DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s amendment filed on August 17, 2026 was received. Claims 9-10, 15-16 and 19 were canceled. Claims 1, 4, 8, 11 and 18 were amended. Claims 21-25 were added. Claims 11-14, 17-18 and 20 remain withdrawn. Claims 23-25 are dependent on withdrawn claim 11 and are interpreted as being withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued June 1, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Talhouet (US 2019/0283062) in view of Reuter (US 5,603,483) on claims 1-10 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-8 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Talhouet (US 2019/0283062) in view of Katoh (US 2007/0215826).
In regards to claim 1, De Talhouet teaches an application robot (8) for applying at least one fluid product on substrate/workpiece, the application device comprising:
a robot (12) comprising an arm (20, 22, 24) which is movable relative to the substrate (fig. 1-2; para. 48-51);
a control bay (14) and a command module (38) (dispensing module) for commanding the robot and an application device (16) (fig. 1; para. 48, 80);
the application device is provided at the wrist (24) of the arm (fig. 1-2),
the application device controlled by the command module, the application device comprises an adjusting device (36) which adjusts flow of fluid which is supplied to an outlet orifice (32) (control volume dispensed) based on speed of the movement of the application device (dispense fluid onto the workpiece at predetermined locations when the arm is moved relative to the workpiece & rate of movement of the arm) (fig. 1-4; para. 48, 54, 64-68, 71, 80, 84-87, 92-92).
De Talhouet does not explicitly teach the adjusting device comprises a proportional valve comprising a housing, solenoid a valve body and dispense fluid onto the workpiece at predetermined locations when the arm is moved relative to the workpiece, the solenoid being configured to move the valve body relative to and within the housing of the proportional valve in response to the analog signal from the dispensing module to control a volume of the fluid dispensed from the proportional valve onto the workpiece, the valve body being configured to be moved into a plurality of open positions to control the volume of the fluid dispensed from the housing based on the analog signal applied to the solenoid.
However, in the same field applicant of using a valve to control flow, Katoh teaches a proportional solenoid valve (10) which is controlled by a valve controller (31) which sends a driving/command signal (analog signal) which may be a 4 to 20 mA current loop signal or may be a 0 to 10 V voltage (fig. 1-2; para. 17, 19).
Katoh teaches the proportional solenoid valve comprises joint block (13, housing), a solenoid (22) and a valve body (19) (fig. 1; para. 17).
Katoh teaches the solenoid moves the valve body within the joint block to provide a fully closed, fully open and any opening degree in between which corresponds to the command/driving signal to provide flow rate control for a fluid (fig. 3-4; para. 18-21, 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the proportional solenoid valve of Katoh onto the adjusting device of De Talhouet because Katoh teaches it will provide improved operability for flow control (para. 8, 32).
In regards to claims 2-3, De Talhouet and Katoh as discussed, where De Talhouet teaches a vat (50, reservoir) is connected to a fluid transfer system (52, pump) which pumps fluid from the vat to the application device (16) (fig. 1; para. 72-73), which comprises the solenoid valve as taught by combination of De Talhouet and Katoh.
In regards to claim 4, De Talhouet and Katoh as discussed, where Katoh teaches the valve body (19) is slidably disposed within the joint block (13, housing), and capable of the function of being movable into the plurality of open positions between the fully opening which will prevent flow and the fully open position to permit flow of fluid, where the various open position will allow for differing flow volumes through the housing of the proportional solenoid valve (fig. 1; 17-21).
In regards to claims 5-7, De Talhouet and Katoh as discussed, where De Talhouet teaches the vat comprises glue (adhesive) or elastomer (para. 43), where the elastomer is capable of being a sealant.
Further regarding the specific fluid, the courts have held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim (MPEP 2115).
In regards to claims 8 and 22, De Talhouet and Katoh as discussed, where De Talhouet teaches the fluid flow rate (volume of fluid dispensed) is change based on the movement speed of the robot (fig. 3-4; para. 85, 92-95).
In regards to claim 21, De Talhouet and Katoh as discussed, where Katoh teaches the valve body in a partial open state will provide blocking of a primary port (11, first passage) and a secondary port (12, second passage) (fig. 1; para. 17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response filed August 17, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Talhouet and Reuter 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 De Talhouet and Katoh.
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 Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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 Yuan can be reached at 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights