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 Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 12/11/2025. Claims 1-20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Application No. 18/422,784 requires two lined of adhesive and the instant application only requires one line. However, it is noted the instant claims recite only one line as being require, but do not limit adhesive coating of the third adhesive to ONLY one line. Further, for reasons below, the Examiner considers the general pattern of adhesive coating in an area, e.g. one line or two lines etc., as generally being a deposition choice that has no effect on the process if adhesives quantities, deposition location, and deposition method are all known.
Applicant argues a third adhesive would not have been applied as claimed, but does not appear to directly address the logic of the rejection. Applicant argues Tyler (US 2005/0102940) in teaching adhesive application to the frame to be attached to the second skin, teaches away from application to the second skin instead of the frame. Examiner respectfully disagrees. However, "[a] reference does not teach away…if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not 'criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage' investigation into the invention claimed." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Tyler teaches application to the frame, but does not teach this is the only method of applying adhesive between the frame and skin, nor does he discourage application of adhesive to the skin.
It is clear the adhesive on the frame and core is sandwiched between the core and frame and the second door skin and other processes known in the prior art teach application directly to the second door skin. Thus, unless Applicant can articulate a specific advantage, coating the skin as opposed to the frame and core appears to be nothing more than a functionally equivalent method of applying the adhesive between the frame/core and then second skin that would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. It would have been apparent coating the skin in the same locations relative to the final bonding location when coating the frame and core would have disposed the final adhesive equivalently. Applicant states nothing to refute this.
Further, with regard to any specific adhesive pattern (and note nothing other than perimeter coating is really claimed), it is known adhesive application can occur by a variety of different methods and in different patterns to achieve the same effect of applying adhesive to bond the frame/core to the skin. The Examiner submits known methods of applying adhesive in known locations and in known quantities are obvious if the specific pattern applied by those methods could have been applied by the known disposition methods to achieve the desired quantities in the desired locations, and if there is no evidence the disposition pattern has any effect irrespective of quantity and location. Thus, the exact pattern of disposition applied by known methods to achieve known quantities in known locations is not considered inventive on its own unless there is some evidence the pattern itself has some utility distinct from the coating method, coating quantity, and coating location. Adhesives coating variations in a specific location to achieve a specific quantity are well-known and are considered design choices in adhesive deposition to achieve desired coating weight in a desired area. Such coating variations cannot be considered inventive on their own unless it is demonstrated the deposition variation has some process effect other than merely applying adhesive in a desired location at a desired quantity. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.); see also In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (indicating matters relating to design only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art).
Tyler teaches the adhesive may be coated selectively around the perimeter frame and/or on the core (See page 4, paragraph [0034], indicating “[p]ortions of the perimeter frame P and/or core C may be selectively coated by adjusting spray headers or other coating device used for applying the adhesive” wherein the core is optional, see page 3, paragraph [0032], thus making abundantly to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the frame forms the secure connection and any adhesive on the core is merely supplementary to the structural frame connection to ensure the core remains locked in place) and further indicates adhesive coating of skin is adjustable for selective coating of the interior surface portion in desired areas and in desired amounts (See page 3, paragraph [0028]-[0029], indicating multiple nozzles may apply an “even coat or adhesive” or “may be adjusted for selectively coating portions of the interior surface” of the skin wherein “[t]he width and thickness of the adhesive applied may also be adjusted depending on the desired amount of adhesive and/or the width of the door being assembled”).
This suggests adhesive application is highly variable in amount, pattern, shape, etc. based on need and that the frame and core components may be coated in separate steps or separate amounts, which would have been desirable to apply different quantities to different areas to achieve desired bonding in desired locations for the structural bonding amount required for the frame and the supplementary amount to stabilize the core. As stated above, it would have been apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that a strong bond to the frame is more important to bonding stability than strong bonding to the core since the frame defines the perimeter bond and the core need not exist at all. This provides motivation to separately coat the frame area to dispose the require bonding adhesive in this area.
As stated above, similar coating as is taught on the frame and core in Tyler may have predictably been applied as a functionally equivalent alternative to the skin in same desired quantities/patterns thereon so achieve the exactly same deposition of adhesive between the frame/core and second skin as is desired for bonding (See, for example, Liang et al., US 2012/0027999, pages 3-4, paragraphs [0041]-[0045], teaching a process wherein after the frame and core are bonded to one skin, adhesive for bonding the second skin, referred to as the top door skin, is applied directly to the skin so as to effect bonding to the frame and core). Thus, if the perimeter of the skin bonds to the frame, adhesive could have predictably been coated on the frame itself, or on the perimeter of the skin to be bonded to the frame, in order to bonding the adhesive between the frame and skin with equivalent effect. This bonding is bonding on an edge as claimed. As stated above, the perimeter region, i.e. edge, would have predictably been coated separately form the core region in order to dispose a desired amount of bonding adhesive here where it is more essentially, thus saving costs by using less in the core region, where it is less necessary.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/422,784 in view of Stroup et al. (US 2005/0028921), Tyler (US 2005/0102940) and Liang (US 2012/0027999).
Application No. 18/422,784 claims all major aspects recited in the instant claims except pressing the half door, applying a second adhesive, and using a hot melt. However, pressing half doors is known in door making (See, for example, Stroup, page 5, paragraph [0044]), and the PUR reactive adhesives such as are claimed in Application No. 18/422,784 are typically hot melts (See page 4, paragraph [0040]). Examiner notes a line as claimed does not exclude further lines and the two beads in Application No. 18/422,784 is more specific and thus reads on the instant claims. Further, the exact pattern of adhesive coating alone is normally not considered invention when it only deposes a desired adhesive amount in a desired location. Examiner also notes the second adhesive need not be applied after pressing and if the core is applied prior to half door pressing, any adhesive attaching the core is a second adhesive, and nothing in the claims prevents this order because nothing mandates the applying of the second adhesive or the positioning of the core inserts must occur after pressing the half door. Note applying adhesive to the first skin for bonding core insert parts after bonding the frame is known and obvious (See, for example, Tyler, page 3, paragraph [0032], teaching a core applied to adhesive on the skin at a fifth station after applying the frame at a fourth station).
All further aspects of the claims are also claimed in Application No. 18/422,784 or are known process variations in door making as described in more detail below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-20 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 1 recites “wherein the third adhesive is applied as a line positioned on a center line of the edge along the length of the application area; ….” The word “edge” would appear to refer to a furthermost area on a surface of a substrate, i.e. the interior surface of the second door skin. It is unclear what is mean by “a center line or the edge” and this would appear to not make sense since an edge is a furthest location and would appear to have no center. A defined “edge area” may have a center but it is unclear how an edge can have a center and no “edge area” is defined. Examiner further notes “application area” has no antecedent basis and is unclear. Examiner assumes this refers to the exact location in which the third adhesive is initially deposited, but the term “application are” should be defined when it is initially introduce so there is no confusion. Examiner assumes the third adhesive is slightly spaced from the edge, possibly centered relative to the opposed frame, but the claim certainly does not state this.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
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) 1-5 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroup et al. (US 2005/0028921) in view of Tyler (US 2005/0102940) and Liang (US 2012/0027999).
Regarding Claims 1, 2 and 5, Stroup et al. teaches a method of assembling a door (See Abstract), comprising:
applying a first adhesive to a first surface of a frame including first surfaces of plural stiles and rails (See page 3, paragraph [0033] and page 4, paragraph [0041], wherein adhesive is roller coated onto the frame, form from stiles and rails);
assembling the first surface of the frame, including the stiles and rails, on an interior surface of a first door skin to assemble a half door, wherein the first adhesive is a hot melt adhesive configured to achieve green strength within a predetermined time to prevent movement of components relative to one another (See page 4, paragraph [0040], wherein the adhesive attaching the frame and skin is a hot melt polyurethane (PUR) reactive adhesive that has a setting time of less than 5 seconds, wherein such setting causes bonding and thus creates a green strength to prevent movement within a predetermined time as claimed);
pressing the half door (See page 5, paragraph [0044]);
applying a second adhesive;
positioning a first surface of one or more core inserts, lock blocks or locking component with the second adhesive on interior surface of the first door skin (See page 5, paragraph [0046]-[0049], wherein lock blocks and core are added to the first door skin via a second adhesive applied between the lock blocks and core, respectively, and the first door skin);
applying a third adhesive to an interior surface of a second door skin or to a second surface of the frame and the one or more core inserts, lock blocks or locking components placing the second door skin on the frame to form a complete door assembly (See page 5, paragraph [0048] and page 5, paragraphs [0054]-[0055], wherein adhesive is coated on the frame; note although it is not explicit the adhesive is also coated on the core, this is well-known and standard when using a solid core; see, for example, Tyler, page 4, paragraph [0034], teaching the frame and/or core may be coated with adhesive and thus making it at least obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to coat the frame and core with adhesive for superior bonding); and
pressing the complete door assembly (See page 6, paragraph [0056]).
Stroup teaches applying the adhesive to the lock blocks, and presumably any solid core, directly before applying them to first skin in a process separate from the adhesive application to the frame and after pressing the frame of the first skin. Stroup fails to teach applying a second adhesive to the interior surface of the first door skin. However, adhesive application in selective locations on a door skin is well-known (See, for example, Liang et al., pages 3-4, paragraphs [0040]-[0041], teaching adhesive is coated via nozzles in various glue patterns on the door skin; and/or Tyler, page 3, paragraph [0028], teaching selectively coating of adhesive on the door skin is known and suitable), as is applying adhesive to the first skin for bonding core insert parts after bonding the frame (See, for example, Tyler, page 3, paragraph [0032], teaching a core applied to adhesive on the skin at a fifth station after applying the frame at a fourth station). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that instead of coating the lock blocks and core with adhesives, the interior of the first skin could have been selectively coated with adhesive in the locations where the lock blocks and core are to be disposed. Such selective adhesive coating of the interior of the door skin would have predictably been a suitable alternative method of causing adhesive bonding of the lock blocks and core to the door skin following half frame pressing. Coating after pressing the half door would have ensured the adhesive remains uncured and easily bondable since the core and lock block are only added after pressing.
As described above, Stroup teaches applying the third adhesive to the frame to dispose the adhesive between the frame and second skin, but fails to teach applying the adhesive to the second skin as claimed. Although Stroup does not specifically teach coating the second skin directly, and instead coats the frame and core to bond the second skin, it would have been apparent coating the second skin with similar adhesive quantities as are desired in the area of the frame and core would have had a similar bonding effect since it would have disposed adhesive in the same areas between the frame, core and second skin. The Examiner notes selective coating of the frame and core is known, such as adjusting adhesive between coating each (See Tyler, page 4, paragraph [0034]). Examiner submits separate coating of the adhesive for the frame and core is desirable since the frame adhesive is structural for the door and the core adhesive is merely to secure the core but not structurally hold the door. Thus, coating the frame area adhesive and the core separately would have predictably allowed a strong structural bond on the frame while allowing cost savings on adhesive in the core area where less adhesive is required.
Further, such adhesive coating of the subsequently applied skin so as to effect bonding to the frame and core is well-known in similar door making processes, and thus predictably a suitable alternative for adhesive bonding the second door skin to the frame and core to adhesive coating the frame and core (See, for example, Liang et al., pages 3-4, paragraphs [0041]-[0045], teaching a process wherein after the frame and core are bonded to one skin, adhesive for bonding the second skin, referred to as the top door skin, is applied directly to the skin so as to effect bonding to the frame and core). This means if the perimeter of the skin bonds to the frame, such as in Stroup, adhesive could have predictably been coated on the frame itself, or on the perimeter of the skin to be bonded to the frame, in order to bonding the adhesive between the frame and skin to equivalent effect.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to coat the perimeter of the second skin in Stroup with any known deposition methods to apply the desired adhesive in the desired location between the skin and frame. Doing so would have predictably been a suitable and functional equivalent alternative method of adhesively bonding the skin to the frame while securing a more secure bond to the frame and reducing adhesive supply to the core where it is less necessary, thus saving costs.
Examiner notes, as described above, adhesive application methods are highly variable and may occur in a wide variety of desired pattern to equivalent effect to depose a desired amount of adhesive between the desired materials to be bonded, i.e. the fame and skin. There is no indication in the instant specification or in the prior art that the specific coating pattern of adhesive, whether applied via spraying or beads, has any effect on bonding other than to applied a desired amount of adhesive in desired areas. As such, such Examiner submits a perimeter line would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention as suitable deposition in known bead coatings processes used in such application to produce a desired coating volume of the adhesive on the frame after pressing. It is further noted changes in configuration are a matter of choice and are considered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966). Note when coating in one location to spread over a surface, such as a bead to spread over a frame when the frame is applied, is well known to apply in a central location to minimize adhesive squeeze out while maximizing surface coverage, thus saving costs and maximizing bond strength.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Stroup teaches roll coating the frame (See page 4, paragraph [0041]), which implies or at least renders obvious the application of a continuous layer of adhesive. Such a continuous coating layer creates a film layer, and thus is considered a film coating. Note nothing indicates parts of the frame should remain uncoated and thus coating the entire surface of the frame would have been at least obvious to implement a secure bond over this surface.
Regarding Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 15 and 20, Stroup et al. teaches robotic assembling all components of the system including assembling the stiles and rails into the frame, placing the lock blocks and core onto the first skin, and applying the adhesive in beads via a “programmable glue gun” (See page 3, paragraph [0035] and page 5, paragraphs [00047]-[0048]). Although robotic placement of the core and robotic control of the glue gun is not explicit, robotic lock block placement is explicit as is the teaching the process is automated by robotic control. Further, adhesive bead placement in multiple lines in any desired arrangement is well-known in door skin bonding (See, for example, Liang et al., page 3-4, paragraphs [0040]-[0043], teaching adhesive bead placement in door skin in lines or in any pattern as desired such as lines, wavy lines, web patterns, dots, checkered patterns, etc.). Thus, it can be inferred, or at least would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the entire process is automated and all component placement is robotically automated, including the movement of the programmable glue gun over door skins so as to enable a high degree of freedom in automated placement of components and adjustable application of adhesive as desired throughout the system, such as single or plural beads line along the skin or core.
Regarding Claim 9, Stroup et al. teaches the half door may be pressed at up to 100 psi (See page 5, paragraph [0044]).
Regarding Claims 12-13, in similar automated door making processes to Stroup, Liang et al. teaches applying similar adhesives in beads via nozzles that may dispense any glue pattern as desired to achieve an overall 0.042-0.24 g/in2 coating weight over the frame (See, for example, Liang et al., pages 3-4, paragraph [0036] and paragraphs [0040]-[0041], teaching 6 to 35 g/sft, which is 0.042-0.24 g/in2, wherein the adhesive may be coated in a variety of method including spraying or bead coatings in a variety of selective patterns, including lines, wavy lines, dots, webs, checkers, etc.). It would have been apparent the unit coating weight of the bead should be higher than the coating weight of the adhesive over the frame since the bead will spread out over a larger area during bonding. Thus, since, as described above, the specific pattern is not limited, it would have been an obvious design choice to bead coat the frame in any suitable bead pattern the produces the desired coating weight on the frame after bonding. Examiner submits beads with 0.15-0.30 g/in and heights of 0.06 to 0.09 inches could easily be adapted to the desired coating weight over the entire surface if the beads are applied in patterns that cover the skin at the desired coating weight. Further, example, beads of 0.15-0.30 g/in applied over a desired coverage width area of 2 inches will provide a coating weight range of 0.075-0.15 g/in2, well within known desired adhesive coverage for door bonding. Thus, Examiner submits the claimed bead size, unit weight, and pattern (e.g. straight lines, checkers, wavy lines, dots, dashes or broken lines) would have been obvious selections in bead coating to produce the desired adhesive coating over the frame such as in known in door bonding. As such, such beads would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention as suitable beads to produce a desired coating weight of the adhesive on the frame after pressing. Note changes in shape are a matter of choice and are considered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966).
Further, regarding Claims 14-17, it is clear core materials, which are optional, are not limited by structure, material, or number of components (See Stroup, page 5, paragraphs [0045] and [0049], indicating lock blocks and core material may be used as core inserts, indicating they may not be, and that the materials are variable, e.g. solid wood, fiber board, particleboard, foam, plastic). Further, it is well known door include recesses for decorative effect (See, for example, Liang et al., Fig. 3A, wherein the square and rectangles illustrated on the door are recesses within the skin). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include core materials, singularly or in plural, so as to fill the interior portion of the door as desired, including recesses. Such cores could be added for a multitude of well-known purposes from structural support to thermal and acoustic insulations. Note whether the core is integral or in pieces is a design choice not considered to be an inventive distinction. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”). The arrangement of adhesive is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Stroup teaches the general assembly process of both skins on the frame and core may be 200 seconds or less in automated assembly, but is clearly variable within a desired range (See page 6, paragraph [0058], indicating the process may be long or it may be 200 seconds or less or as low as 12 seconds or less), which suggest each step may also occur over variable times. Examiner submits variations in process times would have been expected based on designed expectations, and absent a significant differentiation or unexpected result, such time variations are considered standard and obvious. Specifically, longer times may allow for more precision in manufacture while shorter times allow larger production, and thus varying times based on design need is considered an obvious process choice to optimize the process as desired. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Further, Stroup teaches placing the second door skin via a vacuum suction pick and place device (See page 6, paragraph [0055]). Although no pressure is taught explicitly, it is clear some attachment pressure must be present. Further, Examiner submits light pressure, such as 2-3 psi, would have at least been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to ensure a secure bond via press placement. Examiner submits a 2-3 psi placement pressure would have predictably compressed adhesive beads, thus creating secure attachment, but not caused a large process barrier such as may occur with higher pressures. Doing so would have ensured the placement is secure so the during subsequently pressing as higher pressures within the press, the skin is assured to be correctly located.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroup et al., Tyler and Liang as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Technomelt PUR 763A Technical Data Sheet, October 2013 (hereinafter “Technomelt”).
Regarding Claim 6, Stroup et al., Tyler and Liang teach the method of Claim 1 as described above. Stroup et al. further teaches the setting time may be varied from less than 5 minutes to as low as 10 seconds, indicating setting times to be varied (See page 4, paragraph [0040]). It is well known the quicker setting times, which secures the adhesive strength, also reduce open times, which is suitable tackiness for bonding. In similar door bonding adhesives, the open time is known to be varied and may be less than a minute or much longer depending on the formulation of the specific adhesive (See, for example, Tyler, page 3, paragraph [0028]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that while reducing setting time allows the bond to be secured quickly, extending open time provides a longer window for bonding. Since the specification teaches that the adhesive’s setting time can be varied, it would have been obvious that the open time could likewise be adjusted within a similar timeframe. Thus, for adhesives that set in under five minutes, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to provide an open time of about three to four minutes to balance bonding flexibility with fast strength development, thus allowing more time to secure pieces for bonding if desired.
Further regarding Claim 6, the viscosity of hot-melt PUR adhesives is readily controllable by adjusting application temperature or using rheology modifiers, such as within the claimed range. Examiner notes lower viscosities (i.e. higher temperature adhesive) allow for better penetration but lower coating accuracy since the coated viscosity is less likely to flow while higher viscosity will not penetrate substrates as well, but will retain form where coated. It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). It would have been apparent a viscosity of about 9,500 cP, which is similar to that of molasses at room temperature, would have predictably been a suitable coating viscosity, remaining fluid enough for uniform transfer and wetting while being sufficiently viscous to remain on the surface where placed. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use routine experimentation to arrive at the best viscosity for the adhesive, such as that which is claimed, in order to achieve desired coating so as to meet customer specifications or consumer demands.
The cited reference provides no information about application temperatures and thus known application temperature for similar adhesives would have predictably been relevant. However, similar polyurethane hot melt adhesives are known to be coated in the claimed temperature range (See, for example, Technomelt, Application section, teaching a reactive polyurethane hot melt adhesive is suitable applied at 265-285 F). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary to apply any known hot melt reactive polyurethane adhesive as the hot melt reactive polyurethane adhesive in Stroup at the conditions suitable for application, such as 265-285 F. Such adhesives and application conditions would have predictably been suitable for the application of the hot melt reactive polyurethane adhesive described in Stroup.
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 SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights