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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because it recites the limitation “wherein two sides of the cavity are slope structures, an upper end of each of the slope structures is directly connected to a liquid injection port of the glue application head, and a lower end of each of the slope structures is directly connected to an outer end of a lower end surface of the main body.” Since claim 16 recites the gluing mechanism of claim 8, the same limitation is previously recited in the claim. While having the same limitation repeated verbatim is not necessarily indefinite, it is redundant and should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 19 recites “means of engagement” in line 2. This limitation meets the three prong test for analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses the term “means” modified by the functional language “of engagement” and does not recite any structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed engagement function. Therefore the claim limitation is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that no structure or material is described for performing such a function. Therefore the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As detailed above, the “means of engagement” recited in claim 19 meets the three prong analysis for interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and is therefore construed as including the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that no structure or material is described for performing an engagement function. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art cannot be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim, and the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, any structure or material which facilitates engagement of two main body portions will be considered to meet the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peluso (DE 102015101314 A1).
Peluso teaches a nozzle (1) for applying an adhesive to a surface, the nozzle comprising an inner cavity for accommodating the adhesive and an outlet slot (3) at a lower end of the nozzle which applies the glue on the surface at a predetermined width, wherein sides of the cavity are sloped with an upper end directly connected to an inlet (2) and a lower end directly connected to the slot (See Figures; [0001]-[0003]; [0032]-[0038]). The nozzle is a glue application head having a main body as claimed, with the surface to which the adhesive is applied reading on the instantly claimed workpiece. The inlet (2) reads on the instantly claimed liquid injection port.
Regarding claim 2, the outlet slot is linear and defined at the lower end as claimed (See Figures).
Regarding claim 5, the cavity forms a groove and includes flat and even surfaces therein and is defined by two side walls on two sides to be defined along an axial plane in a length direction of the main body as claimed (See Figures).
Regarding claim 6, the lower end of the cavity is the same length as the slit (3), and the upper end of the cavity is in communication with the inlet (2) as claimed (See Figures).
Regarding claim 7, a lower section of the nozzle includes outer surfaces which are tapered towards the slit as claimed (See Figures; [0034]).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the nozzle consists of two halves (1.1,1.2) which are symmetrically arranged and combined/fastened via glue to form the nozzle (See [0035]). The two halves read on the half-body parts of claim 18 and one and another sides of claim 19, with the glue acting as a connection element/means of engagement as claimed.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peluso (DE 102015101314 A1).
Peluso teaches a nozzle (1) for applying an adhesive to a surface, as detailed above.
Regarding claim 3, Peluso teaches a slot width (corresponding to what the applicant refers to as the length of the slot) of 150mm (See [0033]), which is within the claimed range of greater than 2mm.
Peluso does not expressly disclose a slit length less than a workpiece width. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide such a relationship for the nozzle and surface of Peluso because selecting a desired slot size relative to a workpiece is a routine matter of design choice which does not materially impact the operation of the apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art can readily determine a slot size relative to a workpiece dimension depending upon where an adhesive is needed in a particular application. Therefore the claimed relationship yields a predictable result and does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 4, the outlet slot of Peluso is defined along a length of the nozzle along a center line of a lower end of the nozzle (See Figures).
Claims 8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peluso (DE 102015101314 A1) in view of Ando (US 2011/0061589).
Regarding claim 8, Peluso teaches a nozzle (1) for applying an adhesive to a surface, as detailed above. Peluso also teaches an adhesive supply line which is connected to the nozzle at the inlet (See [0037]), which reads on the instantly claimed glue injection tube.
Peluso does not expressly disclose a fixed frame which supports the nozzle and is configured to drive the nozzle in length, width, and height dimensions as claimed.
Ando teaches an application head (19) and a drive mechanism (15) on which the head is fixedly mounted and which can move the head in X-, Y-, and Z-directions (See Fig. 1; [0029]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the drive mechanism of Ando with the nozzle of Peluso in order to provide flexibility and control over the position of the nozzle for adhesive application to the surface.
Claims 10-15 recite the same limitations as claims 2-7 and are rejected for the same reasons detailed above with respect to such claims.
Claim 16 recites bonding equipment comprising the gluing mechanism of claim 8. The gluing mechanism of claim 8 is taught by the combination of Peluso and Ando, as detailed above. Since no additional components are introduced in claim 16, the claim is met for the same reasons detailed above with respect to claim 8.
Claims 9 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peluso (DE 102015101314 A1) in view of Ando (US 2011/0061589) as applied to claims 8 and 16 above, and further in view of Nakamura (US 6,309,692).
Peluso and Ando combine to teach a nozzle (1) which is driven in X-, Y-, and Z-directions for positioning the nozzle relative to a surface of a workpiece and applying an adhesive thereto, as detailed above.
Peluso and Ando do not expressly disclose a measuring instrument which measures a thickness of the workpiece, is disposed on the frame, and is arranged in front of the glue application head in a glue-dispensing direction as claimed.
Nakamura teaches an apparatus for coating a substrate, the apparatus including a movable die (12) with a slot nozzle (18) for applying the coating material (See Fig. 1; col. 4, line 43 to col. 5, line 10). Nakamura teaches a sensor (32) which measures a gap between the die and a plate (50) to be coated, the sensor being affixed to the die and in front of the die in coating direction (See Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 44-58; col. 5, lines 6-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the sensor of Nakamura with the nozzle taught by the combination of Peluso and Ando. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Nakamura that to do so would predictably allow the nozzle to be moved in accordance with changes in the measured gap in order to apply an even coating (See col. 9, lines 51-63).
Examiner notes that the measuring device of Nakamura is described as measuring a gap distance between the die and the plate, whereas the instantly claimed measuring instrument is recited as measuring a thickness of the workpiece. While worded differently, the sensor of Nakamura and the claimed sensor work in the same manner, since they are disposed in the same place, measure the same distance, and serve the same function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/02/2025, pertaining to the Ando reference have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Ando reference does not teach or fairly suggest the newly added limitation requiring that the cavity has two sides which are sloped structures directly connected to both a liquid injection port and a lower end surface. Therefore, the rejections which relied solely on Ando or included Ando as a primary reference have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Peluso, since the Peluso reference teaches the newly added limitation, as detailed above.
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 CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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.
/CARSON GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746