Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 10/30/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 10-11 and 14-15 are withdrawn from examination. Claim 1-16 remain pending.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Upon a more detailed examination of the presented claims, The Examiner determined an additional Species C (claim 10), in addition to the Species A (claim 9) and Species B (claim 11) that were identified and restricted in the restriction requirement of 6/19/2025. Species C is the braking member in the shape of a sphere that is different and has no common shared feature with Species A (brake member in the form of an inverted cone with a through hole) and Species B (brake member in the form of a rod). The Examiner acknowledges and appreciates Applicant’s election of Species A without traverse and thus considers both Species B and C withdrawn from examination.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-13 and 16) and Species A (claim 9) in the reply filed on 10/30/2025 is acknowledged.
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: feeding mechanism in claims 7 and 12, holding mechanism in claim 7, assist mechanism in claim 12, positioning mechanism in claim 13, and absorption mechanism in claim 13.
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.
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.
Claims 7 and 12 recite the limitation “feeding mechanism”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the placeholder term “mechanism” and (B) the terms “mechanism” is modified by the functional language “feeding” and (C) the term “mechanism” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of feeding. The Examiner interprets “feeding mechanism” as feed rollers 203 or 204 as detailed in [0147] and equivalents thereof.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “holding mechanism”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the placeholder term “mechanism” and (B) the terms “mechanism” is modified by the functional language “holding” and (C) the term “mechanism” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of holding. The Examiner interprets “holding mechanism” as roller 208 as detailed in [0147] and equivalents thereof.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “assist mechanism”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the placeholder term “mechanism” and (B) the terms “mechanism” is modified by the functional language “assist” and (C) the term “mechanism” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of assisting. The Examiner interprets “assist mechanism” as rollers 203 or 204 as detailed in [0161] and equivalents thereof.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “positioning mechanism”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the placeholder term “mechanism” and (B) the terms “mechanism” is modified by the functional language “positioning” and (C) the term “mechanism” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of positioning. The Examiner interprets “positioning mechanism” as structure 201 detailed in instant FIG. 1 for XYZ movement and equivalents thereof.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “absorption mechanism”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the placeholder term “mechanism” and (B) the terms “mechanism” is modified by the functional language “absorption” and (C) the term “mechanism” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of absorption. The Examiner interprets “absorption mechanism” as a sliding structure as detailed in [0222] and equivalents thereof.
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 1-5, 7-8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NAKAHARA (JPH-03119083 – of record), hereinafter NAKAHARA. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1, NAKAHARA discloses An adhesive guiding apparatus having an adhesive path configured to allow an elongated adhesive to pass through in a longitudinal direction of the elongated adhesive, and capable of guiding at least a tip end portion of the elongated adhesive to a position facing a desired object to be stuck, the adhesive guiding apparatus {[FIG. 2] note the whole apparatus, [FIG. 3] 1 is the elongated adhesive that has a guided path and comes out of the tip or the hole 4, [FIG. 4] note that 1 is stuck to an object (not numbered)} comprising:
a nozzle unit having a through hole forming a part of the adhesive path, and in which a tip end portion of the through hole is configured to be disposed at a position facing the object to be stuck {[FIG. 6] 20/3 is the nozzle unit with through hole 4, [FIG. 4] note the through hole 4 is at a position facing the object};
and a braking member disposed on an upstream side of the through hole of the nozzle unit on the adhesive path {[FIGs. 3&7] the pairs of rollers 10 are interpreted as a braking member that is upstream of hole 4},
wherein the braking member has a property that is superior to the nozzle unit in at least one of ease of sticking to the elongated adhesive and a difficulty in slipping {[overview, P2] note 4 is a hole thus have clearance to let elongated adhesive 1 out, note the pair of rollers 10 are grasping or hugging the elongated adhesive 1, thus meeting the limitation that braking member or roller 10 has a superior property in difficulty in slipping, since the through hole 4 easily lets the adhesive 1 out}.
Regarding claim 2, NAKAHARA discloses wherein the elongated adhesive is a threadlike adhesive {[FIG.1] note thread 1}.
Regarding claim 3, NAKAHARA discloses wherein the through hole forms a cylindrical space larger than an outer shape of the elongated adhesive in the nozzle unit as the part of the adhesive path {[FIG. 1 ] note hole 4 is cylindrical and also has to be larger than 1 to let 1 out}.
Regarding claim 4 limitation of “wherein the braking member has a function of inhibiting the elongated adhesive from flowing backward toward an upstream direction when a force applied to the tip end portion of the elongated adhesive changes while the tip end portion of the elongated adhesive led out from a tip end portion of the nozzle unit is facing the object to be stuck”, the Examiner notes that the instant claim is an apparatus claim. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does {see MPEP 2114 (II)}. The Examiner submits that the recited functional limitation (flowing backward) is an inherent characteristic of NAKAHARA, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists {see MPEP 2114 (I)}, since the three pairs of rollers 10 {[FIG. 3]} will prevent the thread 1 from flowing backward as the invention of NAKAHARA successfully attaches 1 to the object while inserting force {[FIG. 4]}.
Regarding claim 5 limitation of “wherein at least one of a material, a structure, a shape, and a dimension of a portion of the braking member facing the adhesive path is determined such that an adhesive force generated when adhering the object to be stuck and the elongated adhesive is relatively larger than an adhesive force generated when adhering the braking member and the elongated adhesive”, the Examiner notes that the instant claim is an apparatus claim. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does {see MPEP 2114 (II)}. The Examiner submits that the recited functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of NAKAHARA, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists {see MPEP 2114 (I)}, since the invention of NAKAHARA successfully attaches 1 to the object while inserting force {[FIG. 4]}.
Regarding claim 7, NAKAHARA discloses wherein a feeding mechanism configured to feed out the elongated adhesive into the adhesive path toward the nozzle unit is disposed at an upstream side of the braking member, and a holding mechanism configured to hold a part of the fed out elongated adhesive is disposed between the feeding mechanism and the braking member {see the 112(f) section above, [FIG. 3] 9 is the feeding mechanism and the first 10 after 9 is the holding mechanism}.
Regarding claim 8, NAKAHARA discloses wherein the nozzle unit includes a pressing unit configured to press the elongated adhesive led out from the through hole against a surface of the object to be stuck at a tip end portion facing the object to be stuck, and the pressing unit is formed at a plurality of locations or over an entirety of an outer peripheral edge portion of the through hole {[FIG. 4] note the peripheral area of hole 4 is the pressing unit}.
Regarding claim 12, NAKAHARA discloses further comprising: a winding body configured to hold the elongated adhesive to be wound around surroundings {[FIG. 1] note the bobbin or winding body, [FIG. 3] note bobbin 7};
a feeding mechanism configured to pull out the elongated adhesive from the winding body and feed out the elongated adhesive toward the nozzle unit; and an assist mechanism configured to apply an external force in a feeding direction to the elongated adhesive fed out from the winding body, wherein the nozzle unit presses the fed out elongated adhesive against the object to be stuck {see the 112(f) section above, [FIG. 3] 9 is the feeding mechanism and the first 10 after 9 is the assist mechanism}.
Regarding claim 13, NAKAHARA discloses further comprising: a positioning mechanism configured to support the nozzle unit and adjust a positional relationship between the nozzle unit and the object to be stuck; and an absorption mechanism configured to correct a relative position of the nozzle unit and the positioning mechanism with respect to a pressing direction when a tip end of the nozzle unit presses the elongated adhesive against the object to be stuck {see the 112(f) section above, [overview, P2] note handheld operation of the device, therefore movement of the hand reads on the position mechanism (XYZ movement) and the slippage of the device between fingers reads on the absorption mechanism}.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, and 16 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 6 and 16, NAKAHARA’s braking member cannot be modified to include a through hole with the recited hole diameter ratio since this member is a pair of rollers.
Similarly, regarding claim 9, NAKAHARA’s braking member cannot be modified to become an inverted cone shape with a through hole since this member is a pair of rollers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748