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 .
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 19-20 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first surface and second surface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is rejected for depending from indefinite claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-13, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawano et al. (US 2016/0216016).
Regarding claim 1, Kawano teaches a barrel (11) for an adhesive spray nozzle (par. 20; fig. 1 – the disclosed apparatus is directed to a nozzle for atomizing fluid; therefore, it can be used to spray adhesive) comprising:
an adhesive conduit (32/41) comprising an inlet (fig. 1 – opening of 32);
a barrel conduit (42) in fluid communication with the adhesive conduit (fig. 1);
a tip portion (fig. 1 – cylindrical portion of 42) comprising an outlet (42q);
a flow path passing from the inlet, through the adhesive conduit, into the barrel conduit, and into the tip portion to the outlet (fig. 1);
wherein the flow path is restricted between the adhesive conduit and the barrel conduit to restrict the flow of a pressurized adhesive (fig. 1 – at 44; see also annotated figure).
Regarding claim 2, Kawano teaches the barrel described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the adhesive conduit comprises an inner surface that narrows to a slit to restrict the flow path between the adhesive conduit and the barrel conduit (see annotated figure).
Regarding claim 3, Kawano teaches the barrel described regarding claim 2, and further wherein the slit is formed between a first surface and a second surface, wherein the slit comprises a horizontal axis and a vertical axis (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kawano teaches the barrel described regarding claim 3, and further wherein the slit has a uniform width (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Kawano teaches the barrel described regarding claim 3, and further wherein the first surface and second surface are curved surfaces (annotated figure).
Regarding claim 10, Kawano teaches the barrel described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the barrel conduit comprises a center axis A (fig. 1 – “O”), wherein the adhesive conduit is positioned at an angle to axis A (annotated figure).
Regarding claim 11, Kawano teaches the barrel described regarding claim 10, and further wherein the adhesive conduit is perpendicular to center axis A (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Kawano teaches the barrel described regarding claim 10, and further wherein the barrel conduit is sized to receive a needle member along center axis A (fig. 1). This claim does not positively recite the needle member, but only further limits the barrel conduit to being capable of receiving a needle member. The barrel conduit of Kawano is capable of performing this recited function with any needle member having a size that is smaller than the barrel conduit.
Regarding claim 13, Kawano teaches the barrel described regarding claim 12, and further wherein the barrel conduit comprises surfaces configured to seal against the needle member to shut off the flow of a pressurized adhesive (annotated figure).
Regarding claim 16, Kawano teaches a barrel (11) for an adhesive spray nozzle (par. 20; fig. 1 – the disclosed apparatus is directed to a nozzle for atomizing fluid; therefore, it can be used to spray adhesive) comprising:
an adhesive conduit (32/41) comprising an inlet (fig. 1 – opening of 32) and an inner surface (annotated figure);
a barrel conduit (42) in fluid communication with the adhesive conduit (fig. 1), wherein the barrel conduit: is sized to receive a needle member along a center axis A (axis “O”, see fig. 1; this limitation does not positively recite the needle member, but only further limits the barrel conduit to being capable of receiving a needle member, and the barrel conduit of Kawano is capable of performing this recited function with any needle member having a size that is smaller than the barrel conduit); and comprises surfaces configured to seal against the needle member to shut off the flow of a pressurized adhesive (see annotated figure);
a tip portion (fig. 1 – cylindrical portion of 42) comprising an outlet (42q);
a flow path passing from the inlet, through the adhesive conduit, into the barrel conduit, and into the tip portion to the outlet (fig. 1);
wherein the adhesive conduit is positioned at an angle to center axis A and the inner surface of the adhesive conduit narrows to a slit to restrict the flow path between the adhesive conduit and the barrel conduit (see annotated figure).
Regarding claim 18, Kawano teaches the barrel described regarding claim 16, and further wherein the slit has a uniform width (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Kawano teaches the barrel described regarding claim 16, and further wherein the first surface and second surface are curved surfaces (annotated figure).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4-6, 9, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano.
Regarding claim 4, Kawano discloses the barrel described regarding claim 3, with the exception of specific dimensions for the widest distance D6 along the vertical axis between the first surface and the second surface. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a range from 0.0762 cm to 0.127 cm for the widest distance D6 along the vertical axis between the first surface and the second surface since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 5, Kawano discloses the barrel described regarding claim 3, with the exception of specific dimensions for a narrowest distance D5 along the vertical axis between the first surface and the second surface. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a range from 0.0635 cm to 0.0889 cm for the narrowest distance D5 along the vertical axis between the first surface and the second surface since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 6, Kawano discloses the barrel described regarding claim 3, with the exception of specific dimensions for a distance D4 along the horizontal axis. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a range from 0.381 cm to 0.635 cm for the distance D4 along the horizontal axis since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 9, Kawano discloses the barrel described regarding claim 8, and further wherein the first surface comprises a radius RA (par. 89 – nozzle 40 is tubular; therefore, it must have a radius) and the second surface comprises a radius RB (par. 89 – nozzle 41 forms an annular space; therefore, it must have a radius), but not the specific dimensions for these radii. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a range from 0.254 cm to 0.508 cm for the radius RA, and a range from 0.254 cm to 0.508 cm for the radius RB since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 15, Kawano discloses the barrel described regarding claim 13, and further wherein the adhesive conduit comprises an inner surface that narrows to a slit (see annotated figure) to restrict the flow path between the adhesive conduit and the barrel conduit (fig. 1), wherein the slit is formed between a first surface and a second surface (see annotated figure), and wherein the slit is circular in shape where it intersects with the barrel conduit (fig. 1 and par. 89 – nozzle 40 is tubular and nozzle 41 is annular around nozzle 40). But Kawano does not disclose wherein the slit is semicircular in shape where it intersects with the barrel conduit. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the slit semicircular, since it has been held that a change in the shape of the element involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, such a change would be obvious in view of the circular slit described by Kawano since it would require modifying the barrel of Kawano such that the nozzle 41 is not formed to completely surround nozzle 40.
Regarding claim 17, Kawano discloses the barrel described regarding claim 16, and further wherein the slit is formed between a first surface and a second surface (see annotated figure), wherein the slit comprises a horizontal axis and a vertical axis (see annotated figure), but not the specific dimensions for a widest distance D6 along the vertical axis between the first surface and the second surface, a narrowest distance D5 along the vertical axis between the first surface and the second surface, and a distance D4 along the horizontal axis. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a range from 0.0762 cm to 0.127 cm for the widest distance D6 along the vertical axis between the first surface and the second surface, and a range from 0.0635 cm to 0.0889 cm for the narrowest distance D5 along the vertical axis between the first surface and the second surface, and a range from 0.381 cm to 0.635 cm for the distance D4 along the horizontal axis since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 20, Kawano discloses the barrel described regarding claim 19, and further wherein the first surface comprises a radius RA (par. 89 – nozzle 40 is tubular; therefore, it must have a radius) and the second surface comprises a radius RB (par. 89 – nozzle 41 forms an annular space; therefore, it must have a radius), but not the specific dimensions for these radii. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a range from 0.254 cm to 0.508 cm for the radius RA, and a range from 0.254 cm to 0.508 cm for the radius RB since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano in view of Sato et al. (US 2019/0091707).
Regarding claim 14, Kawano discloses the barrel described regarding claim 13, and further wherein the barrel conduit comprises a conical portion (42p), wherein the conical portion comprises the surfaces configured to seal against the needle member (fig. 1), but Kawano does not disclose a cylindrical inner surface that tapers to the conical portion.
Sato teaches a barrel (20) comprising an adhesive conduit (21a) and a barrel conduit (21b/22), and wherein the barrel conduit comprises a cylindrical inner surface (fig. 3 – left portion of 22 that is cylindrical) that tapers to a conical portion (fig. 3 – right portion of 22 that is conical), wherein the conical portion comprises surfaces configured to seal against a needle member (23, see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the barrel of Kawano to further include cylindrical inner surface that tapers to the conical portion, as described by Sato, since this was a known arrangement for providing a needle member in a barrel to control flow through the flow path.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chapin (US 3,034,731), George et al. (US 3,186,643), Hoey et al. (US 5,248,096), Nysted (US 4,330,086), Morimoto et al. (US 5,996,902) all disclose barrels having elements of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752