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) 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Takashima et al (JP 2021 1161404).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 7-8, Takashima discloses filamentous adhesive affixing devices comprising a movement mechanism that moves a nozzle to press a filamentous adhesive against an object, and methods in which a filamentous adhesive is prevented from getting inside a nozzle by lowering the nozzle in an oblique direction, even when the excess length of the filamentous adhesive that extrudes out from the leading end of the nozzle is short.
Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 23, the oblique direction (the direction indicated by the arrow N2) is at an angle falling within the numerical range recited in applicant’s claims 1 and 7 of the present application, and the ratio of the length of the extra length portion to the length of the filamentous adhesive is shown to be approximately 5.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al (JP 2021 1161404) as described above.
Since Takashima addresses the issue of reducing the excess length of a filamentous adhesive that extrudes out from the leading end of a filamentous adhesive nozzle, a person skilled in the art could easily optimize the angle of the oblique direction to further reduce the ratio of the length of the excess length portion to the length of the filamentous adhesive and solve this issue.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Takashima does not disclose the movement speed of the nozzle. However, it is the examiner’s position that a person skilled in the art could easily move the nozzle at a slow speed as in claims 3 and 9 of the present application to prevent the filamentous adhesive from getting inside the nozzle when the nozzle is lowered in the oblique direction.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Takashima does not stipulate the relationship between the filamentous adhesive affixing direction and the nozzle movement direction. However, as the filamentous adhesive is pulled in the affixing direction when the filamentous adhesive affixing device is operated to affix the filamentous adhesive, it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art that the direction in which the excess length portion is attached should be opposite (180°) to the affixing direction to reliably carry out the affixation to the affixation starting point.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 11-12, Takashima does not indicate that the nozzle is temporarily moved to a position which is a "movement direction switching point". However, in the filamentous adhesive affixing devices, it is the examiner’s position that a person skilled in the art could, as appropriate, have the nozzles move in different directions in multiple stages and optimize the positions where the movement direction is switched.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES D SELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1237. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5.
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.
JAMES D. SELLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/JAMES D SELLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights