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 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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“application device” in claim 16.
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. The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is as follows:
“application device” – hand spray gun or application head ([0002] of the specification).
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 § 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 16-19, 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cocks (U.S. Patent No. 4,524,887, cited in IDS submitted March 2, 2026).
Regarding claim 16, Cocks discloses an application system for applying a flowable medium to a substrate (FIG. 1 of Cocks, adhesive dispensing system), wherein the application system has a heatable application device for applying the flowable medium to the substrate (FIG. 1 of Cocks, applicator head #14; 7:34-37 of Cocks, hot melt adhesive applicator gun is heated), a heating hose for supplying the flowable medium to the application device (FIG. 1 of Cocks, hose assembly #16; 7:10-11 of Cocks, hose assembly is heated), and a filter insert (FIG. 2 of Cocks, filter assembly #70), wherein the heating hose has an inner tube for conducting the flowable medium (FIG. 2 of Cocks, hose #20; 7:8-11 of Cocks, adhesive flows through hose assembly), wherein the application device and the heating hose are coupled to one another detachably via a connection piece (FIG. 2 of Cocks, connector #22 which is connected to hose #20 of hose assembly #16 and which is also detachably coupled to application head #14 via connector #55), wherein the connection piece has an inlet end, which is fluid-connected to the inner tube and has an inlet opening for the flowable medium (FIG. 2 of Cocks, connector #22 fluidly connected to hose #20 at inlet), an outlet end, which has an outlet opening (FIG. 2 of Cocks, connector #22 has outlet opening threaded to connector #55), and a through-duct, which extends from the inlet opening to the outlet opening, for the flowable medium (FIG. 2 of Cocks, connector #22 has a through passage from the inlet to the outlet for adhesive flow), wherein the connection piece has, at its outlet end, a coupling section, which extends in a straight line in an axial direction and is coupled to the application device (FIG. 2 of Cocks, threaded end at outlet of connector #22 which couples connector #22 to connector #55 and application head #14; threaded end of connector extends axially in a straight line from the connector #22), wherein the filter insert is inserted through the outlet opening in a straight line in the axial direction into a receiving section formed by the through-duct (FIG. 2 of Cocks, filter assembly #70 inserted into an enlarged region of connector #22 at end of connector #22), wherein the filter insert has a filter structure through which flow can pass radially inwards from the radial outside or radially outwards from the radial inside, for filtering the flowable medium (FIG. 2 of Cocks, filter assembly allows flow radially from outside to inside), and wherein the filter insert has a bearing section, which protrudes radially outwards relative to the filter structure (FIG. 2 of Cocks, body #71 of filter assembly #70 comprising open end #74 and adjacent connector #55 into which the end #74 is threaded; FIG. 2 of Cocks, end #74 of filter assembly body #71 and connector #55 into which the end #74 is threaded have an axis and a radius from which the cylinder protrudes radially outward from the filter structure), wherein the bearing section is arranged at least partially in the receiving section, for radially supporting the filter insert in the receiving section (FIG. 2 of Cocks, end #74 of filter assembly body #71 and connector #55 into which the end #74 is threaded arranged in enlarged region of connector #22 and radially support the filter assembly #70).
Regarding claim 17, Cocks discloses the receiving section has a diameter which is wider than the adjacent section of the through-duct in the direction of the heating hose (FIG. 2 of Cocks, filter assembly #70 inserted into an enlarged or widened region at outlet end of connector #22).
Regarding claim 18, Cocks discloses that the filter insert has a supporting section (FIG. 2 of Cocks, end #74 of filter assembly #70), wherein the filter insert is arranged in the receiving section such that the supporting section protrudes in the axial direction relative to the receiving section in the direction of the application device (FIG. 2 of Cocks, end #74 of filter assembly #70 extends axially in the outlet end of connector #22), wherein the supporting section is supported axially on a counter bearing of the application device (FIG. 2 of Cocks, end #74 of filter assembly #70 supported axially by connector #55 which is supported axially on conical joint #64 of application head #14; conical surface of conical joint is a bearing surface).
Regarding claim 19, Cocks discloses that the bearing section is directly adjacent to an inner side of the connection piece which circumferentially delimits the through-duct (FIG. 2 of Cocks, end #74 of body #71 and male portion #56 of connector #55 which form bearing section threaded into end of connector #22 and are therefore adjacent connector #22), wherein a radial clearance between the bearing section and the inner side of the connection piece is smaller than an opening size of the filter structure (FIG. 2 of Cocks, end #74 of body #71 and male portion #56 of connector #55 which form bearing section threaded into end of connector #22 and are therefore in direct contact with inner surface of connector #22; since there is no clearance between the male portion #56 of connector #55 and inside of connector #22 this clearance is necessarily smaller than the opening size of the filter).
Regarding claim 26, Cocks discloses that the filter insert has a head section which protrudes in the axial direction relative to the receiving section (FIG. 2 of Cocks, closed end #73 of body #71 of filter assembly #70), wherein the head section has a structuring on a radially external outer face (FIG. 2 of Cocks, closed end #73 of body #71 has a tapered radially external face #78).
Regarding claim 30, Cocks discloses a heating hose for supplying a flowable medium to an application device for applying the flowable medium (FIG. 1 of Cocks, hose assembly #16; 7:10-11 of Cocks, hose assembly is heated), wherein the heating hose has an inner tube for conducting the flowable medium (FIG. 2 of Cocks, hose #20; 7:8-11 of Cocks, adhesive flows through hose assembly) and a connection piece (FIG. 2 of Cocks, connector #22 which is connected to hose #20 of hose assembly #16), wherein the connection piece has an inlet end, which is fluid-connected to the inner tube and has an inlet opening for the flowable medium (FIG. 2 of Cocks, connector #22 fluidly connected to hose #20 at inlet), an outlet end, which has an outlet opening (FIG. 2 of Cocks, connector #22 has outlet opening threaded to connector #55), and a through-duct, which extends from the inlet opening to the outlet opening, for the flowable medium (FIG. 2 of Cocks, connector #22 has a through passage from the inlet to the outlet for adhesive flow), wherein the connection piece has, at its outlet end, a coupling section, which extends in a straight line in an axial direction, for coupling the heating hose to the application device (FIG. 2 of Cocks, threaded end at outlet of connector #22 which couples connector #22 to connector #55 and application head #14; threaded end of connector extends axially in a straight line from the connector #22), wherein a filter insert is inserted through the outlet opening in a straight line in the axial direction into a receiving section formed by the through-duct (FIG. 2 of Cocks, filter assembly #70 inserted into an enlarged region of connector #22 at end of connector #22), wherein the filter insert has a filter structure through which flow can pass radially inwards from the radial outside or radially outwards from the radial inside, for filtering the flowable medium (FIG. 2 of Cocks, filter assembly allows flow of adhesive radially from outside to inside), and wherein the filter insert has a bearing section, which protrudes radially outwards relative to the filter structure (FIG. 2 of Cocks, body #71 of filter assembly #70; 6:42-43 of Cocks, body #71 comprises a hollow cylinder closed at one end; hollow cylinder necessarily has an axis and a radius from which the cylinder protrudes radially outward from the axis), wherein the bearing section is arranged at least partially in the receiving section, for radially supporting the filter insert in the receiving section (FIG. 2 of Cocks, body #71 of filter assembly #70 arranged in enlarged region of connector #22 and radially supports the filter assembly #70).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocks in view of Walter et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0361347 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Cocks does not specifically disclose that the bearing section is formed in the axial direction between an end, facing the application device, of the filter insert and the filter structure. Moreover, in Cocks the axis of the application device #14 is oriented at a right angle to that of connector #22 and filter assembly #70 such that the end of the filter assembly does not face the application device (FIG. 2 of Cocks). Walter, however, discloses a connector (i.e., rotary feedthrough #20) for a glue application device wherein the connector is configured as a right-angle piece (FIG. 2 of Walter) or as a straight component (FIG. 3 of Walter). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the connector #55 as a straight rather than a right-angle component since Walter establishes that it was known to substitute straight through connectors for right-angle connectors in adhesive application device (FIGS. 2-3 of Walter). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I B). As evidenced by Cocks, the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components. In addition, as also evidenced by Walter, the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could also have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Use of a straight connecter as the connector #55 in the apparatus of Cocks would result in the end of the filter assembly facing the application device
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocks in view of Burdette, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,734,188).
Regarding claim 22, Cocks does not specifically disclose that the filter insert has a further bearing section, wherein the filter structure is formed between the bearing section and the further bearing section, wherein the further bearing section protrudes radially outwards relative to the filter structure, for radially supporting the filter insert in the receiving section. Burdette, however, discloses a filter assembly #26 for a hot melt adhesive comprising an inner core formed from radially outward extending splines #31 encased by a filter screen #30 wherein a spacer in the form of a helical wire spring is wrapped about the outside surface of the screen (4:26-41 of Burdette). According to Burdette, the filter can be converted from a filtering operation to a black-flushing and cleaning operation quickly and simply (1:56-63 of Burdette). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention provide a spacer in the form of a coil spring on the outside surface of the filter assembly of Cocks. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the filter to be converted from a filtering operation to a black-flushing and cleaning operation quickly and simply as taught by Burdette (1:56-63 of Burdette).
Claim 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocks in view of Burdette as applied to claim 22 above and further in view of Busch-Sorenson (U.S. Patent No. 5,085,772).
Regarding claim 23, Burdette discloses that the filter insert has a main body and a filter fabric forming the filter structure (FIG. 5 of Burdette, inner core of filter assembly #28 and screen #30), wherein the main body has a filter section and the bearing section, wherein the bearing section and the filter section are adjacent to one another in the axial direction (FIGS. 3 and 5 of Burdette, inner core of filter assembly #28 and screen #30 extend axially along the length of the filter assembly #26 and are adjacent one another), wherein the main body has an inner duct, which passes through the bearing section and extends into the filter section (FIG. 5 of Burdette, throughbore #29), wherein the main body has through-openings which open into the inner duct in the region of the filter section (FIG. 5 of Burdette, channels #33 between splines #31), wherein the filter fabric is arranged in the region of the filter section and circumferentially surrounds the filter section (FIG. 5 of Burdette, screen #30) but does not specifically disclose that the filter fabric is woven. Moreover, Burdette discloses that the filter is a metal filter screen (4:36-39 of Burdette) but does not disclose that the metal screen is woven. Busch, however, discloses a filter for the filtration of fluid wherein the filter is a woven metal screen (Abstract, 2:30-34 of Busch). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a woven metal screen as the filter in the modified apparatus since Busch establishes that it was known to use woven metal screens as fluid filters. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 24, Burdette discloses that the woven filter fabric is arranged in the axial direction between the bearing section and a cover element protruding radially outwards relative to the woven filter fabric to secure the woven filter fabric to the main body (FIG. 3 of Burdette), wherein the cover element is connected detachably to the main body (4:39-41 of Burdette, spacer #32 in the form of a helical coiled spring wrapped about outside surface of screen #30; helical coiled spring would necessarily be detachable).
Regarding claim 25, Burdette discloses that the cover element forms the further bearing section (FIGS. 3 and 5 of Burdette, spacer #32).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocks.
Regarding claim 27, Cocks does not specifically disclose that the connection piece is an integral component of the heating hose. Rather, in Cocks the connector #22 is a separate part rigidly secured to the hose #20 (FIG. 2 of Cocks). As set forth in MPEP 2144.04, however, the use of a one-piece structure in place of several parts rigidly secured together is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocks in view of Sommer et al. (European Patent Publication No. EP 0777983 A2, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 29, while Cocks discloses that the application device is an application head (FIG. 2 of Cocks, application head #14), Cocks does not specifically disclose that the application head has a heating element for heating the application head and an operatable dosing valve for dispensing the flowable medium supplied to the application head onto the substrate. Sommer, however, discloses an application head for an adhesive applicator (Abstract of Sommer) comprising heating elements to keep the adhesive flowable in the application head ([0024] of Sommer) and an adjustable needle valve to control the amount of adhesive supplied ([0022]-[0023] of Sommer). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the application head of Cocks with heating elements and an adjustable needle valve. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to keep the adhesive flowable in the application head and to control the amount of adhesive supplied as taught by Sommer ([0022]-[0024] of Sommer).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 28 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.
Regarding claims 20 and 28, the closest prior art is to Cocks. Cocks discloses an application system as set forth in claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above). Neither Cocks, however, nor any of the other prior art references of record teach or reasonably suggest an application system as set forth in claim 20 wherein the coupling section is plugged into a plug-in opening of the application device, wherein the coupling section has an outer diameter which widens in steps, and the plug-in opening has a corresponding inner diameter which widens in steps or an application system as set forth in claim 28 wherein, in relation to an axial extent of the filter insert, at least about 30% of the filter insert is arranged inside the application device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights