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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 30 August 2024 has been accepted and entered. Claims 1-26 are canceled. Claims 27-52 are pending.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 28, it is unclear as to how the gas sensor is arranged in the preparation unit, in at least one of the listed positions, as the preparation unit, the consumer, and the conveying unit are all recited as separate components.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 27 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schlichtenbrede et al. (US 2020/0230639 A1, published 23 July 2020).
With respect to claims 27 and 40, Schlichtenbrede discloses: a discharge device (and associated method of use) for discharging a material comprising a liquid or paste (adhesive applicator, 40, par. [0050]), comprising: at least one of a consumer for discharging the material (adhesive delivery unit, par. [0015]), a preparation unit having a preparation container for preparing the material (adhesive reservoir 48 contains stirrer, heater, etc., par. [0020]), or a conveying unit (delivery pump, 46) for conveying the material from a storage container (adhesive container, par. [0020-0021]) to the consumer; and at least one gas sensor for determining a gas content of a sample gas in the material, wherein the sample gas is a measuring component of a gas mixture to be measured in the material (gas sensor for measuring adhesive solvent, par. [0020]).
With further respect to claim 40, Schlichtenbrede discloses using at least one gas sensor for determining a gas content of a sample gas in the material, wherein the sample gas is a measuring component of a gas mixture to be measured in the material, wherein the composition of the gas mixture is known; and determining a total content of the gas mixture from the gas content of the measuring component by extrapolation (“the gas sensor 50 detects partial pressures of several species of adhesive gas. This permits an inference to be made concerning the nature or condition of the adhesive. From this, such inferences, it is possible to tell whether the adhesive is appropriate for the desired purpose”, par. [0056]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 28, 29, 30, 36, 37, 39, 41, 44, 45, and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlictenbrede.
With respect to claims 28, 30, 36, 37, 45, and 48, Schlichtenbrede discloses the gas sensor to be arranged in the preparation unit (adhesive reservoir, 48 contains 50, Fig. 1). Absent some degree of criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the invention at the effective filing date to dispose the gas sensor in any of the claimed positions, depending on the gas being detected and the stage of preparation/application of the liquid and/or paste being processed. Further, it would have been clear to one having ordinary skill in the art that when the sensor is positioned in the adhesive reservoir, it would be in contact with the material contained therein.
With respect to claims 29 and 41, Schlichtenbrede discloses a gas sensor for measuring “a partial pressure of an adhesive gas” (par. [0056]). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing to select a sensor corresponding to the gases employed during processing of the adhesive, including oxygen.
With respect to claims 39 and 44, Schlichtenbrede discloses the claimed device wherein an upper region of the interior of the preparation container or an upper region of the storage container can be brought into connection with a vacuum source (vacuum drum 12 has vacuum chambers 36, which make contact with glue roller 13; par. [0046-0047]). Schlichtenbrede does not specify that the vacuum source is able to keep the gas mixture in a gas chamber of the preparation container above the material at a pressure below 900 mbar. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-35, 38, 42, 43, 46, 47, and 49-52 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 31, 43, and 46, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest that the gas sensor consumes the measuring component of the gas mixture, as claimed.
With respect to claim 32, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest that the gas sensor is an optical sensor having the claimed characteristics.
With respect to claims 33-35, 38, and 47, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest that the gas sensor is an amperometric or Clark sensor.
With respect to claim 42, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest that the gas sensor is an optical sensor for measuring oxygen content in the material or wherein the gas sensor is an amperometric sensor.
With respect to claims 49-51, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed classifying step.
With respect to claim 52, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed method wherein the material is an abrasive material and wherein the method further comprises: exposing the gas sensor to the material during measurement periods; and outside the measurement periods, routing the material past the gas sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R GAWORECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-6 PM.
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, DAVID MAKIYA can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/MARK R GAWORECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 17 September 2026
Prosecution Insights