DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on June 25, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 25, 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:
push component in claim 1;
material conveying mechanism in claim 2.
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 § 103
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber (US 6,802,903) in view of Takiura (US 3,876,736).
In regards to claim 1, Barber teaches an adhesive applicator apparatus comprising;
an adhesive supply (18, feeding mechanism with a material storage container) which contains a liquid (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 50-60);
a pair of grippers (12/14) (coating and curing mechanism) provide a transfer areas (42/72) (forming mold) that provide a cavity (forming cavity) define by counterbores (48/50/78/80) of the grippers, where adhesive passage-44 and adhesive passage-74 connect the counterbores and the adhesive supply (fig. 1-9; col. 4, lines 20-35, col. 4, line 60- col. 5, line 20).
Barber does not explicitly teach a push component that is movably inserted into the material storage container.
However, Takiura teaches a main reaction chamber (2) comprising a screw (1, push component). Takiura teaches the screw is moved by a piston (6) and is moved by a reduction gear (5) and a motor (4) (fig. 1; col. 2, lines 50-65). Takiura teaches the outlet of the main reaction chamber connects to a molding head die (30) (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 20-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the main reaction chamber with the moving screw of Takiura onto the adhesive supply of Barber because Takiura teaches it minimizes the occurrence of troubles and ensures a stable operation (col. 4, lines 30-40).
In regards to claims 2-3, Barber and Takiura as discussed, where Barber teaches a pair of tubing (first and second conveying pipe) connects the adhesive supply and the pair of grippers and the inlets of the pair of tubing are connected to the adhesive supply (fig. 1, 8; col. 3, lines 45-60).
In regards to claim 4, Barber and Takiura as discussed, where Takiura teaches the plunger (6) connects with the screw (1) using a rod (not labeled, but shown), the rod extends into the main reaction chamber (2) (fig. 1; col. 2, lines 50-65).
In regards to claims 5-6, Barber and Takiura as discussed, where Takiura teaches the reduction gear (5) (first and second gear) and the motor (4) are connected to the rod and move the rod and screw around an axis (fig. 1; col. 2, lines 50-65).
In regards to claims 7-9, Barber and Takiura as discussed, where Barber teaches the pair of grippers (12/14) that provide a first and second mold, with a distance between each of the mold changes by an actuating cylinder assembly (16) (fig. 1-9; col. 5, lines 15-20).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber and Takiura as applied to claims 1-9 above, and further in view of Cheng (US 2023/0241815).
In regards to claims 10-11, Barber and Takiura as discussed but do not explicitly teach a mold drive component and a mold transmission component, the mold transmission component comprises a lead screw and a guide rail, the lead screw is connected to an output end of the mold drive component, and the mold drive component is configured to drive the lead screw to rotate, the guide rail is arranged parallel to the lead screw and is connected to the first mold, the guide rail movably passes through the second mold, the lead screw is connected to the second mold in a threaded connection, and rotation of the lead screw is configured to drive the second mold to move close to or away from the first mold along the guide rail, two guide rails are provided, and the two guide rails are separately arranged parallel to the lead screw and are arranged on two sides of the lead screw at intervals.
However, Cheng teaches drive unit (4) comprising a drive motor (41), a transmission mechanism (42), a threaded shaft (43) and a pair of slide rods (14). Cheng teaches the threaded shaft is connected to the drive motor and transmission mechanism and the threaded shaft and the pair of slide rods are in parallel. Cheng teaches the drive unit moves a die holder (22) to and from an opposing die holder (21) (fig. 1-; para. 18, 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the drive unit of Cheng onto the pair of grippers of Barber and Takiura because Cheng teaches it is a simple structure for moving dies (para. 34).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights