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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-12 are pending and claim 1, 4, 7, and 12 are amended.
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: heating element in claim 1.
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 (page 3 lines 30 through page 4 line 5 discloses the use of a heated hose and also a preheater) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Donaldson (U.S. 2019/0022678).
With respect to claim 1, Donaldson discloses a system configured to spray multiple components to be mixed (paragraph 0009) and form a mixture at a target by impingement (paragraph 0009), comprising: at least one first component temperature sensor (figure 1, temperature sensor 42, paragraph 0019) and at least one second component temperature sensor (figure 1, temperature sensor 42, paragraph 0019, there being multiple sensors 42 along both flow lines from A and B to the spray gun 28); at least one first component pressure sensor (paragraph 0019, where the sensors 42 include pressure sensors) and at least one second component pressure sensor (paragraph 0019, where the sensors 42 include pressure sensors, there being 5 #42s along each flow path); at least one first component heating element (there being multiple heating elements, heating system 34 and heated conduits 30 and 32); an applicator (spray gun 28), and a control system (0036) comprising an interface (paragraph 0020) configured to receive at least one temperature setpoint from a user (paragraph 0020), wherein the interface is also configured to receive at least one pressure setpoint from the user (paragraph 0020), and wherein the control system is configured to perform an operation comprising automatically adjusting a temperature (paragraph 0029, to have the controlled desired temperature at the gun) of the at least one first component to minimize a pressure difference (paragraph 0011, hitting and maintaining a target pressure, abstract, such that the desired pressure difference, minimizing the pressure difference, paragraph 0013) between the multiple components while maintaining a temperature of the mixture at the at least one temperature setpoint (paragraphs 0011-0013 and 0020-0025, where the temperature and pressure are both controlled via the pump and the heating systems and the two are sensed and maintaining to achieve a desired target pressure and temperature at the gun as well, controlling the temperature would reflect in the pressure control as well, since as temperature changes pressure changes, paragraph 0030 further discloses that such pressure differences to be minimized and adjusted adjusting the temperatures is also done).
With respect to claim 2, Donaldson discloses the temperature setpoint corresponds to a temperature at the applicator (paragraph 0020, where the spray gun has the control system where the user inputs the desired temperature).
With respect to claim 3, Donaldson discloses the temperature setpoint corresponds to a temperature of the mixture of the multiple components (paragraphs 0020, 0023, and 0013, where the senses temperature is that at the spray gun, where the mixture occurs, further noting that the controller derives a value for the mixing at the gun)
With respect to claim 4, Donaldson discloses the pressure setpoint corresponds to a pressure at the spray gun (paragraph 0013 and abstract).
With respect to claim 5, Donaldson discloses the pressure setpoint corresponds to the pressure of each of the multiple components at the applicator (abstract, two pressure sensors on the spray gun for both first and second fluid).
With respect to claim 6, Donaldson discloses the interface requires only one temperature setpoint and only one pressure setpoint from the user (paragraph 0020).
With respect to claim 7, Donaldson discloses a first component line (32) and a second component line (30), wherein a first component line is in fluid communication with a polyol source (paragraph 0017, B including polyols), and a second component line is in fluid communication with a multi-isocyanate source or a urethane prepolymer source (paragraph 0017, where A includes isocyanates).
With respect to claim 8, Donaldson discloses a second component heating element (heating element for the heated conduit 20), wherein the first component line and first component heating element is a heated hose (32 being a heated conduit), and wherein the second component line and second component heating element is a heated hose (30 being a heated conduit), and wherein a difference in pressure between each of the multiple components is minimized by adjusting the temperature of the at least one second component (paragraph 0030).
With respect to claim 9, Donaldson discloses the mixture is a polyurethane foam (paragraphs 0002 and 0009).
With respect to claim 10, Donaldson discloses the control system is configured to raise the temperature of each heated hose to achieve a minimal difference in pressure between each of the multiple components (paragraph 0030).
With respect to claim 11, Donaldson discloses wherein the applicator is a spray gun (28 being a spray gun).
With respect to claim 12, Donaldson discloses the one first component temperature sensor is selected from the group consisting of a thermal sensing element (such that it measures the temperature of fluid, paragraphs 0029 and 0031) and the measured resistance of the heating element.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (05/04/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 1-12 are pending and claim 1, 4, 7, and 12 are amended. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have failed to overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (02/03/2026).
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose “wherein the control system is configured to perform an operation comprising automatically adjusting a temperature of the at least one first component to minimize a pressure difference between the multiple components while maintaining a temperature of the mixture at the at least one temperature setpoint.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0030 discloses “ The processor 40 may then independently control pressure of the A and B compound (and/or any other two or more fluids) to minimize or to eliminate the pressure differences between the two (or more) materials at or near the gun 28, as described above, e.g., by adjusting pump rates, temperatures, flows, and so on, to arrive at equal pressures between A and B compounds.” Which discloses that the controller, via the processor, controls the temperature to minimize or eliminate the pressure difference between the two materials at or near the gun.
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 JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights