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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
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:
Injector is interpreted under 112f as being an injection means, disclosed as an adhesive dispenser/injector 130 in Fig. 2;
Controller is interpreted under 112f and disclosed as component 140 in the drawings;
Output portion in claim 10, disclosed in Fig. 1 and as box 150 in Fig. 1 and ¶33 as a component which may comprise of a display or speaker which can give an alarm;
Storage portion, disclosed in Fig. 2 as a container 110.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment has rendered the 112 rejections of the previous office action moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by .Kiernan et al. (US 5263608) in view of Thode et al. (US 20190032799).
As to claim 1, Kiernan discloses an apparatus for dispensing a controlled volume of adhesive (Abstract). Kiernan discloses that the apparatus comprises of: an injection portion 20 for discharging an adhesive; a flow sensor 3 for detecting a flow rate of the adhesive; a control portion 7 capable of determining whether adjustments need to be made to the apparatus according to the measured flow rate (Fig. 1 below; C2, L65 – C3, L50).
PNG
media_image1.png
397
683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kierman fails to specifically teach or disclose whether the injector comprises of a pneumatically movable pestle for moving to and from an operating position to allow adhesive to flow. Thode discloses an injector (Fig. 1(a), 1(b), 2(a), 2(b)). Thode discloses that the injector comprises of a fluid actuated pestle 14 (¶28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the pestle actuated injector of Thode in the device taught by Kierman because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful injection means for providing a material from an injector. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to the limitation that the actuation means is air, it is the position of the Examiner that air/pneumatic actuation would fall into the category of fluid actuation and would have been obvious at the time of the invention.
Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, the apparatus of Kiernan contains all of the structural limitations of claim 1.
As to claim 2, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Kiernan discloses that the apparatus has a storage portion 1 in the form of a reservoir, with a pipe 2 connecting said storage portion to the flow sensor (Id.).
As to claim 3, the apparatus of claim 2 is taught as seen above. Kiernan discloses that the flow sensor 3 is fixed to the outer surface of the pipe 2 (Fig. 1).
As to claim 8, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. The controller of Kiernan is capable of making determinations according to the flow rate read by the flow sensor that it is connected to.
As to claim 9, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Kiernan disclose that the injection portion is adjusted by the controller according to a flow rate of the adhesive measured by the flow sensor (C3, L65 – C4, L48).
As to claims 11 and 12, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above since they are drawn to materials worked upon and method limitations and do not recite new structural limitations of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiernan et al. (US 5263608) and Thode et al. (US 20190032799) as applied to claims 1-3 and 8-9 above, and further in view of Tsukigi et al. (US 20190285450).
As to claims 4 and 5, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Kiernan discloses that the flow sensor may comprise of a thermal sensor but fails to teach or disclose that the sensor comprises of separate transceivers capable of sending ultrasonic waves to one another according to set inclination angles so as to detect the flow rate of the fluid in the pipe. Tsukigi discloses a clamp-on type ultrasonic flow sensor (Abstract). Tsukigi discloses that the sensor comprises of a first and second transceiver disposed at respective inclination set angles that can send ultrasonic waves towards each other (Fig. 3 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the ultrasonic flow sensor of Tsukigi in the apparatus taught by Kiernan because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional means of non-invasively measuring the fluid flow rate of a material in a pipe. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claims 6 and 7, the apparatus of claim 5 is taught as seen above. Tsukigi discloses that the sensor calculates the flow rate based on a difference between reception times of the receivers and the cross-sectional area of the pipe (¶12, 58-61).
PNG
media_image2.png
425
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiernan et al. (US 5263608) and Thode et al. (US 20190032799) as applied to claims 1-3 and 8-9 above, and further in view of Rzonca et al. (US 20120259448).
As to claim 10, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Kiernan fails to specifically teach or disclose whether the apparatus may have an output portion comprising a display alarm for when the apparatus runs outside of desired operation parameters. Rzonca discloses an apparatus for regulating adhesive application (Abstract). Rzonca discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to include display alarms and alerts with a controller that monitors the flow rate of adhesive so that the operator may be alerted to noncompliant events such as the flow rate of adhesive being too slow (¶24-25). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include display alarms and would have been motivated to do so because Rzonca teaches that such alarms can be used to alert operators of noncompliant events such as the flow rate being too slow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will address only those arguments pertinent to the rejection above.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 that Kiernan fails to teach or disclose that the injector has the recited pneumatically actuated pestle as currently claimed. This argument is not persuasive since, as seen in the rejection above, Thode discloses that it is known and conventional in the art of injectors to use a fluid actuated pestle to control the material dispensed by an injector.
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 CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. 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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights