DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Elections/Restrictions
2. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 06/12/2026 with traverse of Group I, species I-1, claims 1-13 for further examination. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
3. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/12/2026. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, species I-1, claims 1-13. The traversal is on the grounds that The Examiner has not articulated how the process of Invention II can be practiced by an apparatus that is different from the apparatus of Invention I, let alone materially different. Rather, the Examiner relies on different claims of the same Invention I and the Examiner erred by simply grouping Claims 1-18 into alleged species. This is not found persuasive because the two species are characterized as separate and distinct subjects for inventive efforts. Species I-1, claims 1-13, are drawn to a system for applying viscous material to a fastener, the system comprising: a carrier that supports the viscous material; a dispenser that dispenses the viscous material on the carrier; and an applicator that supports at least one of the carrier and the fastener and transfers a portion of the viscous material from the carrier to the fastener. Species I-2, Claims 14-18, are drawn to a system for applying viscous material to a fastener, the system comprising: a carrier that supports the viscous material; a dispenser that dispenses the viscous material on the carrier; an end effector that manipulates the fastener; a robotic arm that moves the end effector relative to the carrier; and a carrier-support that supports the carrier during transfer of a portion of the viscous material from the carrier to the fastener, wherein the carrier is movable relative to the dispenser and the carrier-support.
Thus, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record (differences bolded above) as it is recognized that apparatus species containing different structural components and/or different combinations of structural components with different functional limitations are characterized as separate and distinct subject for inventive efforts. As stated in the Office action dated 06/05/2026, this application contains claims directed to two patentably distinct species of the claimed invention as recited in claims 1-13 & 14-18, respectively, wherein the process as claimed can be practiced by the two distinct apparatus/species as recited in claims 1-13 & 14-18.
Thus far, applicant has not proved or provided convincing argument that there is no material difference between the two apparatus/species on the record. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2023, 10/27/2023, 05/10/2024 & 09/09/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections
5. 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 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.
6. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-8 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider (US 2022/0041895 A1) hereinafter Schneider (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Schneider are included between parentheses).
Regarding claims 1-13, the recitation “fastener”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Schneider since Schneider meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of applying viscous material to a fastener, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 1, Schneider discloses a system for applying viscous material (32) to a fastener (abs; fig 1-6), comprising: a carrier (46) that supports the viscous material (32); a dispenser (18) that dispenses the viscous material (32) on the carrier (46); and an applicator (10) that supports the carrier (46) and capable of transfering a portion of the viscous material (32) from the carrier (46) to the fastener ([0002]; [0010]-[0016]; fig 1-6; clm 1 & 16).
As regards to claim 2, Schneider discloses a system (abs; fig 1-6), further comprising a feeder (operator cutting roll of tape at a selected indented recess, 34, 38 or 42) that moves the carrier (46) relative to the dispenser (18) and the applicator (10) ([0002]; [0010]-[0016]; fig 1-6; clm 1 & 16).
As regards to claim 3, Schneider discloses a system (abs; fig 1-6), wherein: the carrier (46) comprises a continuous length of tape (see fig 2); and the feeder (operator cutting roll of tape at a selected indented recess, 34, 38 or 42) comprises a roll (see fig 2) that stores the tape (see fig 2); and a feeder-drive (operator) that removes the tape (see fig 2) from the roll and moves the tape (see fig 2) relative to the dispenser (18) and the applicator (10) ([0002]; [0010]-[0016]; fig 1-6; clm 1 & 16).
Regarding claim 4, the recitation “incrementally progresses the tape relative to the applicator”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Schneider since Schneider meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of incrementally progressing the tape relative to the applicator, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 4, Schneider discloses a system (abs; fig 1-6), wherein the feeder-drive (operator) is capable of incrementally progressing the tape (see fig 2) relative to the applicator (10) ([0002]; [0010]-[0016]; fig 1-6; clm 1 & 16).
As regards to claim 5, Schneider discloses a system (abs; fig 1-6), wherein: the dispenser (18) comprises a canister (see fig 1) that holds the viscous material (32) and comprises an outlet (20a); a dispenser-drive (implicit of viscous material being dispensed) that forces the viscous material (32) from the canister and through the outlet (20a); and a nozzle (24) that is coupled to the outlet (20a) of the canister; and the nozzle (24) comprises a slot (see fig 3-6) that forms a strip of the viscous material (32) on the carrier (46) ([0002]; [0010]-[0016]; fig 1-6; clm 1 & 16).
Regarding claim 6, the recitation “greater than or equal to a fastener-width of the fastener”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Schneider since Schneider meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of being greater than or equal to a fastener-width of the fastener, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 6, Schneider discloses a system (abs; fig 1-6), wherein: the slot (see fig 3-6) comprises a slot-length (see fig 3-6); the slot-length (see fig 3-6) is capable of being greater than or equal to a fastener-width of the fastener; and the slot-length (see fig 3-6, length of 56) is less than a carrier-width of the carrier (46) ([0002]; [0010]-[0016]; fig 1-6; clm 1 & 16).
Regarding claim 7, the recitation “is selectively actuated to dispense the viscous material such that the strip of the viscous material has a strip-length; and the strip-length is greater than a fastener-length of the fastener”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Schneider since Schneider meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of being selectively actuated to dispense the viscous material such that the strip of the viscous material has a strip-length; and the strip-length is capable of being greater than a fastener-length of the fastener, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 7, Schneider discloses a system (abs; fig 1-6), wherein the dispenser-drive (implicit of viscous material being dispensed) is capable of being selectively actuated to dispense the viscous material (32) such that the strip (see fig 6) of the viscous material (32) has a strip-length (see fig 6); and the strip-length (see fig 6) is capable of being greater than a fastener-length of the fastener ([0002]; [0010]-[0016]; fig 1-6; clm 1 & 16).
Regarding claim 8, the recitation “the carrier is movable relative to the dispenser and a speed of movement of the carrier relative to the dispenser and a dispense-rate of the viscous material from the dispenser are selectively controlled to control a strip-thickness of the strip of the viscous material”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Schneider since Schneider meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the carrier movable relative to the dispenser and a speed of movement of the carrier relative to the dispenser and a dispense-rate of the viscous material from the dispenser are capable of being selectively controlled to control a strip-thickness of the strip of the viscous material, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 8, Schneider discloses a system (abs; fig 1-6), wherein the carrier (46) is capable of being moved relative to the dispenser (18) and a speed of movement of the carrier (46) relative to the dispenser (18) and a dispense-rate of the viscous material (32) from the dispenser (18) are capable of being selectively controlled to control a strip-thickness of the strip of the viscous material (32) ([0002]; [0010]-[0016]; fig 1-6; clm 1 & 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 of this title, 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.
10. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
11. Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bettuchi (US 2013/0282055 A1) hereinafter Bettuchi (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Bettuchi are included between parentheses).
Regarding claim 9, the recitation “that holds the fastener relative to the carrier… that selectively moves at least one of the gripper and the carrier toward or away from each other to apply the viscous material to the fastener”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over modified Schneider since modified Schneider meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of holding the fastener relative to the carrier and selectively moving at least one of the gripper and the carrier toward or away from each other to apply the viscous material to the fastener, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 9, Schneider discloses a system (abs; fig 1-6), the applicator (10), the carrier (46) to apply the viscous material (32) to the fastener ([0002]; [0010]-[0016]; fig 1-6; clm 1 & 16), however Schneider does not disclose a gripper that holds the fastener and an actuator that selectively moves at least one of the gripper and the carrier toward or away from each other.
Bettuchi discloses a system for applying viscous material (abs; fig 1-17), comprising a gripper (24) that is capable of holding a fastener and an actuator (14) that can selectively move the gripper (24) toward or away from the carrier ([0046]-[0048]; fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the applicator comprises: a gripper that holds the fastener relative to the carrier; and an actuator that selectively moves at least one of the gripper and the carrier toward or away from each other to apply the viscous material to the fastener in the system of Schneider, because Bettuchi teaches the use of a gripper (24) that is capable of holding a fastener and an actuator (14) that can selectively move the gripper (24) toward or away from the carrier to apply and confine sealant in a substantially uniform manner thereto ([0013]).
As regards to claim 10, Schneider discloses a system (abs; fig 1-6), the carrier (46) to apply the viscous material (32) ([0002]; [0010]-[0016]; fig 1-6; clm 1 & 16), however Schneider does not disclose wherein the actuator comprises a gripper-actuator that is coupled to the gripper and that moves the gripper.
Bettuchi discloses a system for applying viscous material (abs; fig 1-17), comprising a gripper (24) that is capable of holding a fastener and an actuator (14) that can selectively move the gripper (24) toward or away from the carrier wherein the actuator (14) comprises a gripper-actuator (see fig 1) that is coupled to the gripper (24) and that moves the gripper (24) ([0046]-[0048]; fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the actuator comprises a gripper-actuator that is coupled to the gripper and that moves the gripper relative to the carrier in the system of Schneider, because Bettuchi teaches the use of a gripper (24) that is capable of holding a fastener and an actuator (14) that can selectively move the gripper (24) toward or away from the carrier wherein the actuator (14) comprises a gripper-actuator (see fig 1) that is coupled to the gripper (24) and that moves the gripper (24) to apply and confine sealant in a substantially uniform manner thereto ([0013]).
As regards to claim 11, Schneider discloses a system (abs; fig 1-6), wherein the applicator (10) further comprises a carrier-support (34, 38 or 42) that positions the carrier (46) relative to the gripper (disclosed by Bettuchi, see clm 9-10 above) ([0002]; [0010]-[0016]; fig 1-6; clm 1 & 16).
As regards to claim 12, Schneider discloses a system (abs; fig 1-6), the carrier-support (34, 38 or 42) that positions the carrier (46) relative to the gripper (disclosed by Bettuchi, see clm 9-10 above) ([0002]; [0010]-[0016]; fig 1-6; clm 1 & 16), however Schneider does not disclose the actuator comprises a carrier-support-actuator that moves relative to the gripper ([0002]; [0010]-[0016]; fig 1-6; clm 1 & 16).
Bettuchi discloses a system for applying viscous material (abs; fig 1-17), comprising a gripper (24) that is capable of holding a fastener and an actuator (14) that can selectively move the gripper (24) toward or away from the carrier wherein the actuator (14) comprises a gripper-actuator (see fig 1) that is coupled to the gripper (24) and that moves the gripper (24), wherein the actuator (14) comprises a carrier-support-actuator (18) that moves relative to the gripper (24) ([0046]-[0048]; fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the actuator comprises a carrier-support-actuator that is coupled to the carrier-support and moves the carrier-support relative to the gripper in the system of Schneider, because Bettuchi teaches the use of a gripper (24) that is capable of holding a fastener and an actuator (14) that can selectively move the gripper (24) toward or away from the carrier wherein the actuator (14) comprises a gripper-actuator (see fig 1) that is coupled to the gripper (24) and that moves the gripper (24)
wherein the actuator (14) comprises a carrier-support-actuator (18) that is coupled to the carrier-support and moves the carrier-support relative to the gripper 24
to apply and confine sealant in a substantially uniform manner thereto ([0013]).
As regards to claim 13, Schneider discloses a system (abs; fig 1-6), further comprising a sensor that detects at least one of the viscous material (32) on the carrier (46) and the viscous material (32) on the fastener ([0002]; [0010]-[0016]; fig 1-6; clm 1 & 16), however Schneider does not disclose a sensor that detects the viscous material.
Bettuchi discloses a system for applying viscous material (abs; fig 1-17), comprising a sensor that detects the viscous material ([0079]). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a sensor that detects at least one of the viscous material on the carrier and the viscous material on the fastener in the system of Schneider, because Bettuchi teaches the use of a sensor that detects the viscous material to detect when the viscous material has sufficiently cured ([0079]).
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights