) having a first channel recessed (44a) into the first inner wall; and a second housing portion (14b) comprising a second inner wall curved to form a second cavity (Fig. 1E), and a second channel recessed (44b) into the second inner wall (Fig. 1E), wherein the first housing portion and the second housing portion (14a/14b) are configured to be mated together such that the first and second cavities together form a chamber to enclose a nozzle tip (nozzle tip is an article, which the “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115), and the first and second channels (44a/44b) together form a gasket channel for receiving and sealing around a gasket disposed around the nozzle tip (nozzle tip is an article, which the “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), and the gasket channel (44a/44b) is recessed into a curved wall of the chamber such that a ring formed by the gasket channel has a larger diameter than; (i) a portion of the curved wall of the chamber (46a/46b, Fig. 7A) above the gasket channel (44a/44b); and (ii) a portion of the curved wall of the chamber (48a/48b, Fig. 7A) below the gasket channel (44a/44b).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Christie discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Christie further discloses that means (30) for mating the first and second housing portions together (Figs. 1F).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Christie discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Christie further discloses that the chamber formed by the first and second cavities is larger than the nozzle tip (Fig. 7A).
With regard to claim 4, the device of Christie discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Christie further discloses that the first housing portion has a groove (32) adjacent, and extending a length of the first cavity (Fig. 2A) and the second housing portion has a protrusion (34) adjacent ,and extending a length the second cavity (Fig. 3A), such that the groove on the first housing receives the protrusion on the second housing portion when the first and second housing portions are mated together (Fig. 1F).
With regard to claim 5, the device of Christie discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Christie further discloses that the first and second cavities are equal in size and dimension (Fig. 1E).
With regard to claim 6, the device of Christie discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Christie further discloses that a locking mechanism (32a/32b) configured to removably secure the first and second housing portions in a closed configuration around the nozzle when the first and second housing portions are mated together (Fig.1F).
With regard to claim 7, the device of Christie discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Christie further discloses that the locking mechanism comprises a hook (32b) secured to one of the first and second housing portions that latches to a loop secured to the other of the first and second housing portions (Fig. 4B).
With regard to claim 8, the device of Christie discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Christie further discloses that the first and second housing portions, when unmated, are configured to open to expose the first and second cavities (Fig. 4B).
With regard to claim 9, the device of Christie discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Christie further discloses that the first and second housing portions are comprised of plastic (Col. 13 line 61).
With regard to claim 10, the device of Christie discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Christie further discloses that the gasket channel formed by the first and second channels is configured to receive petroleum jelly (type of material is a matter of material worked upon, the “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115).
With regard to claim 11, the device of Christie discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Christie further discloses that the system for applying a sealant (type of material is a matter of material worked upon, the “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP 2115), comprising a nozzle tip (nozzle tip of bottle 76) and the tip cover of claim 1.
With regard to claims 14-16, since the device of Christie discloses all structure of the claimed invention, in its use, the device of Christie will inherently perform all the method steps of claims 14-16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melikian (US 2017/0010088 A1) in view of Christie.
With regard to claims 12 and 13, the Melikian discloses a sealant-dispensing robot (Fig. 1), comprising a nozzle tip (14), except a tip cover.
However, Christie teaches a tip cover as disclosed in claim 1.
It is noted by the Examiner that the prior art to Christie and the instant invention are directed to fluid line devices. In accordance with MPEP 2141.01(1), a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In this instant case, the prior art to Christie is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sealant-dispensing robot of Melikian, by incorporating the tip cover as taught by Christie, for the benefit of providing a stopper lock to protect the user from inadvertently damage the nozzle tip.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752