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 . 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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application, with claims 12-18 remaining withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a lockable compliance adjuster in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The lockable compliance adjuster is interpreted as a selectively extendable and retractable compliance mechanism, such as expandable arm, retractable arm, scissor-jack arm [0029-0030].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blum (U.S PG Pub 20180348731A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blum, discloses a hot melt device (#20 figure 1; [0021], comprising a housing (chassis of #20, Figure 2; [0070]), a cooler (cooling device 32 Figure 1; [0050], a cooler actuator (positioning system 36, 38 which moves the cooling device [0071]), a movable cooler extender (cooling device 32 is pressed and extended into contact with the material web [0050-0051]), a hot plate (heated head disk 14 [0040]), and a heater (heater 30 provides heat to head disk 14; Figure 2’ [0040]). Further, Blum discloses a thermoplastic adhesive [0004].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum (U.S PG Pub 20180348731A1) and Fox (U.S Patent 4488335).
Regarding claim 2, Blum has disclosed the hot plate in contact with a thermoplastic adhesive on a first side of the hot plate (see claim 1 rejection above). Blum has not explicitly disclosed a cooler comprising a heat sink cooler, however, this limitation is known from Fox.
Fox, drawn also to the art of hot melt adhesive attachment pad (Abstract), discloses a heat sink cooler which is a part of the heating device and is a metallic heat sink (Column 2, lines 54-68; Column 3, lines 50-66). Fox also discloses the heat sink being adjacent to the heater (Column 3, lines 50-52).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the apparatus of Blum, with the heat sink cooler as disclosed by Fox, to arrive at the instant invention, since a heat sink cooler is a known prior art element in the art of cooling hotmelts and the courts have held that the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious and a product of ordinary skill, in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2143 I(A)).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum (U.S PG Pub 20180348731A1) and Fox (U.S Patent 4488335) and Bacallao (U.S PG Pub 20180333910A1).
Regarding claim 3, neither Blum nor Fox have explicitly the cooler comprising barbed heat sink cooler, however, this limitation is known from Bacallao.
Bacallao, drawn also to the art of heating element (Abstract; [0004]), discloses a heating element with cooling fins (65) (i.e. barbed heat sink cooler) which extend radially from the heating element and an insulator sleeve surrounding the heating element i.e. corresponding set of channels adapted to accept the predetermined set of barbs [0004 & 0021].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the apparatus of Blum and Fox, with the heat sink cooler being a barbed heat sink cooler, as disclosed by Bacallao, to arrive at the instant invention, since as such a barbed heat sink cooler is a known prior art element in the art of heating and cooling materials/polymer, and the courts have held that the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious and a product of ordinary skill, in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2143 I(A)).
Regarding the limitation of the hot plate disposed intermediate the heater and the cooler, such a limitation would merely involve the rearrangement of parts and the courts have held that the rearrangement of parts is obvious and a matter of ordinary skill in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 VI (C)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record does not reasonably show or suggest the lockable compliance adjuster operative as claimed in instant claim 6.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not reasonably show or suggest the claimed heat sink cooler (claim 2), cooler with barbed heat sink cooler (claim 3), the movable cooler extender as claimed in claims 4-5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the movable cooler actuator of Blum does not disclose explicitly being operatively in contact and moving the cooler in (z) direction.
Examiner disagrees. It is noted that the instant claim 1 merely recites the limitation of operatively in contact and not directly in contact. The cooler actuator of Blum is able to move the cooler, and thus is operatively in contact. Further, the instant claim 1 does not recite any direction of movement, thus it is moot point whether the actuator of Blum can move the cooler in the z-direction or not.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20190016060-A1, US-6690763-B2, US-5892314-A, US-20130078610-A1, US-20100320187-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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 (571)270-5038. 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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746