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 February 26, 2026 was received. Claims 1, 3 and 9 were amended.
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.
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 1-17 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. Independent claims 1 and 9 now require the relief valves to meter flow from a group/at least two pumps “prior to application of the fluid” which is new matter. The specification discusses the amount of adhesive being predetermined for each zone, but says nothing about the valves being specifically controlled to meter flow from multiple pumps prior to application of the fluid, which is a very different requirement. Setting the valves in a desired configuration is not the same as them somehow actively metering the fluid prior to application of the fluid.
The specific rejection of claim 3 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn because Applicant amended the claim to fix the previously noted issue.
Claims 1-17 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 require a single selected relief valve to meter flow from more than one pump. However, nothing in the specification indicates how this can be possible, such that the claims are now incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The specification repeatedly notes that each fluid pump has a corresponding relief valve, and never once states that the valves can be in any other relationship with multiple pumps- in fact there is no basis in the specification to believe this is in any way possible. Therefore, there is no discussion in the specification as to how a single valve can meter flow from multiple fluid pumps on its own when they are only capable of being in one-to-one correspondence with each pump. The only possible interpretation of this limitation which fits with the structure of the instant invention is that the “selected relief valve” controls the overall flow profile from multiple pumps all the way to the fluid outputs (108), such that controlling one valve will meter the overall fluid output pattern by changing the rate of fluid output from its corresponding pump. For the purposes of examination, this interpretation will be used.
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 1-17 are maintained. The rejections 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).
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 claims 5-6: 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, where each output zone corresponds to different independently controllable pumps (44a-f) which can have their pump speeds varies (pars. 17-19, figure 2). While Harris et al. does not explicitly disclose that the flow rate in one zone is different from that of another zone, Harris et al. does teach that the pumps (44a-f) are independently controllable and that their pump speed can be varied (pars. 17-19) 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).
Regarding claim 7: Harris et al. discloses that the pumps (44a-f) are all capable of operating at once to ensure a full liquid film is output onto a substrate (pars. 17-19).
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).
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 claims 14-15: 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, where each output zone corresponds to different independently controllable pumps (44a-f) which can have their pump speeds varies (pars. 17-19, figure 2). While Harris et al. does not explicitly disclose that the flow rate in one zone is different from that of another zone, Harris et al. does teach that the pumps (44a-f) are independently controllable and that their pump speed can be varied (pars. 17-19) 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).
Regarding claim 16: Harris et al. discloses that the pumps (44a-f) are all capable of operating at once to ensure a full liquid film is output onto a substrate (pars. 17-19).
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 February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Harris et al. fails to disclose that any one valve can meter flow from two or more corresponding pumps.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments do not seem to line up with the instant specification. The structure of the instant invention is the same as that of Harris et al.- the pumps are connected to the valves in a one-to-one correspondence, such that there is no possible way any one valve can directly meter flow from more than one pump. Rather, the only way it can be considered to meter flow from a group of pumps, is in the sense that the entire output flow is changed by way of that single valve- i.e., the output flow from all of the pumps overall changes when one valve is actuated. This same function is disclosed explicitly by Harris et al., such that it clearly has the same capability as that claimed.
If Applicant’s intent is different, that the actual valves themselves do directly meter the flow from more than one pump, then Applicant must adequately explain how the actual construction of the apparatus can accomplish this, or otherwise be subject to possible enablement rejections, as currently there is no apparent way the instant invention discussed or shown in the figures is capable of doing so. Each pump is connected to its own respective relief valve- there is no apparent discussion of any possible way that multiple pumps can be connected to one valve.
Furthermore, the claims do not specify any actual structure allowing the valves to be “configured to meter flow” and simply just state that they do in an intended use functional limitation. In apparatus claims, a functional limitation does not necessarily impart patentability to the structure in the claim, and Applicant is instead encouraged to add actual structural language indicating what physical elements of the apparatus allow for this function to be performed in a way that is distinct from the prior art. See MPEP 2114.
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
4/3/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717