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
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on June 29, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, and 10 have been amended. Claims 2 and 4 have been canceled. Claims 11-15 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended claim 1 to recite, in relevant part:
“the outer glue nozzle comprises at least two fixing parts, the at least two fixing parts being detachably connected to form a fixing cavity matching the inner lined glue nozzle, wherein the inner lined glue nozzle is in interference fit with the fixing cavity of the outer glue nozzle such that the outer glue nozzle exerts an inward extrusion force onto each sub-lining of the inner lined glue nozzle.”
The Examiner finds that Heiko continues to disclose the amended limitations. Heiko discloses an application nozzle including a nozzle body (12) mounted within two separate clamping plate (30), wherein the clamping plates are separate components that are releaseably fixed to the base body and clamp the nozzle body therebetween (Fig. 1-5). The pair of clamping plates collectively defines an intermediate receiving space (36) that matches the outer configuration of the nozzle body. Furthermore, Heiko teaches that the mutually facing clamping surface (32) contact the opposing side surfaces (34) of the nozzle body and, upon tightening of the screws, press against the nozzle body to hold it in a clamping manner. Heiko further explains that the side surfaces (34) and clamping surfaces (32) are both inclined at approximately 8°, such that tightening the clamping plates cause the nozzle body to be pressed toward the base body while simultaneously being compressed laterally, thereby producing a high degree of sealing at the transition between the feed channel and the application channel. In addition, Heiko discloses that the nozzle body itself comprises two nozzle plate (54) lying flat against one another, and expressly states that the nozzle plates are “loosely placed against each other” and are fixed together by the clamping plates. Heiko further teaches that “the nozzle plate 54 are fixed to one another by means of the clamping plates 30,” demonstrating that the inward clamping force generated by the clamping plates compresses the individual nozzle plates together. Accordingly, the claimed “outer glue nozzle” reasonably reads on Heiko’s pair of clamping plates, the claimed “fixed cavity” reads on the intermediate space (36) defined by the clamping plates, and the claimed “inner lined glue nozzle” reads on the multi-piece nozzle body formed by the two nozzle plates.
Applicant further argues that Heiko merely employs a clamping arrangement and does not disclose an “interference fit.” However, the claim does not recite any particular dimensional relationship, interference tolerance, manufacturing tolerance, deformation amount, or quantitative amount of interference that distinguishes the claimed interference fit from the clamping engagement disclosed by Heiko. Instead, the claim defines the interference fit functionally by the result that the outer glue nozzle exerts an inward extrusion force on each sub-lining. Heiko expressly teaches that tightening the clamping plates causes the clamping surfaces to press against the side surfaces of the nozzle body and that this pressing force compresses the two nozzle plates together to improve sealing and prevent leakage. Thus, Heiko discloses the same structural relationship and achieves the same functional result recited in the amended claim, namely that an outer structure surrounding the multi-piece inner nozzle applies inward compressive force to each constituent nozzle plate.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heiko et al. (WO 2020/239283 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Heiko discloses a gluing nozzle (abstract) comprising: an inner lined glue nozzle (12) comprising at least two sub-linings (left and right 12 shown in Fig. 2a), the at least two sub-linings being detachably connected and enclosed to form a glue cavity (14, Fig. 3b) with a glue outlet (18, Fig. 3b); and an outer glue nozzle (left and right 30 shown in Fig. 2a) detachably arranged on an outer side of the inner lined glue nozzle (12) such that the at least two sub-linings (12) are relatively fixed (Fig. 2a), wherein the outer glue nozzle (30) comprises at least two fixing parts (see annotated figure, left and right mediate space 36), the at least two fixing parts (see annotated figure) being detachably connected to form a fixing cavity (see annotated figure) matching the inner lined glue nozzle (12), wherein the inner lined glue nozzle (12) is in interference fit with the fixing cavity (see annotated figure) of the outer glue nozzle (30) such that the outer glue nozzle exerts an inward extrusion force onto each sub-lining of the inner lined glue nozzle (Heiko further teaches that “the nozzle plate 54 are fixed to one another by means of the clamping plates 30,” demonstrating that the inward clamping force generated by the clamping plates compresses the individual nozzle plates together. Accordingly, the claimed “outer glue nozzle” reasonably reads on Heiko’s pair of clamping plates, the claimed “fixed cavity” reads on the intermediate space (36) defined by the clamping plates).
PNG
media_image1.png
954
1051
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 3, the nozzle of Heiko discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Heiko further discloses that the at least two fixing parts (see annotated figure above) are detachably connected into a whole by means of a screw or a bolt (43).
With regard to claim 5, the nozzle of Heiko discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Heiko further discloses that the two adjacent sub-linings (12) of the at least two sub-linings are connected by means of a screw or a bolt (43).
With regard to claim 6, the nozzle of Heiko discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Heiko further discloses that a number of the at least two sub-linings is two (12), and the two sub-linings are arranged opposite to each other to form the glue cavity (14) with the glue outlet (18).
With regard to claim 8, the nozzle of Heiko discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Heiko further discloses that an end of the inner lined glue nozzle (12) with the glue outlet (18) protrudes from the outer glue nozzle (30).
With regard to claim 10, the nozzle of Heiko discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Heiko further discloses that a gluing device, comprising a gluing nozzle (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 12, the nozzle of Heiko discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Heiko further discloses that a cross section of the inner lined glue nozzle is rectangular, a cross section of the fixing cavity formed by the outer glue nozzle is rectangular, and the inner lined glue nozzle is in interference fit with the fixing cavity (a cross section is rectangular as seen annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
954
1051
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 13, the nozzle of Heiko discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 6. Heiko further discloses that the two sub-linings (left and right 12 shown in Fig. 2a) are butted and enclosed to form the glue cavity (14, see Fig. 3b).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiko in view of Hanson (US 4,521,456).
With regard to claim 7, the nozzle of Heiko discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Heiko does not disclose that each of the at least two sub-linings comprises a fluoropolymer and/or silicone.
Hanson teaches a gluing nozzle comprising a fluoropolymer and/or silicone (Col. 3 lines 7-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sub-lining of Heiko, by making it out of silicone as taught by Hanson, for the benefit of providing a non-stick surface to many compositions including most hot melt adhesives (Col. 3 lines 7-17).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiko in view of Kraft et al. (US 2014/0203115 A1).
With regard to claim 9, the nozzle of Heiko discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Heiko does not disclose that a protruding length of a part of the inner lined glue nozzle protruding from the outer glue nozzle ranges from 5 mm to 10 mm.
Kraft teaches a gluing nozzle comprising an inner lined glue nozzle (8) and an outer glue nozzle (9, 10), wherein the inner line protruding from the outer glue nozzle ranges from 5 mm to 10 mm (height of inner line 8 is 19.5 mm in Par. [0066] and as shown in Fig. 1, height of outer glue nozzle 9, 10 is 2/3 of the height of inner line 8, accordingly, Kraft teaches the inner line protruding from the outer glue nozzle at 19.5 mm × 1/3 = 6.5 mm that is within the ranges from 5 mm to 10 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions of the inner lined glue nozzle and the outer glue nozzle of Heiko to correspond to the inner line protruding from the outer glue nozzle at 6.5 mm as taught by Kraft, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiko.
With regard to claim 11, the nozzle of Heiko discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Heiko further discloses that inner lined glued nozzle is made of hard metal or alloy, except the outer glue nozzle is made of hard metal or alloy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer glue nozzle of Heiko, by making it out of hard metal as the inner lined glued nozzle as taught by Heiko, since hard metal is easier to manufacture.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 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.
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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights