Detailed Office Action
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/24/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 is amended. New claim 12 is added. Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-12 remain pending
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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s argument regarding 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claim 11 is persuasive. This rejection is withdrawn.
Amendment to the independent claim 1 is noted. This amendment overcomes the primary art of FORT. No other prior art discloses that the gluing failure is detected based on a light receiving position of received light from a bonded portion side of the board base paper. Therefore, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8 and 11 are allowed.
Addition of the new independent claim 12 is noted. This claim is rejected below.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FORT (US-2017/0284844), hereinafter FORT. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 12, FORT discloses A glue supply apparatus for a gypsum board for supplying glue to a board base paper of the gypsum board {[abstract]}.
The Examiner notes that the preamble limitation of “for a gypsum board for supplying glue to a board base paper of the gypsum board” is the intended use of the glue supply apparatus and does not impart patentability to the glue apparatus itself {see MPEP 2111.02 (Il)}. Furthermore, the limitation “gypsum board” and “board base paper” are materials or articles acted upon by the glue apparatus and thus they do not limit the apparatus claim (see MPEP 2115)
the glue supply apparatus comprising: a tank section configured to store the glue {[FIG. 1] adhesive tank 22};
at least one supply port disposed near an end of the board base paper of the gypsum board and configured to supply the glue {[FIG. 1] dispensing modules 54 and note the discussion above regarding gypsum board and paper being articles acted upon};
at least one pump section disposed on a glue supply path between the tank section and the supply port {[FIG. 1] pump 58},
a controller configured to: receive a signal indicating that a gluing failure at a bonded portion of the board base paper is detected {[0007] note controller in communication with flow meter, thus receiving a signal, [0057] note operational defect that is the reduced flow which is considered a failure},
wherein the pump section is a positive displacement pump {[0029]}.
FORT, however, is explicitly silent on the controller being configured to output, in response to receiving the signal, a command to control the pump section to increase a supply rate at which the glue is supplied from the tank section to the supply port upon.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have increased the glue supply rate when a reduced flow as disclosed by FORT {[0057]} is detected. It is quite obvious that the remedy for overcoming a detected reduced flow is to configure the controller to increase the flow.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 11 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748