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 .
Claims 1-16 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/17/2023 and 08/26/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-16 recite numerous informalities. Claims 1-16 are listed below with corrections to the informalities noted with strikethroughs, brackets, and underlines. Claim 1. An application device for applying a flowable medium onto a substrate, namely a hotmelt adhesive, having a discharge valve (13) comprising a closure member which, in an open position, releases a metering opening of the discharge valve, such that the flowable medium flows through the metering opening in a direction of the substrate, wherein the closure member is movable by an electromagnet of the discharge valve (13) from a closing position, in which the discharge valve (13) closes the metering opening, to the open position, and comprising a main control unit (17), which is connected to the discharge valve (13), namely a PLC (programmable logic controller), and which delivers the output voltage signals move the closure member to the open position and maintain the closure member in the open position, further comprising a modification unit (19)that the modification unit (19) receives the output voltage signals from the main control unit (17), modifies the output voltage signals, and relays the output voltage signals in a modified form to the electromagnet.
Claim 2. The application device as claimed in claim 1, wherein, for wherein, for
Claim 3. The application device as claimed in claim 1,wherein the main control unit (17) is configured such that, for each movement of the closure member from the closing position to the open position, the main control unit (17) respectively generates an output voltage signal having a constant voltage amplitude of a magnitude greater than zero, which is sufficient to move the closure member, by wherein the modification unit (19) is configured such that the modification unit (19) modifies each respective output voltage signal[[s]] during a modification time interval (22), namely, either over an entirety of a signal duration of the respective output voltage signal or over a fractional time interval of the signal duration of the respective output voltage signal, by a timing of the respective output voltage signal during the modification time interval (22), such that a mean voltage amplitude of the respective output voltage signal over the modification time interval (22) is lower than a respective unmodified output voltage signal.
Claim 4. The application device as claimed in claim 3, wherein a voltage amplitude of the respective output voltage signal, without modification by the modification unit (19), respectively assumes a constant value over the entire signal duration, and wherein, by the timing of the respective output voltage signal during the modification time interval (22), a r.m.s. value of the voltage amplitude during the modification time interval (22) is less than 50% of the constant value of the
Claim 5. The application device as claimed in claim 3 wherein a voltage amplitude of the respective output voltage signal, without modification by the modification unit (19), respectively assumes a constant value of 24 V over the entire signal duration, and wherein the respective output voltage signal during the modification time interval (22) is modified such that a r.m.s. value of the voltage amplitude during the modification time interval (22) is lower than 12 V
Claim 6. The application device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the timing of the respective output voltage signal is executed such that a periodic sequence of individual square-wave signal pulses with first voltage amplitudes is generated, namely of voltage amplitudes which correspond to a voltage amplitude of the respectivean entire sequence of signal pulses,
Claim 7 The application device as claimed in claim 3, wherein a respective modification time interval (22), during which the respective output voltage signal is modified, respectively succeeds a time interval in which no modification of the respective output voltage signal is executed, and in which the voltage amplitude of the output voltage signal which is relayed to the electromagnet corresponds to a voltage amplitude of the respective[[ly]] unmodified output voltage signal which is generated by the main control unit.
Claim 8. The application device as claimed in claim 7, wherein the respective output voltage signal, during the time interval in which no modification occurs, generates an opening current in the electromagnet, as a result of which the closure member is moved from the closing position to the open[[ing]] position, and wherein the respective output voltage signal, during a subsequent modification time interval (22), generates a holding current which is lower, in relation to the opening current.
Claim 9. The application device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the modification unit (19) is arranged remotely from the main control unit (17), external[[ly]] to a housing of the main control unit (17).
Claim 10. The application device as claimed in claim 1,wherein the modification unit (19) comprises an electronic circuit for the output voltage signals, namely a driver.
Claim 11. The application device as claimed in claim 1,wherein the modification unit (19) comprises an analyzer device, which is configured as a microcontroller, for the discharge valve (13), or for detecting faults
Claim 12. The application device as claimed in claim 1,wherein the modification unit (19) comprises a display for
Claim 13. The application device as claimed in claim 1,wherein the modification unit (19) comprises an electronic memory in which, by means of a microcontroller, information is saved and/or from which, by means of the microcontroller, information is retrieved, the information being information which is generated or delivered by the microcontroller with respect to operating states of the discharge valve, or with respect to faults on the power cable which is routed from the main control unit (17) to the modification unit (19), or on a power cable which is routed from the modification unit (19) to the discharge valve (13).
Claim 14. The application device as claimed in claim 1,wherein the main control unit (17) is configured such that it energizes the output voltage signals with an additional minimum voltage, for
Claim 15. Modification unit for an application device for applying a flowable medium onto a substrate, namely a hotmelt adhesive, wherein the application device is provided with a discharge valve (13) comprising a closure member which, in an open position, releases a metering opening of the discharge valve, such that the flowable medium flows through the metering opening in a direction of the substrate, wherein the closure member is movable by an electromagnet of the discharge valve (13) from a closing position, in which the discharge valve (13) closes the metering opening, to the open position, and wherein the application device comprises a main control unit (17), which is connected to the discharge valve (13), namely a PLC (programmable logic controller), and which delivers the output voltage signals move the closure member to the open position and maintain the closure member in the open position, and wherein the modification unit (19) is configured such that the modification unit is arranged between the main control unit (17) and the discharge valve (13), receives the output voltage signals from the main control unit (17), modifies the output voltage signals, and relays the output voltage signals in a modified form to the electromagnet. Claim 16. The modification unit as claimed in claim 15, wherein the main control unit (17) is configured such that, for each movement of the closure member from the closing position to the open position, the main control unit (17) respectively generates an output voltage signal having a constant voltage amplitude of a magnitude greater than zero, which is sufficient to move the closure member, by wherein the modification unit (19) is configured such that the modification unit (19) modifies each respective output voltage signal[[s]] during a modification time interval (22), namely, either over an entirety of a signal duration of the respective output voltage signal or over a fractional time interval of the signal duration of the respective output voltage signal, by a timing of the respective output voltage signal during the modification time interval (22), such that a mean voltage amplitude of the respective output voltage signal over the modification time interval (22) is lower than a respective unmodified output voltage signal. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination “in particular a hotmelt adhesive” will be interpreted to be “namely a hotmelt adhesive”. Claims 2-14 and 16 are rejected based on their dependency on claims 1 or 15.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “lower than 12 V”, and the claim also recites “preferably lower than 10 V” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of examination, “preferably lower than 10 V” will be interpreted as not required.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, “such as a failure in the power cable between the modification unit (19) and the discharge valve (13)” will be interpreted as an example and not required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingier European Patent Document EP 2638978 A1 (hereinafter “Lingier”) and further in view of Evans et al. U.S. Patent Application 2005/0279780 (hereinafter “Evans”) and Magyar et al. U.S. Patent Application 2004/0130845 (hereinafter “Magyar”).
Regarding claim 1, Lingier teaches an application device (refer to applicator head 1)(figs.1, 2, and 10) for applying a flowable medium onto a substrate (refer to [0083]), in particular a hotmelt adhesive (refer to [0083]), having a discharge valve (13) (i.e. solenoid valve 2)(figs.1 and 10) comprising a closure member (inherent)(solenoid 2 inherently has a closure member), wherein the closure member is movable by an electromagnet of the discharge valve (inherent)(i.e. solenoid valve inherently has a electromagnet which is used to move a closure member) from a closing position to an open position (implicit), and comprising a main control unit (17) (refer to input signal line 46)(fig.2)(refer also to [0093]), which is connected to the discharge valve (13) (implicit), further comprising a modification unit (19) (i.e. control box 26)(fig.2)(i.e. controller 102)(fig.10)(refer also to [0103]) is arranged between the main control unit (17) and the discharge valve (13) (implicit)(refer to fig.2), the modification unit (19) configured such the modification unit (19) receives output voltage signals from the main control unit (17) (refer to input signal line 46)(fig.2)(refer also to 24 V power and discharge signal 200)(fig.10), modifies these signals, and relays these signals in a modified form to the electromagnet (implicit)(refer to 24 V signal)(fig.10)(refer also to [0111] and figure 11); however, Lingier does not teach the closure member which, in the open position, releases a metering opening of the discharge valve, such that the flowable medium can flow through the metering opening in the direction of the substrate, the closing position, in which the discharge valve (13) closes the metering opening; the main control unit is namely a PLC (programmable logic controller) and which delivers electrical output voltage signals, in a periodic manner, for the controlled voltage supply of the electromagnet, which signals move the closure member to the open position and maintain the closure member in this position. Evans teaches the closure member (i.e. valve stem 22)(fig.1) which, in the open position, releases a metering opening of the discharge valve (refer to [0029]), such that the flowable medium can flow through the metering opening in the direction of the substrate (refer to [0029]), the closing position, in which the discharge valve (13) closes the metering opening (refer to [0029]); the main control unit which delivers electrical output voltage signals (refer to trigger 100)(figs.1 and 3), in a periodic manner (refer to trigger 100)(figs.1 and 3), for the controlled voltage supply of the electromagnet (refer to trigger 100)(figs.1 and 3), which signals move the closure member to the open position and maintain the closure member in this position (refer to [0029]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application device of Lingier to include the discharge valve control of Evans to provide the advantage of applying a holding signal after a period of time to keep the valve open while using less power, thereby making the application device more efficient and prolonging the life of the discharge valve. However, Lingier and Evans do not teach the main control unit is namely a PLC (programmable logic controller). However, Magyar teaches (refer to [0040]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application device of Lingier and Evans to include the PLC of Magyar to provide the advantage of using a durable, cost-effective, and reliable type of controller.
Regarding claim 2, Lingier, Evans, and Magyar teach the application device as claimed in claim 1, wherein, for the transmission of output voltage signals to the modification unit (19), a power cable is routed from the main control unit (17) to the modification unit (19) (refer to Lingier input signal line 46)(fig.2)(refer also to Lingier 24V power)(fig.10) and in that, for the transmission of modified output voltage signals to the electromagnet, a power cable is routed from the modification unit (19) to the discharge valve (13) (refer to Lingier signal line 24)(fig.2)(refer also to Lingier 24 V signal)(fig.10).
Regarding claim 3, Lingier, Evans, and Magyar teach the application device as claimed in claim 1,wherein the main control unit (17) is configured such that, for each movement of the closure member from the closing position to the open position, the main control unit (17) respectively generates an output voltage signal having a constant voltage amplitude of a magnitude greater than zero (refer to Evans trigger 100)(figs.1 and 3), which is sufficient to move the closure member, by the action of the electromagnets, from the closing position to the open position (implicit), and in that the modification unit (19) is configured such that the modification unit (19) modifies each of these output voltage signals during a modification time interval (22) (refer to Evans figure 3), namely, either over the entire signal duration of the respective output voltage signal or over a fractional time interval of the signal duration of the respective output voltage signal (refer to Evans fig.3), by the timing of the respective output voltage signal during the modification time interval (22) (implicit)(refer to Evans fig.3), such that the mean voltage amplitude of the respective output voltage signal over the modification time interval (22) is lower than would be the case, were the respective output voltage signal not be modified (implicit)(refer to Evans square waveform 186)(fig.3).
Regarding claim 4, Lingier, Evans, and Magyar teach the application device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the voltage amplitude of the respective output voltage signal, without modification by the modification unit (19), respectively assumes a constant value over the entire signal duration (refer to Evans figure 3); however, they do not teach in that, by the timing of the respective output voltage signal during the modification time interval (22), the r.m.s. value of voltage amplitude during this modification time interval (22) is less than 50% of the value of the above-mentioned constant voltage amplitude of the output voltage signal. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have in that, by the timing of the respective output voltage signal during the modification time interval (22), the r.m.s. value of voltage amplitude during this modification time interval (22) is less than 50% of the value of the above-mentioned constant voltage amplitude of the output voltage signal, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application device of Lingier, Evans, and Magyar to include in that, by the timing of the respective output voltage signal during the modification time interval (22), the r.m.s. value of voltage amplitude during this modification time interval (22) is less than 50% of the value of the above-mentioned constant voltage amplitude of the output voltage signal to provide the advantage of using as little energy as possible while ensuring the valve operates properly (i.e. stays open).
Regarding claim 5, Lingier, Evans, and Magyar teach the application device as claimed in claim 3 wherein the voltage amplitude of the respective output voltage signal, without modification by the modification unit (19), respectively assumes a constant value of 24 V over the entire signal duration (refer to Lingier 24 V power signal)(fig.10); however, they do not teach in that the respective output voltage signal during the modification time interval (22) is modified such that the r.m.s. value of voltage amplitude during the modification time interval (22) is lower than 12 V, and preferably lower than 10 V. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have in that the respective output voltage signal during the modification time interval (22) is modified such that the r.m.s. value of voltage amplitude during the modification time interval (22) is lower than 12 V, and preferably lower than 10 V, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application device of Lingier, Evans, and Magyar to include in that the respective output voltage signal during the modification time interval (22) is modified such that the r.m.s. value of voltage amplitude during the modification time interval (22) is lower than 12 V, and preferably lower than 10 V to provide the advantage of using as little energy as possible while ensuring the valve operates properly (i.e. stays open).
Regarding claim 6, Lingier, Evans, and Magyar teach the application device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the timing of the respective output voltage signal is executed such that a periodic sequence of individual square-wave signal pulses with first voltage amplitudes is generated (refer to Evans square waveform 186)(fig.3), namely of voltage amplitudes which correspond to the voltage amplitude of the respective, and as yet unmodified output voltage signal (implicit)(refer to Evans pulse 184)(fig.3), wherein, for the entire sequence of signal pulses, in each case, two sequential signal pulses are respectively separated from one another by a signal pause having a second voltage amplitude (refer to Evans square waveform 186)(fig.3), which is lower in comparison with the first voltage amplitudes, namely a voltage amplitude having a magnitude of zero (refer to Evans square waveform 186)(fig.3)(refer also to [0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Lingier, Evans, and Magyar teach the application device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the respective modification time interval (22), during which the respective output voltage signal is modified, respectively succeeds a time interval in which no modification of the respective output voltage signal is executed (refer to Evans pulse 184 and square waveform 186)(fig.3), and in which the voltage amplitude of the output voltage signal which is relayed to the electromagnet corresponds to the voltage amplitude of the respectively unmodified output voltage signal which is generated by the main controller (refer to Evans pulse 184 and square waveform 186)(fig.3).
Regarding claim 8, Lingier, Evans, and Magyar teach the application device as claimed in claim 7, wherein the respective output voltage signal, during the time interval in which no modification occurs, generates an opening current in the electromagnet (refer to Evans current 188 and peak 191)(fig.3), as a result of which the closure member is moved from the closing position to the opening position (implicit), and in that the respective output voltage signal, during the subsequent modification time interval (22), generates a holding current which is lower, in relation to the opening current (refer to Evans hold current 194)(fig.3).
Regarding claim 9, Lingier, Evans, and Magyar teach the application device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the modification unit (19) is arranged remotely from the main controller (17), externally to a housing of the main controller (17) (refer to Lingier figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Lingier, Evans, and Magyar teach the application device as claimed in claim 1,wherein the modification unit (19) comprises an electronic circuit for the execution of the modification of output voltage signals, namely a driver (refer to Evans power circuit 86)(fig.1).
Regarding claim 11, Lingier, Evans, and Magyar teach the application device as claimed in claim 1,wherein the modification unit (19) comprises an analyzer device, which is configured in the form of a microcontroller, for the analysis of respective output voltage signals and/or a device for detecting operating states of the electromagnet of the discharge valve (13), or for detecting faults such as a failure in the power cable between the modification unit (19) and the discharge valve (13) (refer to Lingier [0024], [0027], [0031], [0062], and [0121]).
Regarding claim 12, Lingier, Evans, and Magyar teach the application device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the modification unit (19) comprises a display (refer to Lingier LEDs 211 and 213)(fig.10) for the representation of information (refer to Lingier [0127]) and/or a transmitter unit, namely for the wireless transmission of information to a remote receiver unit, the information being with respect to operating states of the discharge valve (13) or cable faults.
Regarding claim 13, Lingier, Evans, and Magyar teach the application device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the modification unit (19) comprises an electronic memory (refer to Lingier [0024], [0027], [0041], and [0062]) in which, by means of the microcontroller (refer to Lingier controller 102)(fig.10), information can be saved and/or from which, by means of the microcontroller, information can be retrieved (refer to Lingier [0024], [0027], [0041], and [0062]), the information being information which is generated or delivered by the microcontroller with respect to operating states of the discharge valve, or with respect to faults on the power cable which is routed from the main control unit (17) to the modification unit (19), or on the power cable which is routed from the modification unit (19) to discharge valve (13) (refer to Lingier [0024], [0027], [0041], and [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, Lingier teaches a modification unit (i.e. control box 26)(fig.2)(i.e. controller 102)(fig.10)(refer also to [0103]) for an application device (refer to applicator head 1)(figs.1, 2, and 10) for applying a flowable medium onto a substrate (refer to [0083]), in particular a hotmelt adhesive (refer to [0083]), wherein the application device is provided with a discharge valve (13) (i.e. solenoid valve 2)(figs.1 and 10) comprising a closure member (inherent)(solenoid 2 inherently has a closure member), wherein the closure member is movable by an electromagnet of the discharge valve (inherent)(i.e. solenoid valve inherently has a electromagnet which is used to move a closure member) from a closing position to an open position (implicit), and wherein the application device comprises a main control unit (17) (refer to input signal line 46)(fig.2)(refer also to [0093]), which is connected to the discharge valve (13) (implicit), and wherein the modification unit (19) (i.e. control box 26)(fig.2)(i.e. controller 102)(fig.10)(refer also to [0103]) is configured such that the modification unit can be arranged between the main control unit (17) and the discharge valve (13) (implicit)(refer to fig.2), receives output voltage signals from the main control unit (17) (refer to input signal line 46)(fig.2)(refer also to 24 V power and discharge signal 200)(fig.10), modifies these signals, and relays these signals in a modified form to the electromagnet (implicit)(refer to 24 V signal)(fig.10)(refer also to [0111] and figure 11); however, Lingier does not teach the closure member which, in an open position, releases a metering opening of the discharge valve, such that the flowable medium can flow through the metering opening in the direction of the substrate, the closing position, in which the discharge valve (13) closes the metering opening; the main control unit is namely a PLC (programmable logic controller) and which delivers electrical output voltage signals, in a periodic manner, for the controlled voltage supply of the electromagnet, which signals move the closure member to the open position and maintain the closure member in this position. Evans teaches the closure member (i.e. valve stem 22)(fig.1) which, in an open position, releases a metering opening of the discharge valve (refer to [0029]), such that the flowable medium can flow through the metering opening in the direction of the substrate (refer to [0029]), the closing position, in which the discharge valve (13) closes the metering opening (refer to [0029]); the main control unit which delivers electrical output voltage signals (refer to trigger 100)(figs.1 and 3), in a periodic manner (refer to trigger 100)(figs.1 and 3), for the controlled voltage supply of the electromagnet (refer to trigger 100)(figs.1 and 3), which signals move the closure member to the open position and maintain the closure member in this position (refer to [0029]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application device of Lingier to include the discharge valve control of Evans to provide the advantage of applying a holding signal after a period of time to keep the valve open while using less power, thereby making the application device more efficient and prolonging the life of the discharge valve. However, Lingier and Evans do not teach the main control unit is namely a PLC (programmable logic controller). However, Magyar teaches (refer to [0040]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application device of Lingier and Evans to include the PLC of Magyar to provide the advantage of using a durable, cost-effective, and reliable type of controller.
Regarding claim 16, Lingier, Evans, and Magyar teach the modification unit as claimed in claim 15, wherein the main control unit (17) is configured such that, for each movement of the closure member from the closing position to the open position, the main control unit (17) respectively generates an output voltage signal having a constant voltage amplitude of a magnitude greater than zero (refer to Evans trigger 100)(figs.1 and 3), which is sufficient to move the closure member, by the action of the electromagnets, from the closing position to the open position (implicit), and in that the modification unit (19) is configured such that the modification unit (19) modifies each of these output voltage signals during a modification time interval (22) (refer to Evans figure 3), namely, either over the entire signal duration of the respective output voltage signal or over a fractional time interval of the signal duration of the respective output voltage signal (refer to Evans fig.3), by the timing of the respective output voltage signal during the modification time interval (22) (implicit)(refer to Evans fig.3), such that the mean voltage amplitude of the respective output voltage signal over the modification time interval (22) is lower than would be the case, were the respective output voltage signal not be modified (implicit)(refer to Evans square waveform 186)(fig.3).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingier, Evans, and Magyar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lingier European Patent Document EP 2638978 A1 (hereinafter “Lingier2”).
Regarding claim 14, Lingier, Evans, and Magyar teach the application device as claimed in claim 1; however, they do not teach wherein the main control unit (17) is configured such that it energizes the output voltage signals with an additional minimum voltage, for the supply of energy to the modification unit (19). However, Lingier2 teaches wherein the main control unit (17) is configured such that it energizes the output voltage signals with an additional minimum voltage, for the supply of energy to the modification unit (19) (refer to [0037]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application device of Lingier, Evans, and Magyar to include the additional minimum voltage of Lingier2 to provide the advantage of ensuring operation of the modification unit event when the energy supply from the main control unit fails (refer to Lingier2 [0037]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Thienvu V. Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838