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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9 line 5, “at third” would be clearer if written as --at the third--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent 5,423,661 to Gabeler in view of U. S. Patent 5,244,367 to Aslin.
Referring to claim 1, Gabeler teaches a system comprising:
a fluid supply assembly comprising:
a fluid supply (12-15) supplying fluid (Figures 1-11; col. 5 line 41 - col. 6 line 31),
a dispensing line (40-1) connected the fluid supply (12-15) (Figures 1-11; col. 5 line 41 - col. 6 line 31),
a gear pump (20) comprising a motor (20-5) and a gear (20-1, 20-2) configured for rotation by the motor (20-5) to provide a flow of fluid from the fluid supply (12-15) to the dispensing line (40-1) (Figures 1-11; col. 5 line 41 - col. 6 line 31),
a revolution counter (20-6) counting a number of revolutions of an element of the gear pump (Figures 1-11; col. 5 line 41 - col. 6 line 31),
a pressure transducer (21) coupled to the dispensing line (40-1), the pressure transducer (21) configured to sense pressure in the system (Figures 1-11; col. 5 line 41 - col. 6 line 31), and
a controller (30) including a processor and a memory (col. 9 lines 3-4 and 10-11 disclose a stored control program which means that there is memory since memory is required for the storing) to control the system, wherein the controller (30) is configured to control a flow of the fluid based on the pressure sensed by the pressure transducer (21) and modulating a speed of the gear pump (20) (Figures 1-11; col. 4 lines 20-29, col. 5 line 41 - col. 6 line 31 and col. 8 line 67-col. 9 line 11).
Gabeler does not teach a valve on the dispensing line. Aslin teaches a system comprising:
a dispensing valve (25) from which the fluid is dispensed, and a dispensing line (24) connecting a fluid supply (11) to the dispensing valve (25) (Fig. 1; col. 3 lines 13-24).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Gabeler with the dispensing valve taught by Aslin in order to prevent a back flow of fluid from the outlet.
Referring to claim 17, Gabeler and Aslin teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and while Gabeler discloses a display, and Gabeler further teaches a system wherein:
the controller (30) is configured to determine whether a flow result in the system satisfies a flow standard (the controlled flow rate) over a period of time (the monitored period of time (Figures 1-11; col. 4 lines 20-29, col. 5 line 41 - col. 6 line 31 and col. 8 line 67-col. 9 line 11).
Referring to claim 20, Gabeler and Aslin teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Gabeler further teaches a system wherein:
the element of the gear pump includes at least one of the motor, the gear (the pump), and the shaft (the gear pump drive shaft) (Figures 1-11; col. 4 lines 20-29, col. 5 line 41 - col. 6 line 31 and col. 8 line 67-col. 9 line 11).
Claims 12-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent 5,423,661 to Gabeler in view of U. S. Patent 5,244,367 to Aslin and U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0150383 to Douglas.
Referring to claim 12, Gabeler and Aslin teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and while Gabeler discloses a display, Gabeler does not indicate if the display shows flow rates. Aslin does not teach a display for flow rates. Douglas teaches a system comprising:
a display communicatively coupled to a controller, wherein the display is configured to display a flow result of the system (Fig. 5; paragraphs [0046] - [0048], claim 20)
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Gabeler with the flow display taught by Douglas in order to inform the user of the operation of the pump.
Referring to claim 13, Gabeler, Aslin and Douglas teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 12, as detailed above, and while Gabeler discloses a display, Gabeler does not indicate if the display shows flow rates. Aslin does not teach a display for flow rates. Douglas teaches a system wherein:
the flow result comprises a dispensed fluid volume (Fig. 5; paragraphs [0046] - [0048], claim 20)
Referring to claim 14, Gabeler, Aslin and Douglas teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 12, as detailed above, while Gabeler discloses a display, Gabeler does not indicate if the display shows flow rates. Aslin does not teach a display for flow rates. Douglas teaches a display of flow over time (Fig. 5; paragraphs [0046] and [0047], claim 20). It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, that the displayed plot of flow v time also conveys the total flow of the fluid for the displayed intervals of time, since a flow rate multiplied by a time equals the total flow of fluid for that time (Fig. 5; paragraphs [0046] and [0047], claim 20).
Referring to claim 15, Gabeler and Aslin teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Gabeler further teaches a system comprising:
a display communicatively coupled to a controller, wherein the display is configured to display a result of a comparison between a first flow result (184) and a second flow result (186) (Fig. 5; paragraphs [0046] - [0048], claim 20)
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Gabeler with the flow display taught by Douglas in order to inform the user of the operation of the pump.
Referring to claim 16, Gabeler and Aslin teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and while Gabeler discloses a display, Gabeler does not indicate if the display shows flow rates. Aslin does not teach a display for flow rates. Douglas teaches a system wherein:
a controller is configured to determine a total flow of fluid for an interval of time and store the total flow in the memory (Fig. 5; paragraphs [0046] - [0048], claim 20, wherein the displayed plot of flow v time also conveys the total flow of the fluid for the displayed intervals of time, since a flow rate multiplied by a time equals the total flow of fluid for that time).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Gabeler with the flow display taught by Douglas in order to inform the user of the operation of the pump.
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, that the displayed plot of flow v time also conveys the total flow of the fluid for the displayed intervals of time, since a flow rate multiplied by a time equals the total flow of fluid for that time (Fig. 5; paragraphs [0046] - [0048], claim 20), and further that the discloses display must use memory to store the displayed data.
Referring to claim 18, Gabeler and Aslin teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Gabeler further teaches a system wherein:
the controller (30) is configured to: determine that a flow result in the system does not satisfy a flow standard (the controlled flow rate) over a period of time (the monitored period of time (Figures 1-11; col. 4 lines 20-29, col. 5 line 41 - col. 6 line 31 and col. 8 line 67-col. 9 line 11).
While Gabeler discloses a display, Gabeler does not indicate if the display shows that the flow result. Aslin does not teach a display for that the flow result. Douglas teaches a system comprising:
output a notification (X) indicating that the flow result does not satisfy a flow standard (Fig. 5; paragraphs [0046] - [0048], claim 20).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Gabeler with the flow display taught by Douglas in order to inform the user of the operation of the pump.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent 5,423,661 to Gabeler in view of U. S. Patent 5,244,367 to Aslin and U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0250820 to Afshari.
Referring to claim 19, Gabeler and Aslin teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but do not teach wherein the fluid is an adhesive. Afshari teaches a similar system wherein a fluid is an adhesive (paragraph [0084]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Gabeler for use with an adhesive as taught by Afshari in order to use the pump in other commercial or industrial applications (paragraph [0084]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 are 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:
With respect to claims 2-9, the prior art does not teach a system comprising all the limitations of claims 1 and 2, but more specifically wherein the controller is configured to cause the gear pump to provide the fluid from the fluid supply to the dispensing line for a first calibration period; obtain, from the pressure transducer, the pressure in the system; cause the gear pump to maintain the pressure at a first calibration pressure for the first calibration period; obtain, from the revolution counter, a first number of revolutions of the element of the gear pump for the first calibration period while the dispensing valve is closed; and calculate a first loss based on the first number of revolutions and the first calibration pressure.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, the prior art does not teach a system comprising all the limitations of claims 1 and 10, but more specifically wherein the controller is configured to execute an adhesive tracking process when adhesive tracking is enabled, wherein to execute the adhesive tracking process comprises the controller being configured to: determine that a reset bit is set; reset a total adhesive consumption and a total product count; add an adhesive consumption and a product count to the total adhesive consumption and the total product count until an adding period ends; ignore a number of revolutions of the element when the product count has not increased within a maximum product gap time period; calculate an average number of revolutions of the element over a past time period when the product count has increased within the maximum product gap time period; calculate a weight dispensed during the past time period based on the average number of revolutions and an average pressure in the system over the past time period; calculate a loss based on the average number of revolutions and the average pressure in the system over the past time period and one or more loss coefficients; convert the loss to a weight loss based on a fluid density of the fluid; and calculate an average total weight by subtracting the weight loss from the weight dispensed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Beluse, Gustafson and Abt teach similar methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746