DETAILED ACTION
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 09/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-16 remain pending in the application, with claims 2, 8-10, & 12-16 remaining withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1, 3-6, 11 remain rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the act of recognizing and discriminating surfaces appears to be an abstract idea. The three prong analysis for USC 101 are as follows.
Step 2A, prong 1 (is it an abstract idea)
In the present case the determinations/discriminations that are specified are mere evaluations and the courts have held that evaluations are generally considered abstract ideas because they can be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a))
Step 2A, prong 2 (is it a particular practical application)
In this case the evaluation is made and then based on the evaluation the system outputs via the jet valve accordingly. This is certainly an application of the abstract idea, but it is not a particular practical application. This is merely a general application of the evaluation and the courts have held that generally “applying” the abstract idea is not considered a particular practical application (MPEP 2105.05(f)). The courts have been clear that there must be a meaningful limit on the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) and not simply a drafting effort to monopolize it (MPEP 2106.05(e) – the Vanda memo).
Step 2B (is it something more)
Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea? Here we look to the other elements outside of the abstract idea. In the present case these seem to all be present in the art.
The dependent claims do not appear to remedy the 101 rejection that the independent claim is subject to.
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) 1, 3-6, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN209715576U - cited in IDS, see machine translation attached) and Pahl (WO2019191052A1 - cited in IDS and reference provided by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Huang, drawn also to the art of applying a liquid optically clear adhesive (LOCA) to a substrate (Abstract; [0002]), discloses a jet dispensing valve which dispenses a LOCA onto a substrate and also is moved along substrate (Figure 1; [0028-0032]. Huang has not explicitly disclosed controlling the jet valve to put it in an active and inactive mode, however, this limitation is disclosed by Pahl.
Pahl, drawn also to the art of an adhesive dispensing apparatus (Abstract), discloses at least one jet valve that dispenses an adhesive and is also moved across a substrate, while controlling the application of the adhesive, i.e. putting the adhesive into active and inactive mode (Figures 1-4; claims 1-10). Pahl has also disclosed controlling the jet valve based on a scanning of the substate surface (claims 5-7 & 10).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Huang, with the controlling of the jet dispensing valves into an active and inactive mode, as disclosed by Pahl, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to be able to quantitatively or volumetrically adapt the flow of the adhesive to topography of the substrate/workpiece (Pages 2-3, lines 36-37, 1-10).
Regarding the shape of the substrate and specifically, the ‘substrate being a free-form substrate having an irregularly shaped surface’, it is noted that changes in shape or size of an article are held to be obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV (A) & (B)).
Regarding claim 3, Pahl has disclosed controlling the dispensing jet valves and that they can be controlled individually (Page 7, lines 5-11).
Regarding claims 4-5, Pahl has disclosed the at least two jet dispensing valves and has disclosed them to be arranged linearly (see Figures 1-4 and ensuing description).
Regarding claims 6, Pahl has disclosed terminating and initiating jet dispensing and this being controlled (claim 5).
Regarding claims 11, Pahl has already disclosed the jet valves comprising at least two valves (see Figures 1-4).
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 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