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
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I: Claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the searches would significantly overlap. This is not found persuasive. Although there may be some overlap of the search for the inventions there is nothing to indicate that the search would be coextensive. Further, the examination on the merits of apparatus claims differs from that of a method and that of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Therefore, the extra search and/or examination burden for addressing multiple inventions poses a serious burden to the examiner which makes the restriction requirement proper. For these reasons, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble of “A dispenser” should be reworded as “A dispenser apparatus” or “A dispenser system” as simply stating “A dispenser” could direct the preamble to either an apparatus or a product. The claims and Applicant’s acknowledgement that the claims are meant to be apparatus claims in their Applicant’s reply to the Restriction Requirement received on 06/15/2026 make it sufficiently clear that these apparatus claims and thus avoids a 112(b) rejection, but the preamble should be amended to reflect that.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claim 4 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.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 uses the phrase “predetermined second lower threshold” in lines 10-11 and line 13. The use of the word “second” implies that there is a “predetermined first lower threshold” which lacks antecedent basis and is not found in the claims. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret this phrase as a “predetermined lower threshold”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
4. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 2021/0331199; hereafter Smith).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches of a main agent supplier and a hardener supplier that respectively supply a main agent and a hardener for the main agent (reservoirs- 105 and 106; noted holding either resin or hardener; [0048]; see Figure 1A) a mixing container (mixer coupler- 117) to which the main agent supplier supplies the main agent and the hardener supplier supplies the hardener ([0049]). The mixing container includes a stirring blade with a motor (stirrer) to form an adhesive that is a mixture of the main agent and the hardener ([0049]), a detector (sensor) to detect a physical quantity representing torque (viscosity; [0032]) and a controller (control and analytic system or alternative as a controller; [0032]) that has a stop control function to stop supply of the main agent from the main agent supplier to the mixing container and supply of the hardener from the hardener supplier to the mixing container (“prevent a dispensing cycle”; [0101]) and an indication control function that indicates that a viscosity of the adhesive is abnormal ([0086]). A predetermined upper threshold is one of the bounds of both “operational conditions that are outside of a range that is adjustable” ([0101]), and a “substandard product” ([0086]).
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.
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.
5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Gerhardt (US 4,118,024).
Regarding claim 3, Smith teaches that the controller both measures viscosity and adjusts pumps rates based on operational data ([0046]). In the case that the operational viscosity value is greater than a second predetermined upper threshold, the pump ratio would change to reduce viscosity. This is done by pumping more of the less viscous component, which would lower the viscosity, and thus be considered a viscosity reducer. This is a secondary threshold as this is a range that is still adjustable in contrast to the first threshold that is no longer adjustable and forces the stop function.
Smith does not teach of a presser, nor really of any structure beyond the dispensing of adhesive. Gerhardt teaches that when bonding sheets with resin (col. 1 lines 15-21), it is advantageous to use a presser (platen press) for the advantage of activating the resin (col. 1 lines 39-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to include the presser of Gerhardt in the apparatus of Smith for the manufacturing capability of being able to make a laminate wherein the resin is properly activated.
6. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Gerhardt and Voss (US 2009/0161480).
Regarding claim 4, Smith does not teach of a presser, nor really of any structure beyond the dispensing of adhesive. Gerhardt teaches that when bonding sheets with resin (col. 1 lines 15-21), it is advantageous to use a presser (platen press) for the advantage of activating the resin (col. 1 lines 39-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to include the presser of Gerhardt in the apparatus of Smith for the manufacturing capability of being able to make a laminate wherein the resin is properly activated.
Smith teaches that the controller both measures viscosity and adjusts auxiliary functions accordingly ([0071]). In the case that the operational viscosity value is less than a predetermined lower threshold, the controller would adjust an auxiliary function to increase viscosity. Smith does not teach of cooler to cool the adhesive, but does teach that unlisted auxiliary functional structure may be employed and controller by the controller ([0050]). Smith does not explicitly teach the use of a cooler. Voss teaches of a cooler (cooling device) to cool an adhesive mixture for the advantage of longer pot life ([0034]-[0037]). In adding a cooling system to the apparatus of Smith, this cooling system would be one of Smith’s auxiliary systems and in the case of detecting a predetermined lower threshold value of viscosity the cooler would be activated to increase viscosity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to include the cooler of Voss in the apparatus of Smith for the advantage of a longer pot life of adhesive.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and for the minor informalities noted above, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, Smith does not teach of a presser. Smith does not teach or render obvious that the controller controls, based on a value of the torque or the physical quantity detected by the detector, at least one of a magnitude of a force of the pressing performed by the presser or a time length of the pressing performed by the presser.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached on 571-273-1095. 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.
/ALEXANDER S WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights