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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8 and 21) in the reply filed on 6/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6/16/2026.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 "the second fluid channel system also has the three-dimensionally curved fluid channel section" in lines 1-2. It is unclear if the second fluid channel system has a separate curved fluid channel section from the first fluid channel system of share the same system. Examiner ahs interpreted the limitation to read as “the second fluid channel system also has a three-dimensionally curved fluid channel section”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2016/0256889 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jones teaches a nozzle arrangement (Figures 1-10) for applying fluid to a substrate (paragraph 0032, configured to dispense patterns of adhesive onto a substrate), the nozzle arrangement comprising:
a main body (as interpreted as combination of modules 12, 26) configured to be connected to a mounting region of a distributor (manifold 22 in Figure 1; paragraph 0033), the main body including an end-side side surface with at least one first outlet nozzle for the fluid to be applied to the substrate, the at least one first outlet nozzle in or on the end-side side surface of the main body (dispensing nozzle 204 in Figures 9-10; paragraph 0078),
wherein, a first fluid channel system is formed in the main body (102, 104, 114, 116, 216, 220 in Figures 5-10), via which the at least one first outlet nozzle is fluidly connected to a first fluid connector provided in the main body (Figures 9-10, 210 of 204 is fluidly connected to 218; paragraph 0079). While Jones does not disclose the first fluid channel system having a three-dimensionally curved fluid channel section that is curved along multiple axes, Jones does disclose the first fluid channel system is configured to recirculate the fluid within the main body (paragraphs 0049-0051) through the passages (102, 104, 114, 116, 216, 220 in Figures 5-10) of the first fluid channel system. While patent drawings are not necessarily to scale, Figures 5-10 seems to show where the passages of the first fluid channel system are at least curved at various point. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, Jones discloses the first fluid channel system has a three-dimensionally curved fluid channel section that is curved along multiple axes.
Regarding claim 2, Jones further discloses at least one second outlet nozzle is in or on the end-side side surface of the main body for dispensing shaping air in a targeted manner to influence a direction of a fluid jet dispensed from the at least one first outlet nozzle (channels to left and right of outlet 210 in Figures 9-10), wherein the at least one second outlet nozzle is fluidly connected to a second fluid connector on the main body via a second fluid channel system formed in the main body (as shown in Figures 9-10; paragraph 0080, process air inlet 222 communicates with process air passages 222 a…which are adapted to receive the supply of pattern/process air…for use in producing a liquid spray pattern in a non-contact dispensing mode).
Regarding claim 3, Jones teaches all the elements of claim 2 and further discloses the second fluid channel system also has a three-dimensionally curved fluid channel section (128 in Figures 5-6; paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 4, Jones teaches all the elements of claim 2 and further discloses the nozzle arrangement is a monolithic component (Figures 5-10) which is consistent with what application considers ‘monolithic’ (i.e., all structural features of the nozzle arrangement are formed integrally in the main body of the nozzle arrangement, paragraph 0039 of the published application). Jones does not disclose the nozzle arrangement is formed by a plurality of additive production layers; however, it is noted said limitation is a product by process limitation.
With regard to the claim recitations regarding the method of forming the apparatus, such relate only to the method of producing the claimed apparatus, which does not impart patentability to the apparatus claims. Note that determination of patentability is based on the product apparatus itself, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688, and the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 145, 147; see also In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985). Note also that it is Applicant's burden to prove that an unobvious difference exists, In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (CAFC 1983), and Applicant must show that different methods of manufacture produce articles having inherently different characteristics, Ex: parte Skinner, 2 USPQ2d 1788. See MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 21, Jones teaches a nozzle arrangement (Figures 1-10) for applying fluid to a substrate (paragraph 0032, configured to dispense patterns of adhesive onto a substrate), the nozzle arrangement comprising:
a main body (as interpreted as combination of modules 12, 26) configured to be connected to a mounting region of a distributor (manifold 22 in Figure 1; paragraph 0033), the main body including an end-side side surface with a first outlet nozzle for the fluid to be applied to the substrate (dispensing nozzle 204 in Figures 9-10; paragraph 0078) and a second outlet nozzle for dispensing shaping air to influence a direction of a fluid jet dispensed from the first nozzle (channels to left and right of outlet 210 in Figures 9-10; paragraph 0080, process air inlet 222 communicates with process air passages 222 a…which are adapted to receive the supply of pattern/process air…for use in producing a liquid spray pattern in a non-contact dispensing mode), the first outlet nozzle in or on the end-side side surface of the main body (as shown in Figures ), the main body including a first fluid channel system via which the first outlet nozzle is fluidly connected to a first fluid connector in the main body (102, 104, 114, 116, 216, 220 in Figures 5-10), the second outlet nozzle located in or on the end-side side surface of the main body (as shown in Figures), the second outlet nozzle fluidly connected to a second fluid connector on the main body via a second fluid channel system formed in the main body (128 in Figures 5-6; paragraph 0057),
wherein at least one of the first fluid channel system or the second fluid channel system has a three-dimensionally curved fluid channel section that is curved along multiple axes (reference rejection to claim 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 6 would be allowable for requiring
“…wherein an extension region in which at least one of the first outlet nozzle or the second outlet nozzle is formed is located on the end-side side surface of the main body, wherein the extension region and the at least one of the first outlet nozzle or the second outlet nozzle are formed such that an outlet opening of the at least one of the first outlet nozzle or the second outlet nozzle is at a distance from the end-side side surface of the main body and a main flow axis, the main flow axis predefined by the outlet opening of the at least one of the first outlet nozzle or the second outlet nozzle and along which the fluid dispensed from the at least one first outlet nozzle moves, encloses an acute angle with the end-side side surface of the main body.”.
Claims 7-8 would be allowable at least for depending on claim 6
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lessley (US 2016/0144622 A1) discloses a fluid passageway within a laminated nozzle assembly of different shapes and sizes (Figure 4; paragraph 0023).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 8/06/2026
Prosecution Insights