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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 11-19 in the reply filed on 3/27/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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 11, 12, 13, 14, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (U.S. Publication 2007/0000947) in view of Babicki (U.S. Publication 2009/0053074).
Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (U.S. Publication 2007/0000947) in view of Babicki (U.S. Publication 2009/0053074).
Regarding claim 11, Lewis teaches silicone dispenser (figure 1 shows a dispenser, paragraph 108 teaches sealants, foams, and glues and is considered capable of dispensing silicone since it deals with curable materials) comprising: a first flow path comprising: a first tank for holding a first liquid with a first quantity of glass beads in the first liquid (items 110, 112, 102a, 137, and 148 are considered the first line, the liquid with glass beads are considered intended use); a first positive displacement pump having a rotor (paragraph 52, pump 102a), wherein the first pump comprises a polymer configured to avoid the inhibition or prevention of curing silicone (paragraph 74 teaches the pumps can be made of polymeric material, the polymer material is considered capable of avoiding the inhibition of curing); at least one first hose (item 137); and a second flow path (items 134, 102b, and line extending from item 102b to item 144) comprising: a second tank for holding a second liquid with a second quantity of glass beads in the second liquid (item 134); a second positive displacement pump having a second rotor (item 102b), wherein the second pump comprises the polymer configured to avoid the inhibition or prevention of curing silicone (paragraph 74 teaches the pumps can be made of polymeric material, the polymer material is considered capable of avoiding the inhibition of curing); at least one second hose (line extending form item 102b to item 144). Regarding claim 11, Lewis is silent to the pumps having stators and the stators specifically being polymeric. Regarding claim 11, Babicki teaches a positive displacement pump with a rotor and stator (paragraph 36 with a rotor, a stator as part of the positive displacement hose diaphragm pump). Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive displacement pump of Lewis with the rotor stator positive displacement pump of Babicki in order to better control the dispensing of the materials being worked upon. Regarding claim 11, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to try modifying the stator of the plastic pump with a plastic material in order to prevent corrosion within the pump.
Regarding claim 12, Lewis teaches wherein the polymer configured to avoid the inhibition or prevention of curing silicone (paragraph 86 teaches the pump is hermetically sealed components to prevent exposure to air and moisture). Regarding claim 12, Babicki teaches a positive displacement pump with a rotor and stator (paragraph 36 with a rotor, a stator). Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive displacement pump of Lewis with the rotor stator positive displacement pump of Babicki in order to better control the dispensing of the materials being worked upon. Regarding claim 12, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to try modifying the stator of the plastic pump with a plastic material in order to prevent corrosion within the pump.
Regarding claim 13, Lewis teaches the pumps being made of a polymeric material (paragraph 74 teaches the pumps can be made of polymeric material). Regarding claim 13, Lewis is silent to a polymer specifically excluding sulfur. Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive displacement pump of Lewis with the rotor stator positive displacement pump of Babicki in order to better control the dispensing of the materials being worked upon. Regarding claim 13, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to try modifying the stator of the plastic pump with a plastic material in order to prevent corrosion within the pump.
Regarding claim 14, Lewis teaches the pumps being made of a polymeric material (paragraph 74 teaches the pumps can be made of polymeric material) and multiple pumps and rotors (items 102a and item 102b). Regarding claim 14, Lewis is silent to the specific polymer and the stator flow path. Regarding claim 14, Babicki teaches a stator (paragraph 36) defining a flow path (the space between the rotor and stator is consider defining a flow path). Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive displacement pump of Lewis with the rotor stator positive displacement pump of Babicki in order to better control the dispensing of the materials being worked upon. Regarding claim 14, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to try modifying the stator of the plastic pump with a plastic material in order to prevent corrosion within the pump.
Regarding claim 17, Lewis teaches a mix head (manifold item 142) that includes: a first inlet in communication with the first positive displacement pump (item 148); a second inlet in communication with the second positive displacement pump (item 144); and a mixing nozzle in fluid communication with the first inlet and the second inlet (items 155 and 157 are considered forming the mixing nozzle) that is configured to mix the first liquid and the second liquid and outputs a material mixture comprising the first material and the second material (item 155 is a static mixer that mixes and item 157 outputs the material).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 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.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of a silicone dispenser with the two flow paths, each having a positive displacement pump having a rotor and stator, wherein the stator comprises a polymer, and a tank including an agitator with one or more blades that extend to within one inch from an internal tank wall.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of a silicone dispenser with the two flow paths, each having a positive displacement pump having a rotor and stator, wherein the stator comprises a polymer, the mixing head, wherein the mixing head includes a solenoid that has a first valve connected to the first inlet, a second valve connected to the second inlet.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of a silicone dispenser with the two flow paths, each having a positive displacement pump having a rotor and stator, wherein the stator comprises a polymer, the mixing head, wherein the first flow path comprises a first level sensor between the first tank and the first positive displacement pump, and the second flow path comprises a second level sensor between the second tank and second positive displacement pump.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights