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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 12/22/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims share corresponding special technical features and therefore form a single general inventive concept and thus there is unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because the groups do not share a “special technical feature” because the share technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art because claim 1 is anticipated by Xu et al. (US PG Pub 2023/0091061; hereafter ‘061) as demonstrated by the prior art rejection below.
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected system and product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/22/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1: The claim recites the following abstract ideas:
generating or obtaining a model… (a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
determining, using the model… (a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
selecting the determined set for operating the dispensing device (a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
The claim recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
A method implemented by a processor for optimizing the dispensing of an adhesive from a dispensing device… (Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
selecting the determined set for operating the dispensing device (Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
The claim includes additional elements that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are mere data gathering:
obtaining at least one target parameter value… (mere data gathering. See MPEP §2106.05(g).)
obtaining at least one value of a local parameter… (mere data gathering. See MPEP §2106.05(g).)
Claims 2-10: Claims 2-10 recite the additional limitations directed towards monitoring, determining, identifying, selecting, type of model, type of data used for modeling, obtaining data, and selecting parameters.
These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (US PG Pub 2023/0091061; hereafter ‘061).
Claim 1: ‘061 is directed towards a method implemented by a processor for optimizing the dispensing of an adhesive from a dispensing device comprising at least one controllable setting (see title, abstract, Fig. 2, and ¶s 17, 22, & 33), the method comprising:
obtaining at least one target parameter value for at least one parameter of a structure formed by the adhesive after it is dispensed (see abstract, Fig. 2, and ¶s 10-14 & 30-34);
obtaining at least one value of a local parameter in a vicinity of the dispensing device, the local parameter comprising a physical parameter of the adhesive in the dispensing device, an environmental condition in the vicinity of the dispensing device, and a mechanical parameter of the dispensing device (abstract, Fig. 2, and ¶s 10-14 & 30-34);
generating and/or obtaining a model that comprises a description of relationships between the at least one local parameter, the at least one parameter of the structure formed after it is dispensed and intrinsic properties of the adhesive (see abstract, Fig. 2, and ¶s 10-14 & 30-34); and
selecting the determined set for operating the dispensing device (abstract, Fig. 2, and ¶s 10-14 & 30-34).
Claim 2: ‘061 further teaches monitoring the values of the at least one parameter of the formed structure (see Fig. 2); and initiating a determination of the set comprising at least one controllable setting for operating the dispensing device upon detecting that a difference between the monitored values of the at least one parameter of the formed structure and the at least one target parameter value is above a predetermined threshold (see Fig. 2 & ¶s 10-14 & 30-34).
Claim 3: ‘061 further discloses that the determining the set comprising at least one controllable setting for operating the dispensing device comprises:
determining achievable parameter values of a structure formed by the adhesive after it is dispensed based on the model (Fig. 2);
identifying achievable parameter values that match the at least one target parameter value or differ from the at least one target parameter value by less than a predetermined amount (Fig. 2 & ¶s 30-34); and
identifying the set comprising the at least one controllable setting associated with the achievable parameter values (see Fig. 2 and ¶s 33-34).
Claim 4: ‘061 further teaches determining more than one set comprising at least one controllable setting for operating the dispensing device and selecting a set among the more than one set which minimizes time to dispense the adhesive (see Fig. 2 & ¶ 22).
Claim 5: The model is generated using a machine learning algorithm that is trained on measured data obtained from a previous use of the dispensing device and knowledge of the intrinsic properties of the adhesive (see Fig. 2, abstract).
Claim 6: The model is generated using a previous model obtained or generated in connection with at least one other target parameter by less than a fixed amount (based on previous trays; see Fig. 2).
Claim 7: ‘061 further teaches obtaining a subset of at least one target setting for the at least one controllable settings (¶ 8) and determining the set of the at least one controllable setting further taking into account the subset of the at least one target fixed setting (Fig. 2 in conjunction with teaching of ¶ 8).
Claim 8: The local parameter is a thickness of the adhesive structure after it is dispensed (see ¶ 22).
Claim 9: Wherein the intrinsic properties of the adhesive comprises the ratio of constituents of the adhesive that are mixed together at the time of dispensing (see ¶ 20).
Claim 10: Wherein the target parameter comprises the height of the adhesive structure formed by the adhesive after it is dispensed (see ¶ 22).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759