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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/02/2026 has been entered.
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) 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN209715576U - cited in IDS, see machine translation attached), Pahl (WO2019191052A1 - cited in IDS and reference provided by applicant), and Stensvad (U.S PG Pub 20150309353A1).
Regarding claims 18 & 23, 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 the substrate (Figure 1; [0028-0032]. Huang has not explicitly disclosed utilizing multiple valves and controlling them to put them 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 valves based on a scanning of the substate surface (claims 5-7 & 10). Pahl has also disclosed terminating and initiating jet dispensing and this being controlled (claim 5). Pahl also discloses a controller (22) that controls the delivery pump and switches the delivery pump for delivering the adhesive which is depended on the results of the scanning device (19) (claim 6). Further, Pahl has also disclosed that the profile of a substrate is determined by a scanning device and then the application parameter of the adhesive is determined and adapted based on the determined profile (claim10), thus disclosing the steps of determining or scanning a surface of the substrate and accordingly applying adhesive to the substrate surface.
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Huang, with the multiple valves and 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)).
Further, regarding the application of the LOCA only to certain areas of the substrate and not to other surfaces (non-substrate surface areas), Stensvad discloses application of LOCA in discrete areas of the substrate by multiple valves/coating apparatus.
Stensvad, drawn also to the art of coating a LOCA (Abstract), discloses coating a first patch of LOCA on a surface of the substrate and then coating a second patch of LOCA on another different surface of the substrate with a first and second coating head (i.e. multiple vavles) (Abstract; [0005-0006]; [0080-0081]). Stensvad also discloses a controller that controls all aspects of the process and an encoder and signal lines (i.e. scanning device) to control the dispensing of the LOCA [0127 & 0130 & 0214]. Stensvad also discloses that the surface of the substrate is coated with a pre-determined amount of the LOCA and that a specific or discrete patch is coated i.e. based on the characteristics of the substrate [0080-0081 & 0214]. Thus, Stensvad discloses discriminating between different areas of the substrate i.e. between substrate surface areas and non-substrate surfaces and applying the LOCA in multiple discrete patches. Stensvad also discloses laminating the first substrate with another substrate ([0002] – the formation of laminates would necessarily mean that another material or substrate is attached or laminated to the LOCA coated substrate – see also [0175] with a second substrate being laminated).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Huang and Pahl, with the steps of coating only certain areas of the substrate i.e. discrete patches, and discriminating between the surfaces of the substrate and coating only desired surfaces, and the step of laminating a second substrate, as disclosed by Stensvad, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to be able to control the edge and overall thickness uniformity when coating and to have useful LOCA coated substrates for laminating optical assemblies [0004].
Regarding claim 19, Pahl has disclosed controlling the dispensing jet valves and that they can be controlled individually (Page 7, lines 5-11).
Regarding claims 20-21, Pahl, relied upon above to disclose the one or more dispensing jets valves that are individually controlled, discloses at least two jet dispensing valves and has disclosed them to be arranged linearly (see Figure 1 and nozzles 14a-14d).
Regarding claims 22, Pahl has already disclosed the jet valves comprising at least two valves (see Figures 1-4). With regards to the limitation of at least three valves, Pahl discloses this as well (see Figure 1, nozzles 14a-14d all arranged linearly, thus providing 4 nozzles/valves arranged linearly).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see RCE, filed 07/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 (new claim 18) under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huang, Pahl, and Stensvad.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-9817257-B2, US-20050045267-A1, US-20110064337-A1, US-20080314513-A1, US-20190235432-A1, US-10369837-B2, US-9216565-B2, US-20130295337-A1, US-20140234553-A1, US-20150037593-A1, US-20160289502-A1 – all drawn to coating apparatus and methods.
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
Prosecution Insights