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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations “limiting boss” and “limiting groove” recited in claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least two fixing parts” in claim 2 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder “parts” that is coupled with functional language “fixing” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In light of the specification, the limitation is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “screw or bolt” described in paragraph 0010.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 5 and 9 are 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the two adjacent sub-linings" in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior introduction of “adjacent”. “at least two sub-linings” is different to “adjacent sub-linings.”
Claim 9 recites “the size of a part of the inner lined glue nozzle protruding from the outer glue nozzle ranges from 5 mm to 10 mm.” The claim is indefinite because the phrase “the size of a part” is unclear and fails to provide a definite scope for the claimed subject matter. The term “size” is ambiguous because it does not specify which dimension is being measure. It is unclear whether “size” refers to a length, a width, a height, or a volume or another dimensional parameter. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim. Under the principle of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the term “size” as height.
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 1-6, 8, and 10 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).
With regard to claim 2, the nozzle of Heiko discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Heiko further discloses that the outer glue nozzle (30) comprises at least two fixing parts (43), the at least two fixing parts (43) being detachably connected to form a fixing cavity (42) matching the inner lined glue nozzle (12).
With regard to claim 3, the nozzle of Heiko discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2. Heiko further discloses that the at least two fixing parts (43) are detachably connected into a whole by means of a screw or a bolt (43).
With regard to claim 4, the nozzle of Heiko discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2. Heiko further discloses that the inner lined glue nozzle (12) is in interference fit with the fixing cavity (42) of the outer glue nozzle (30).
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) are connected by means of a screw or a bolt (43); and/or one of the two adjacent sub-linings (12) is provided with a limiting boss (40), and the other is provided with a limiting groove (38) matching the limiting boss (40 shown in Fig. 2a).
With regard to claim 6, the nozzle of Heiko discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Heiko further discloses that the number of the 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).
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 the material of the sub-lining 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 the size 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.
Conclusion
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