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 .
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suhara et al. (US 2017/0008023), hereinafter Suhara.
Regarding claim 1, Suhara discloses a fluid application method for applying a fluid to a surface of a workpiece comprising:
(a) a shape-retained portion forming step of forming a shape-retained portion made of the fluid (P) extruded from a discharge port (50) of a nozzle (30) (Fig. 13A), which is arranged in a position spaced from the application surface (application object W) (par. 0059, 0084; see Fig. 13A), to be adhered to the application surface (W), and
(b) a shape-retained portion cutting step of cutting the shape-retained portion to be left in an adhesion state on the application surface side by sliding a wire (64) toward the shape-retained portion formed in the shape-retained portion forming step in a transverse direction crossing the discharge port of the nozzle (par. 0077, 0079-0080, 0088; Figs. 3A-3D).
Regarding claim 4, Suhara discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the nozzle is moved away from the surface and the wire slides across in the transverse direction as to cut the material (par. 0094).
Regarding claim 5, Suhara discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the shape-retained portion is formed by adhesion of the fluid to the application surface (Fig. 13A) in an inclined state where the nozzle is obliquely arranged with respect to the application surface (as shown in the drawings).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suhara (US 2017/0008023) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of de Vries et al. (US 2021/0086221), hereinafter de Vries.
Regarding claims 2-3, Suhara discloses the subject matter of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the fluid is sucked in the manner as required in the claims.
However, de Vries discloses a similar process of applying a fluent material from a die, in which the die is operated to both “suck” (de Vries, par. 0039) a material in one direction from an opening and also to force the material through the opening (de Vries, par. 0045), explaining that this feature helps to achieve the desired shape of the product as it is being deposited, with respect to the shape of the bead being formed by the device.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified the above from Suhara to have specified that the fluid is both sucked and pushed with pressure as to have likewise achieved a satisfactorily shaped material.
Claim(s) 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suhara (US 2017/0008023).
Regarding claim 6, Suhara discloses the subject matter of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the surface has an opening.
However, Suhara does recognize the utility of the process for the use of production of materials, such as industrial products (par. 0059). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that the surface has an opening as to produce a given industrial product from the process of Suhara above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
