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 June 8, 2026 was received. Claims 1 and 8-9 were amended and claims 5-7 and 14-16 were cancelled.
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 December 2, 2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 6, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are withdrawn because Applicant amended claims 1 and 9 to remove the new matter.
Claims 1-4, 8-13 and 17 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.
Independent claims 1 and 9 now recite a situation where “when opened a first relief valve… conveys the fluid… and at the same time when opened a second relief valve…” which is an indefinite limitation because it combines timing certainties (“and at the same time”) with timing variables (“when opened”) such that it is impossible to determine the actual scope of these limitations. For the purposes of Examination, the best possible understanding of these limitations is that they take place in a situation in which both valves are opened at the same time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Harris et al. (US 2004/0256496) in view of Boger et al. (US 4,687,137) on claims 1-4, 8-13 and 17 are maintained. The rejection(s) are restated below.
Regarding claim 1: Harris et al. discloses an adhesive dispensing apparatus having a number of fluid pumps (44a-f) operating at a particular pump speed, as well as a number of valve modules (40a-f) mechanically connected to each respective pump (44a-f) where the valve modules (40) are controlled to cycle on or off to meter the volume rate of the liquid passing through each output region associated with the respective valve module (40a-f) and pump (44a-f) (pars. 17-19, figures 1-2), such that each valve meters the overall flow from all of the pumps through the output slots (52, 54, 64, 66) individually (par. 9, 17-18). Regardless, the limitation “wherein a selected relief valve, after selection, is configured to meter flow from a group of fluid pumps prior to application of the fluid” 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. The apparatus of Harris et al. can be controlled to do the same thing as discussed above.
Harris et al. fails to explicitly disclose that this valve control is performed by a specific control device. However, Boger et al. discloses a similar adhesive dispensing apparatus where the control valves are controlled by operating a respective solenoid (100, 102, 104) for each valve, the solenoid connected to an air manifold such that they are individual pneumatic control devices (col. 9 lines 63+, col. 10 lines 1-14, 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 pneumatic solenoid control device like that of Boger et al. to control the valve manifolds (40a-f) of Harris et al. because automating an otherwise manual activity is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Harris et al. discloses that the apparatus has multiple fluid output zones defined by the slots (64, 66, 70) which combine together to form a single film at a discrete rate at another fluid output zone, where each output zone corresponds to different independently controllable pumps (44a-f) which can have their pump speeds varied (pars. 17-19, figure 2). Harris et al. further teaches that the pumps (44a-f) are independently controllable and that their pump speed can be varied (pars. 17-19), such that any one of the valve modules (40a-f), when opened, conveys the fluid at a rate corresponding to its pump (44a-f) speed, which can be different from any of the other opened valve module’s (40a-f) corresponding pump (44a-f) speed (par. 17-19). While Harris et al. does not explicitly disclose that any one pump is controlled to supply fluid at a different speed than another, the teaching that each pump (44a-f) is independently controllable suggests that they can be controlled in this way, 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 try using different pump speeds in different zones because trying from a finite number of solutions is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Regardless, the new limitation about the functions of the relief valves 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, as discussed above, the valve modules of Harris et al. are capable of performing these claimed valve functions.
Regarding claim 2: Harris et al. discloses that the goal of the apparatus is to improve existing hot-melt adhesive applicators and as such clearly implies that the liquid being dispensed is an adhesive (pars. 3-4 and 6-9).
Regarding claim 3: Harris et al. discloses that the fluid output is an elongated slot which is fed by a number of inner slots (50a-f, 64, 66, 70) which together form a plenum (par. 18, figures 2 and 5-6).
Regarding claim 4: Harris et al. and Boger et al. disclose the above combination in which the valves are controlled by an air manifold by way of a solenoid, such that they are pneumatic valves (Boger et al. col. 9 lines 63+, lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 8: Harris et al. discloses a manifold within the apparatus for distributing fluid to the output zones (see figs. 5-6) but does not explicitly disclose a reservoir or source of the liquid being dispensed, although inherently there must be some source to supply the pumps (44a-f) with fluid. Regardless, Boger et al. discloses a similar adhesive dispensing apparatus where the adhesive passageway (11) is connected by a fitting (13) to a source of adhesive material which is a reservoir (col. 6 lines 22-39). 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 reservoir connected to a fitting similarly to Boger et al. for the apparatus of Harris et al. because using a known element for a known technique is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9: Harris et al. discloses an adhesive dispensing apparatus having a number of fluid pumps (44a-f) operating at a particular pump speed, as well as a number of valve modules (40a-f) mechanically connected to each respective pump (44a-f) where the valve modules (40) are controlled to cycle on or off to meter the volume rate of the liquid passing through each output region associated with the respective valve module (40a-f) and pump (44a-f) (pars. 17-19, figures 1-2), such that each valve meters the overall flow from all of the pumps through the output slots (52, 54, 64, 66) individually (par. 9, 17-18). Regardless, the limitation “wherein the controllable relief valve is configured to meter flow from the at least two fluid pumps prior to application of the fluid” 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. The apparatus of Harris et al. can be controlled to do the same thing as discussed above.
Harris et al. further discloses that the apparatus has multiple fluid output zones defined by the slots (64, 66, 70) which combine together to form a single film, where each output zone corresponds to different independently controllable pumps (44a-f) which can have their pump speeds varies (pars. 17-19, figure 2). Harris et al. fails to explicitly disclose a fluid reservoir that contains the fluid supplied to the pumps or that the above valve control is performed by a specific control device.
However, Boger et al. discloses a similar adhesive dispensing apparatus where the adhesive passageway (11) is connected by a fitting (13) to a source of adhesive material which is a reservoir (col. 6 lines 22-39). 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 reservoir connected to a fitting similarly to Boger et al. for the apparatus of Harris et al. because using a known element for a known technique is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Boger et al. further discloses a similar adhesive dispensing apparatus where the control valves are controlled by operating a respective solenoid (100, 102, 104) for each valve, the solenoid connected to an air manifold such that they are individual pneumatic control devices (col. 9 lines 63+, col. 10 lines 1-14, 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 pneumatic solenoid control device like that of Boger et al. to control the valve manifolds (40a-f) of Harris et al. because automating an otherwise manual activity is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Harris et al. discloses that the apparatus has multiple fluid output zones defined by the slots (64, 66, 70) which combine together to form a single film at a discrete rate at another fluid output zone, where each output zone corresponds to different independently controllable pumps (44a-f) which can have their pump speeds varied (pars. 17-19, figure 2). Harris et al. further teaches that the pumps (44a-f) are independently controllable and that their pump speed can be varied (pars. 17-19), such that any one of the valve modules (40a-f), when opened, conveys the fluid at a rate corresponding to its pump (44a-f) speed, which can be different from any of the other opened valve module’s (40a-f) corresponding pump (44a-f) speed (par. 17-19). While Harris et al. does not explicitly disclose that any one pump is controlled to supply fluid at a different speed than another, the teaching that each pump (44a-f) is independently controllable suggests that they can be controlled in this way, 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 try using different pump speeds in different zones because trying from a finite number of solutions is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Regardless, the new limitation about the functions of the relief valves 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, as discussed above, the valve modules of Harris et al. are capable of performing these claimed valve functions.
Regarding claim 10: Harris et al. discloses that the fluid output is fed from a number of slots (64, 66, 70) which define multiple fluid output zones (par. 18, figures 2 and 5-6).
Regarding claim 11: Harris et al. discloses that the purpose of the apparatus is to cycle on and off the valves or otherwise control distribution of the fluid to control the distribution of weight of the liquid in the film pattern, which inherently also controls the distribution of volume of the liquid in the film pattern, such that modifying the flow in the way described by Harris et al. would naturally lead to the volume rates being modified in each output zone (par. 4, 9, 16-19, figure 2).
Regarding claim 12: Harris et al. discloses that the goal of the apparatus is to improve existing hot-melt adhesive applicators and as such clearly implies that the liquid being dispensed is an adhesive (pars. 3-4 and 6-9).
Regarding claim 13: Harris et al. and Boger et al. disclose the above combination in which the valves are controlled by an air manifold by way of a solenoid, such that they are pneumatic valves (Boger et al. col. 9 lines 63+, lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 17: Harris et al. discloses a manifold within the apparatus for distributing fluid to the output zones (see figs. 5-6) but does not explicitly disclose a reservoir or source of the liquid being dispensed, although inherently there must be some source to supply the pumps (44a-f) with fluid. Regardless, Boger et al. discloses a similar adhesive dispensing apparatus where the adhesive passageway (11) is connected by a fitting (13) to a source of adhesive material which is a reservoir (col. 6 lines 22-39). 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 reservoir connected to a fitting similarly to Boger et al. for the apparatus of Harris et al. because using a known element for a known technique is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Harris et al. fails to disclose a valve that can meter flow from a group of pumps to a single output.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. 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). Nothing in any of the claims requires a valve that can meter flow from a group of pumps to a single output. Indeed, this is not even a feature of the instant invention at all, as stated in the previous Office Action. Nothing in the claims now requires a single valve outputting fluid from multiple pumps. Indeed, Applicant appears to be confusing the scope of their own invention in this regard, as nothing in the instant disclosure suggests a single valve can meter flow from anything more than its single corresponding pump, just like in Harris et al. Applicant has provided no actual discussion of meaningful structural differences between the instant invention and that of Harris et al., only the function of actuating the valves to change the fluid flow rate output, which Harris et al. does as well, by way of using the flow rate generated by the pumps. Paragraphs 21-24 of the published Application appear to suggest the same thing, that the actual flow rate of fluid through each valve is controlled entirely by its associated pump, and the act of opening or closing the valve itself allows fluid to flow at different rates from the differently operated pumps. Nothing in the specification nor the claims in any way explains how actuating one of these valves can supply a different flow rate to the output zone while the corresponding pump flow rate remains the same, such that it does not appear to be how the invention operates.
Further, nothing about how the output zones work in the instant invention is any different than in Harris et al. Figure 4 of the instant invention shows a plurality of fluid paths flowing from each pump, through each valve, through the plenum to a slot die, and figures 1, 3 and 5-6 of Harris et al. show the same thing- a plurality of fluid paths flowing from each pump, through each valve, through a plenum and to a slot die defined by outlet slots (52, 54, 64, 66, 70). Applicant has not explained how this structure is in any way different than what is currently being claimed, merely just citing a portion of Harris et al. which Applicant took to suggest Harris et al. operated with separate, discrete outlets, which is clearly not the case as seen in the figures.
Conclusion
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
9/29/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights