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 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 2 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.
Claim 2 recites “the first needle extends through a first seal into the first flowpath”. However, amended claim 1 already recites “a first seal through which the first needle extends…” Thus, it is not clear if there are multiple first seals or claim 2 is claiming the same limitation again which leads to indefiniteness. For the purpose of examination, claim 2 is combined with claim 1. Applicant is advised to cancel or amend claim 2 to overcome the indefiniteness rejection.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cline et al. (“Cline” hereinafter) (US PG PUB 2002/0014496) in view of Li et al. (“Li” hereinafter) (CN 107081232) (see applicant provided machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, and 20, Cline teaches an applicator (item 49, figure 1) for a dispensing system (item 1, figure 1), the applicator comprising:
an applicator body (figure 2) having a first flowpath (two flow paths that end in exits 114, figure 2) extending therethrough; and
a control valve (items 82, 99, 102, figure 2) disposed within the applicator body, the control valve including:
a first seat (item 110, figure 2) disposed in the first flowpath; and
a valve member (formed of bellows 82 and rod 88, figure 2) configured to shift between a first position in which a first needle (item 88, figure 1) of the valve member is engaged with the first seat such that the control valve is in a closed state (figure 3, paragraph [0031]) and a second position in which the first needle is disengaged from the first seat such that the control valve is in an open state (figure 2, paragraph [0030]); wherein the first needle is elongate along a needle axis (figure 2);
the valve member is configured to shift axially between the open state and the closed state (see figures 2 and 3);
a first seal (item 90, figure 2) through which the first needle extends to project into the first flowpath, the first needle interfacing with the first seal and configured to slide relative to the first seal while engaging the first seal, and wherein the first seal is a cup seal oriented towards the first sea (figure 2).
Cline is silent to the exterior surface, which engages the first seal, of the first needle having a mean roughness depth (Rz) of up to 0.8 micrometers
Li teaches another applicator mechanism comprising a valve member that includes a valve needle (items 1, 2, and 3, figure 1) made of ceramic or a compound material (paragraphs [0011-0013] and [0018-0021] of the machine translation) with a mean roughness depth that is equal to or less than 0.8 micrometers (paragraph [0026] of the machine translation). Li teaches that keeping the roughness less results in a smoother valve needle surface which provides better wear resistance, corrosion resistance, and improved sealing of the valve needle (paragraph [0027] of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve needle of Cline’s applicator as taught by Li such that the valve needle is made of ceramic blends or suitable metal and ceramic blends with a surface roughness of 0.8 micrometers or less to ensure that the valve needle is smooth and even when it engages any seals or gaskets, it slides through the first flow path efficiently without stopping. As taught by Li, such smoothness improves sealing performance of the valve needle and provides it with better wear and corrosion resistance.
Regarding claim 6, Cline teaches that the first needle engages an upstream side of the first seat with the control valve in the closed state (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, Cline teaches that the first needle engages a downstream side of the first seat with the control valve in the closed state (depending on how far the valve rod extends down, it can engage an upstream or a downstream portion of the valve stem 110, figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Cline teaches that the first needle extends through the first seat (figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 9, Cline teaches that the first needle includes a head (item 96, figure 5) configured to engage the first seat, and wherein an interface between the head and the first seat is formed between a first sloped surface of the head (figure 5) and a sloped lip of the first seat (sloped portion of the seat 110, figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, Cline teaches that the first needle comprises: a needle body elongate along the needle axis (figure 2); and a sleeve (item 82, figures 3 and 5) disposed on the needle body, wherein the exterior surface of the first needle is formed by the sleeve (figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Cline teaches that the needle body includes a barrel (item 92, figure 5) having a first diameter and a stem (rod body 88, figure 5) extending from the barrel and having a second diameter, wherein the first diameter is larger than the second diameter (figure 6), and wherein the sleeve (item 82, figure 5) is disposed on the stem.
Regarding claim 19, Cline as modified by Li teaches (as discussed in claim 1 above) a second seat (item 110, figure 2, Cline) is disposed in a second flowpath (see figure 2, Cline) through the applicator body; the valve member further comprises: an actuator piston (item 102, figure 2, Cline) disposed in an actuation chamber forming the applicator body, the first needle connected to the actuator piston to be actuated by the actuator piston (figure 2, Cline); a second needle (item 88, figure 2, Cline) extending from the actuator piston, the second needle configured to engage the second seat with the control valve in the closed state (see figures 2 and 3, Cline)
and Li teaches that an exterior surface of the second needle has a mean roughness depth (Rz) of up to 0.8 micrometers (paragraph [0026] of the machine translation, Li).
Claim 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cline in view of Li, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Dubois (US PG PUB 2016/0319936).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Cline teaches the first seal but is silent to it being formed from an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene or a microsphere-filled ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene.
However, seals and gaskets are often made with flexible yet durable and hard materials in the art.
Furthermore, Dubois teaches seals or gaskets made of appropriate polymer materials such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polyamide, etc. (paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Cline such that first seal is made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene or a microsphere-filled ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene or any other suitable material as taught by Dubois since doing so is old and well-known in the art.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. (See MPEP § 2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-18 are allowed over the prior arts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 regarding the rejection(s) of claims 1-11 and 19-20 under Cline, Li, and Dubois have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued, in light of amended independent claim 1, that Cline and Li do not render the claim obvious because they do not teach a first seal through which the first needle extends from and slides into the first flowpath and that a portion of an exterior surface of the first needle has a mean roughness depth of up to 0.8 micrometers.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to first point out that claim 2 of the previous claim set was already rejected under Cline which teaches a first seal 90 through which the first needle 88 slides through (see figure 2). Thus, applicant’s assertion that Cline does not teach a first seal is incorrect. The needle 88 slides through the seal 90 into the flowpath and carry out valving activity. Furthermore, Li is relied upon to teach that by keeping the mean roughness of the exterior surface of the first needle low results in a smoother valve needle surface which provides better wear resistance, corrosion resistance, and improved sealing of the valve needle. When Li is combined with Cline, the resultant devices teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 including the first seal and a mean roughness depth of up to 0.8 micrometers. Therefore, amended independent claim 1 remains rejected as being obvious over the combination of prior arts Cline and Li.
Dependent claims 2, 5-11, and 19-20 also remain rejected as being obvious over the combination of prior arts Cline and Li. Dependent claims 3-4 remains rejected as being obvious over the combination of prior arts Cline and Li, further modified by Dubois.
Therefore, claims 1-11 and 19-20 remain rejected while claims 12-18 are allowed.
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 VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights