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 6 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Estelle does not teach a special technical feature. This is not found persuasive, because although Applicant represents that independent claim 1 recites “determining . . . a target pressure of the material provided by the pump based on a desired speed of the conveyor utilizing a control algorithm . . .” (Remarks, p. 8), Claim 1 does not in fact recite the limitation “determining . . . a target pressure of the material provided by the pump based on a desired speed of the conveyor utilizing a control algorithm . . . .” Instead, Claim 1 recites the limitation “adjusting a pressure of the pump based on the comparing the material applied per substrate to a target value.”
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6 April 2026.
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:
In Claim 1, “application device configured to apply a desired amount of material” (generic placeholder: “device”; functional language: “application . . . configured to apply a desired amount of material), associated with a gun, hose, or nozzle [0035].
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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 7, the phrase “pressure the material” should be written “pressure of the material.”
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.
Claims 3 and 6-8 are 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “to account for a non-linear relationship of flow resistance of components of the material dispensing system for determining the pressure of the material and the speed of the conveyor.” The limitation is indefinite, since it is not clear what is meant by “relationship of flow resistance of components”; it is not clear whether it means that components each have a flow resistance and there is a known non-linear relationship between them or whether it means that there is a relationship between flow resistance of the set of components and some other property (e.g. pressure or conveyor speed). Examiner interprets the limitation to include a non-linear relationship among measurements of flow resistance of each component or a non-linear relationship between flow resistance of the set of components and some other property (e.g. pressure or conveyor speed). Moreover, pressure can be considered a measure of flow resistance, determined from pressure and flow rate.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “generating with the controller the control algorithm.” The limitation is indefinite as vague and insufficiently defined, since it is not clear what would be considered an algorithm which is generated with the controller, whether it means, for example, generating conditionals and paths of an algorithm or simply changing values of variables in a set algorithm. Examiner considers the limitation to include the interpretation of performing an algorithm or inputting values into an algorithm.
Claims 7-8 are rejected as depending from rejected Claim 6.
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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Estelle (US 2018/0117622).
Regarding Claim 1, Estelle (US’622) teaches a method for controlling material application in a material dispensing system, the method comprising: implementing a conveyor configured to convey substrates along a dispense line at a speed [0025]; implementing an application device (e.g. gun) configured to apply a desired amount of a material to each of the substrates [0020]; implementing a pump configured to deliver the material at a pressure to the application device (Abstract); implementing a controller configured to receive a desired speed of the conveyor and control a speed of the conveyor to convey the substrates along the dispense line at the desired speed [0020,0028]; determining with the controller a target pressure of the material provided by the pump to the application device to provide the desired amount of the material to each of the substrates utilizing a control algorithm [0027-0028],; measuring an amount of material applied to a plurality of substrates by a pump (Abstract); comparing the material applied per substrate to a target value (Abstract); and adjusting a pressure of the pump based on the comparing the material applied per substrate to a target value (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 10, US’622 teaches an adhesive material (Abstract).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estelle (US 2018/0117622) in view of Kerzel (US 4,530,862).
Regarding Claims 2-5, US’622 does not teach a control algorithm, configured to account for a non-linear relationship between pressure and conveyor speed. Kerzel (US’862) is analogous prior art in the field of dispensing adhesives on substrates carried by a conveyor and controls for an apparatus which dispenses adhesives (col. 1, lines 7-12) and teaches a control algorithm configured to account for a non-linear relationship between pressure of the pump (also of the material) and the speed of the conveyor, since a relationship between pressure and fluid flow rate is not linear, by varying gain and offset controls to readjust pressure output by pump (Figs. 3,4; col. 3, lines 34-40; col. 7, lines 55-67; col. 9, line 42 to col. 10, line 27; col. 10, lines 28-40). Moreover, a non-linear relationship between pressure and fluid flow rate also implies a non-linear relationship of flow resistance. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of US’622 with a control algorithm configured to account for a non-linear relationship between a pressure of the material and a speed of the conveyor and also of flow resistance of components, because US’862 teaches a non-linear relationship between pressure and conveyor speed and suggests an algorithm to account for it in a process for dispensing an adhesive.
Further regarding Claim 5, US’622 teaches that the controller receives the desired speed to control the speed of the conveyor [0028]. Concerning the limitation “the controller determines the target pressure of the material provided by the pump to the application device based on the desired speed to provide the desired amount of the material to each of the substrates using a non-linear control algorithm”, see rejections of Claims 1 and 2 above.
Regarding Claim 6, US’622 teaches generating a signal from the controller to determine a required speed of adhesive material and corresponding pump pressure (i.e. material pressure), including factoring in speed of the conveyor [0028]. US’622 fails to teach generating with the controller at a plurality of line speeds. US’862 is analogous prior art in the field of dispensing adhesives on substrates carried by a conveyor and controls for an apparatus which dispenses adhesives (col. 1, lines 7-12) and suggests generating an algorithm associating a plurality of line speeds for a conveyor with an associated operational pressure of the material that provides a desired amount of the material applied to the substrates (Figs. 3-4; col. 3, lines 34-40; col. 4, lines 23-40; col. 9, line 42 to col. 10, line 40). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’622 by generating with the controller the control algorithm during operation of the material dispensing system at a plurality of line speeds by receiving for each of the plurality of line speeds of the conveyor an associated operational pressure of the material by the controller and/or a user interface that provides a desired amount of the material applied to the substrates, because US’862 suggests associating a plurality of line speeds with an associated operational pressure and an amount of material dispensed.
Regarding Claims 7-9, the combination of US’622 in view of US’862 fails to teach associating and storing with the controller each of the plurality of line speeds of an associated operational pressure of the material. However, calibration curves and lookup tables were conventional in the art at the time of invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of US’622 in view of US’862 by associating and storing with the controller each of the plurality of line speeds of the conveyor and the associated operation pressure of the material through conventional look up tables and/ or calibration curves, given the teachings in US’862 that conveyor speed changes and pressure should be controlled to vary with conveyor speed (col. 2, lines 31-35; col. 9, lines 16-22).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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 M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights