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 § 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koester et al. (US Pub No 2019/0358869 A1) in view of Ahmad (US Pat No 4,278,045).
Re claim 1, Koester et al. show an apparatus (Figs. 1 & 2) for forming and dispensing a fluid mixture, comprising:
a) a mixhead (100/110/120) that includes:
i) multiple inlets (left inlet/right inlet) for the introduction of starting materials for mixing in the mixhead, the multiple inlets being in fluid communication with
ii) a mixing zone (interiors of 100/110/120) in which starting materials introduced into the mixhead through the multiple inlets are combined to form a fluid mixture, the mixing zone being in fluid communication with
iii) a mixhead outlet (100/110/120 end outlets) through which a fluid mixture formed in the mixing zone is removed from the mixhead, the mixhead outlet being in fluid communication with
b) a distribution system (200/210/220 as well as the connection between 100/110/120 and 200/210/220) for distributing and dispensing a fluid mixture exiting the mixhead outlet, said distribution system including i) a conduit system (R-OH line, R-NCO line, connection between 100 and 200) including at least one branch point at which the conduit system is divided to define multiple flowpaths (Fig. 1) and ii) outlets (connections at 200/210/220) at termini of the multiple flowpaths of the conduit system for dispensing the fluid mixture from the distribution system;
c) nozzles (sections from 500 to 400) at the terminus of each of the multiple flowpaths of the conduit system, the nozzles each having i) a nozzle inlet (at 500) in fluid communication with an associated flowpath (300) of the distribution system, ii) multiple nozzle outlets (400) including two terminal nozzle outlets (outer 400) and one or more interior nozzle outlets (interior 400) located between the two terminal nozzle outlets and iii) one or more individual ducts extending within the nozzle (from 500 to 400) from the nozzle inlet to the nozzle outlets.
Koester et al. does not teach wherein the nozzle outlets are arranged in a diverging pattern in a plane wherein each nozzle outlet is at an angle of 5 to 450 from each adjacent nozzle outlet, the two terminal outlets are at an angle of 30 to 90 to each other, and the distance between adjacent nozzle outlets is 1 to 30 mm.
However, Ahmad shows a foaming nozzle (Fig. 4, 10) having i) a nozzle inlet (30) in fluid communication with an associated flowpath of the distribution system (24), ii) multiple nozzle outlets (exits of ports 32,34,36,38) including two terminal nozzle outlets (exits of ports 32, 38) and one or more interior nozzle outlets (exits of ports 34, 36) located between the two terminal nozzle outlets and iii) one or more individual ducts extending within the nozzle (ports 32,34,36,38) from the nozzle inlet to the nozzle outlets, wherein the nozzle outlets are arranged in a diverging pattern in a plane (Fig. 4) wherein each nozzle outlet is at an angle of 5 to 45[Symbol font/0xB0] from each adjacent nozzle outlet (each nozzle outlet, the exits of ports 32 through 38 is demonstrated with an angle between 5 to 45[Symbol font/0xB0] from each adjacent nozzle outlet), the two terminal outlets (exits of ports 32, 38) are at an angle of 30 to 90[Symbol font/0xB0] to each other (exit of port 32 is demonstrated at an angle between 30 to 90[Symbol font/0xB0] from the exit of port 38).
The substitution of one known element (nozzle in Ahmad) for another (nozzle as shown in Koester) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the nozzle shown in Ahmad would have yielded predictable results, namely, a nozzle in Koester et al. to apply a foamable reaction mixture to a moving outer layer (Koester – abstract).
Koester et al. as modified by Ahmad do not teach the distance between adjacent nozzle outlets is 1 to 30 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the distance between adjacent nozzle outlets between 1 to 30 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the position of the nozzle outlets relative to each other which achieves the recognized result of enabling the streams of foamable material to be directed so that the proper separation of the streams is maintained, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, no criticality for the claimed range is apparent in applicant’s disclosure.
Re claim 2, Koester et al. as modified by Ahmad show each nozzle outlet (Ahmad – exits of ports 32, 34, 36, 38) is at an angle of 5 to 20[Symbol font/0xB0] from each adjacent nozzle outlet.
Re claim 3, Koester et al. as modified by Ahmad show the two terminal outlets (Ahmad – exits of ports 32, 38) are at an angle of 45 to 60[Symbol font/0xB0] to each other.
Re claim 4, Koester et al. as modifed by Ahmad do not teach the distance between adjacent nozzle outlets is 5 to 12 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the distance between adjacent nozzle outlets between 5 to 12 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the position of the nozzle outlets relative to each other which achieves the recognized result of enabling the streams of foamable material to be directed so that the proper separation of the streams is maintained, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, no criticality for the claimed range is apparent in applicant’s disclosure.
Re claim 5, Koester et al. as modified by Ahmad show the nozzles each have 3 to 8 outlets (Ahmad – Fig. 4).
Re claim 6, Koester et al. as modified by Ahmad show the nozzles are integrated with the distribution system (Koester - 200/210/220 as well as the connection between 100/110/120 and 200/210/220).
Re claim 7, Koester et al. as modified by Ahmad show the individual ducts extending within the nozzle (Ahmad – ports 32, 34, 36, 38) from the nozzle inlet (Ahmad – 30) to the nozzle outlets (Ahmad – exits of ports 32, 34, 36, 38) are not all the same.
Re claim 8, Koester et al. as modified by Ahmad show one or more individual ducts extending within the nozzle (Ahmad – ports 32, 34, 36, 38) from the nozzle inlet (Ahmad – 30) to the nozzle outlets (Ahmad – exits of ports 32, 34, 36, 38) have a constant cross-sectional area along their lengths from the nozzle inlet to the nozzle outlets.
Re claim 9, Koester et al. as modified by Ahmad show the distribution system includes a conduit system which includes multiple conduits (Koester - connections between 100, 110, 120 to 200, 210, 220 and 300) that collectively form multiple flowpaths from the mixhead outlet (Koester - end outlets of 100, 110, 120) to each outlet at the termini of the multiple flowpaths of the conduit system for dispensing the fluid mixture from the distribution system and to the nozzle at the terminus of each of the multiple flowpaths, wherein all the flow paths (Koester - connections between 100, 110, 120 to 200, 210, 220 and 300 and from 500 to 400) through the distribution system to the outlets (Koster - 400) at the termini of the multiple flowpaths of the conduit system are the same length.
Re claim 10, Koester et al. as modified by Ahmad disclose a process for making a laminated panel (Koester – paragraph 0004), comprising continuously dispensing a reactive foam formulation onto a moving bottom facing layer (Koester – abstract), through an apparatus of claim 1 (see above) by introducing components comprising at least one polyisocyanate (Koester – paragraph 0021), at least one physical blowing agent (Koester – paragraph 0021), at least one polyol (Koester – paragraph 0021) and at least one catalyst (Koester – paragraph 0021) into the mixing zone of the mixhead (Koester – 100, 110, 120) through the multiple inlets of the mixhead, mixing the components in the mixing zone to form the reactive foam formulation and continuously transferring the reactive foam formulation out of the mixhead outlet and then through the distribution system (Koester - 200/210/220 as well as the connection between 100/110/120 and 200/210/220) and out of the nozzle outlets of the nozzles (Ahmad – 10) onto the moving bottom facing layer, wherein the nozzle outlets are arranged parallel to and across at least a portion of the width (Ahmad – Fig. 3) of the bottom facing layer and the nozzle outlets each dispense a jet of foam formulation (Koester – abstract, Ahmad – abstract), which jets travel in a diverging pattern (Ahmad – Fig. 1) and come into contact with the moving bottom facing layer where foam formulation dispensed from adjacent jets combine to form a layer of reactive foam formulation on the bottom facing layer, and
II. curing the layer of reactive foam formulation on the bottom facing layer to form a laminated panel comprising the bottom facing layer and a polymer foam layer bonded to the bottom facing layer (Koester – paragraphs 0004 & 0048).
Re claim 11, Koester et al. as modified by Ahmad show the one or more individual ducts (Ahmad – ports 32, 34, 36, 38) are in fluid communication with a common conduit (Ahmad – truncated cone section of 30) disposed within the nozzle, the common conduit being in fluid communication with the nozzle inlet (Ahmad - upper cylindrical section of 30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument directed at the Ahmad reference and regarding the newly amended language of claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. An annotated figure is being presented to clearly present the examiner’s position in view of the language presented in the claim, the structure presented in the prior art, specifically figure 4, and applicant’s structure as specifically seen in figure 3. As can clearly be seen, Ahmad directly demonstrates the claimed structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
371
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
737
1110
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, regarding applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Koester with the structure in Ahmad, substituting the nozzle sections (the sections located between elements 400 and 500) in Koester with the nozzle sections (dispensing cone 10) of Ahmad yields a predictable result and does not diverge from the overall teaching in Koester. If anything, specifically the dispensing cone in Ahmad, which is itself an internally ducted nozzle configuration, follows applicant’s description of Koester.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding applicant’s argument that applicant’s specification discloses criticality for the claimed range of “the distance between adjacent nozzle outlets is 1 to 30 mm,” applicant purports that experimental data provided in the present application demonstrates improvements in jet behavior and layer uniformity however in no way does applicant’s specification connect the distance between adjacent nozzle outlets to these improvements and furthermore applicant’s specification discloses a number of distance ranges, which are specifically described as “center-to-center” distances which is in fact not claimed, to which no direct benefit is attributed to these ranges which are merely described as “example” ranges and also vary by quite a large amount with no specificity assigned to them. Lastly, in describing “example 1” and “comparative samples A and B,” no actual distance between the nozzles appears to be mentioned at all. As such no experimental data with regard to the distance between adjacent nozzle outlets appears to be present in applicant’s disclosure.
In light of applicant’s remarks, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights