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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-11 were previously cancelled.
Claims 12, 16, and 26 have been amended.
Claims 27 and 28 have been added.
Claims 13-15 and 17-25 are as previously presented.
Claims 12-28 are still pending in this application, with claims 12 and 16 being independent.
This amendment overcomes the previously set-forth 7/16/2025 objection to claim 26; however, Applicant's amendment to introduces a new 112(b) rejection, described below.
This amendment overcomes the previously set-forth 7/16/2025 rejections of claims 12-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 26, which recites: “The ultrasonic cleaner device of claim 16, wherein the body has shape and an outer dimension conforming to shape and an outer dimension of the portafilter used in brewing”
The term “conforming” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “conforming” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, “conform” has a variety of meanings, including “be similar in form or type” (“similar” also being a relative term not defined by the claims or the specification), and although base claim 16 describes that the body is “…configured to be at least partially and releasably attached to… the espresso coffee machine in an interchangeable manner with a portafilter”, it would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art what specific shapes or values of an outer dimension thereof, would satisfy claim 26. Specifically, it is unclear to what extent the shape of the body may differ from the shape of the portafilter, and to what extent the outer dimension of the body may differ from the outer dimension of the portafilter, while still satisfying claim 26, thus claim 26 is indefinite. Examiner has interpreted the “conforming to” to be “similar in appearance”, which is also subjective.
Examiner notes that since base claim 16 already requires that the body is configured to be releasably attached to the portafilter in an interchangeable manner, wherein the body comprises two separate outwardly directed projections which are configured to connect to the dispensing group, and in view of pp. 10-11 of the specification (“Preferably, the cleaner device 6 comprises a handle 65 and a body 66 which is adapted to engage, in a releasable manner, to the lower face of a dispensing group 15. For example with a bayonet-like connection means 661. According to other embodiments, the body 66 is provided with projections 661 adapted to cooperate with guides forming at least one sliding surface for slidably supporting the cleaner device 6. The projections 661 are in the form of ears which are arranged diametrically opposed from each other and are shaped with a decreasing thickness as shown in the Figures or with a substantially constant thickness… This is clear by the arrows in Figure 2: the ultrasonic cleaner device is moved upwardly and then rotated counter-clockwise so that the projections 661 engage a proper slot in the lower part of the dispensing group. As an alternative, if the dispensing group of the coffee machine is provided with a different arrangement for engaging with a portafilter, the ultrasonic cleaner device will be designed as the portafilter for such a different arrangement.”) it is unclear how claim 26 is intended to further limit claim 16 since it seems that the shape/outer dimension of the base would already adapted to cooperate/engage the portafilter, and thus would have a shape/dimensions based on the portafilter.
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 12, 14-18, 20-22, 24, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PL-228860 (hereinafter Folek) in view of US10638875 (hereinafter Senger) and in further view of US20190313841 (hereinafter Quinn) and Non-Patent Literature (hereinafter APC).
Regarding claim 12,
Folek discloses:
A method of cleaning a part of a coffee machine comprising a dispensing group (“mechanical cleaning of the internal contact surfaces of the coffee container located inside the head”: p. 1), the method comprising:
releasably attaching a body (body 1; fig. 1, reproduced below)
to a lower face of the dispensing group of the coffee machine (“cleaner is placed in the head of the [coffee] machine, manually pressing its upper surface against the inner surface of the head”: p. 1, lines 41-42),
(fig. 1, Folek)
PNG
media_image1.png
420
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the body comprising
a liquid reservoir defined within the body (basin 8: fig. 5, reproduced below) and
(fig. 5, Folek)
PNG
media_image2.png
618
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the body being attached in an interchangeable manner with a portafilter used in brewing espresso coffee (“purpose of the invention is to develop a mechanical washer for portafilter coffee machine heads, which ensures quick and thorough cleaning of the inner contact surface of the coffee container [portafilter] placed inside the head”: p. 1, lines 11-12),
the liquid reservoir defining a (basin 8: fig. 5, reproduced below),
loading said reservoir with a liquid (cleaning agent and/or water: p. 1, lines 44-45);
generating an electronic signal (“powered from an external source drive in the form of an electric motor has a body 1”: p. 1, lines 29-30);
sending the electronic signal (“rotation of the brush spreads the cleaning agent over the machine head, so that the head is cleaned”: p. 1, lines 43-44).
However, Folek does not explicitly disclose:
the body comprising two separate outwardly directed projections which are configured to releasably attach to the dispensing group;
the liquid reservoir defining a cylindrical volume;
sending the electronic signal to a piezoelectric transducer defined within the body below the liquid reservoir having a greater extent in the reservoir depth direction than the liquid reservoir so that the piezoelectric transducer receives the signal and responds by changing shape and creating a mechanical action in the liquid reservoir above the piezoelectric transducer for cleaning the part of the coffee machine.
Senger, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (see figs. 5, 2, 7, and 8) it is known to attach cleaner devices (10) designed to be attached to an espresso coffee machine made with a dispensing group (1) using the same means (projections/cams 38) arranged on the opposite sides of the head (11) of the cleaner device (10) to the dispensing group (col. 17, lines 4-31) to allow for effective connection of the cleaner device during cleaning without manual support (col. 10, lines 53-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize projections/cams on opposing sides of the body as set forth in Senger to allow for the effective attachment of the cleaner device of Folek as this is a known and effective way of attachment to an espresso machine and would allow the device to clean the espresso machine without the need for manual support.
Quinn, in the same field of endeavor (i.e., an ultrasonic cleaning device for a coffee machine), teaches a piezoelectric transducer (ultrasonic transducer 132: fig. 2, reproduced below) defined within the body below the liquid reservoir (cavity 118: para. 0052; fig. 2), sending the electronic signal to the piezoelectric transducer so that the piezoelectric transducer receives the signal (“control circuit board 130 is configured to selectively activate the ultrasonic transducer 132 upon user input from the control panel 134”: para. 0048) creating a mechanical action in the liquid reservoir (i.e., ultrasonic vibrations). The Examiner merely mentions cavity 118 to highlight the location of the u ltrasonic transducer 132.
(fig. 2, Quinn)
PNG
media_image3.png
432
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute Folek’s mechanical cleaning with rotating brushes with Quinn’s ultrasonic cleaning, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of cleaning coffee machines. It is well understood that the use of an ultrasonic cleaning device is more hygienic “particularly by cleaning inside the conduit” (para. 0018, Quinn). PHOSITA would have known of these advantages and would have performed the substitution with reasonable expectations of success.
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach that the piezoelectric transducer responds by changing shape.
APC, in the same field of endeavor (i.e., piezoelectric ultrasonic transducers that are used in cleaning systems; p. 2, line 18), teaches that piezoelectric transducers respond by changing shape as long as the electronic signal is applied (“[i]t functions by rapidly expanding and contracting when appropriate electrical frequency and voltage is applied”: p. 2, line 16-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute Quinn’s ultrasonic transducers with APC’s piezoelectric ultrasonic transducers, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of introducing ultrasonic activity into the cleaning tank.
Furthermore, selecting a given shape defined by the liquid reservoir (i.e., the liquid reservoir defining a cylindrical volume) would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application. Specifically, although the liquid reservoir of Folek (basin 8) does not explicitly define a cylindrical volume, in view of the substantially cylindrical volume defined by the cavity 118 of Quinn, and since the specification is silent with regards to any criticality to the shape of the liquid reservoir and merely gives an example shape of a liquid reservoir in fig. 4C, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the liquid reservoir define a cylindrical volume as necessitated by a given application, e.g., size/spacing requirements.
Furthermore, selecting a dimension of the piezoelectric transducer relative to a corresponding dimension of the liquid reservoir (i.e., piezoelectric transducer having a greater extent in the reservoir depth direction than the liquid reservoir) would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application. Specifically, since the specification is silent with regards to any criticality to the relative sizes (in the reservoir depth direction) of the piezoelectric transducer relative to the liquid reservoir, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the piezoelectric transducer have a greater length in a vertical direction relative to a length of the liquid reservoir.
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 12, which claim 14 depends upon, as discussed above.
Folek as modified by Senger further discloses wherein said attaching said body to the dispensing group of the coffee machine comprises screwing the body to the dispensing group or sliding the body into slides of the dispensing group. Specifically, Senger further discloses the conventional practice of sliding/rotating cams 38 into grooves in order to mount cleaner device 10 to the dispensing group (“In particular, the cams 38 interact with guide grooves of the group head 1, which are part of the bayonet closure device of the group head 1”: col. 17; “Now the cams 38 of the holder element 26 may be mounted in a helical groove of a bayonet connection to the group head 1”: col. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Quinn to incorporate the teachings of Senger to include wherein said connecting said ultrasonic cleaner device to the dispensing group of the coffee machine comprises screwing the ultrasonic cleaner device to the dispensing group or sliding the ultrasonic cleaner device into slides of the dispensing group, because doing so makes a secure connection that is water-tight. PHOSITA would have known of these advantages and would have performed the substitution with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 15, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 14, which claim 15 depends upon, as discussed above.
Folek as modified by Senger further discloses wherein said attaching said body to the dispensing group of the coffee machine comprises hanging the body using a handle. Specifically, Senger further discloses hanging the ultrasonic cleaner device using a handle (handle 39: fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Folek to incorporate the teachings of Senger to include wherein said attaching said body to the dispensing group of the coffee machine comprises hanging the body using a handle, because doing so makes a secure connection that is water-tight. PHOSITA would have known of these advantages and would have performed the substitution with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 16, which recites substantially similar limitations as claim 12 with the exception of being directed toward an apparatus, is rejected for the same reasons as claim 12.
Regarding claim 17, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 16, which claim 17 depends upon, as discussed above.
Folek as modified by Senger further discloses wherein the body comprises a handle, and wherein the outwardly directed projections are arranged symmetrically with respect to a longitudinal axis of the handle. Specifically, Senger further discloses a handle (handle 39: figs. 5, 3a, 3b, 7, 8, and 10) and wherein the outwardly directed projections are arranged symmetrically with respect to a longitudinal axis of the handle (see fig. 5, showing cams 38 arranged symmetrically with respect to a longitudinal axis of handle 39).
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 16, which claim 18 depends upon, as discussed above.
Folek as modified by Senger further discloses wherein the two separate outwardly directed projections are configured to cooperate with a circular guide or with a linear guide at the lower face of the dispensing group. Specifically, Senger further discloses that the cams 38 interact with circular guide grooves, (“In particular, the cams 38 interact with guide grooves of the group head 1”: col. 17; “Now the cams 38 of the holder element 26 may be mounted in a helical groove of a bayonet connection to the group head 1”: col. 19).
Regarding claim 20, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 16, which claim 20 depends upon, as discussed above.
Folek as modified by Quinn further discloses a generator configured to generate the electronic signal. Specifically, Quinn discloses a generator (control circuit board 130, battery 128, induction loop 126, dock induction coil 144, mains electricity supply 146: fig. 2) for generating the electronic signal to be sent to the piezoelectric transducer (“The user uses the control panel 134 to start the cleaning process. This causes the control circuit board 130 to supply power to the ultrasonic transducer 132. The transducer 132 generates ultrasonic vibrations which pass into the water 12 at a frequency (in this embodiment) of 40 kHz.”: col. 3).
Regarding claim 21, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 20, which claim 21 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein the body incorporates the liquid reservoir, the piezoelectric transducer.
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach the body incorporates the generator.
Quinn is directed toward an ultrasonic cleaning device for a coffee machine. Quinn teaches wherein the body incorporates the generator (control circuit board 130: para. 0052; fig. 2, reproduced below).
(fig. 2, Quinn)
PNG
media_image3.png
432
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Folek to incorporate the teachings of Quinn to include the body incorporates the generator, because having a cordless appliance will remove a tripping hazard in a busy kitchen. PHOSITA would have known of these advantages and would have performed the substitution with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 22, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 20, which claim 22 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein the body (body 1: fig. 5, reproduced below, Folek) incorporates the liquid reservoir (basin 8: fig. 5, Folek) and the piezoelectric transducer (ultrasonic transducer 132: fig. 2, Quinn) and wherein the generator is remote from said body (“powered from an external source”: p. 1, line 28, Folek). Examiner notes that as Folek discloses brushes 7 within the body 1, it logically follows that the piezoelectric transducer would also be located within the body 1.
(fig. 5, Folek)
PNG
media_image4.png
452
602
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 16, which claim 24 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein the body (body 1: figs. 1 and 5, Folek) is configured to be at least partially attached to a lower face of a dispensing group (“purpose of the invention is to develop a mechanical washer for portafilter coffee machine heads, which ensures quick and thorough cleaning of the inner contact surface of the coffee container placed inside the head”: p. 1, lines 7-10, Folek) of an espresso coffee machine (espresso machine: p. 1, line 12, Folek) in lieu of a portafilter.
Regarding claim 27, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 12, which claim 27 depends upon, as discussed above.
Folek as modified by Quinn further discloses wherein the first depth is substantially uniform in a reservoir depth direction. Specifically, in view of Quinn disclosing wherein a first depth of cavity 118 is substantially uniform in a depth direction (see fig. 2), and since the specification is silent with regards to any criticality of the uniformity of the first depth of the liquid reservoir, selecting a shape of the liquid reservoir would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, e.g., to maximize surface area, to optimize the effect of the transducer.
Regarding claim 28, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 16, which claim 27 depends upon, as discussed above.
Folek as modified by Quinn further discloses wherein the first depth is substantially uniform in a reservoir depth direction. Specifically, in view of Quinn disclosing wherein a first depth of cavity 118 is substantially uniform in a depth direction (see fig. 2), and since the specification is silent with regards to any criticality of the uniformity of the first depth of the liquid reservoir, selecting a shape of the liquid reservoir would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, e.g., to maximize surface area, to optimize the effect of the transducer.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PL-228860 (hereinafter Folek) in view of US10638875 (hereinafter Senger), US20190313841 (hereinafter Quinn), and Non-Patent Literature (hereinafter APC) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of WO-2017067854 (hereinafter BIANCHI).
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 12, which claim 13 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Folek discloses wherein said part of the coffee machine comprises a component which is involved in brewing the espresso coffee, (“the head of the [coffee] machine”: p. 1, lines 41-42).
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach: including one component selected from the group consisting of: a diffuser screw, a shower screen, the dispensing group, a dispensing group solenoid valve and a brewing pipe.
BIANCHI, in the same field of endeavor (i.e., an espresso coffee machine), teaches including one component selected from the group consisting of: a diffuser screw (diffuser 29: p. 10, lines 28-30), a shower screen (screen 30: p. 10, lines 28-30), the dispensing group (curved spout 38), the dispensing group solenoid valve (“group valve body 16 comprises a three-way valve”: p. 9, lines 24-26) and a brewing pipe (pipe 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Folek to incorporate the teachings of BIANCHI to include one component selected from the group consisting of: a diffuser screw, a shower screen, a brew group, a dispensing group solenoid valve and a brewing pipe, because this “reduc[es] significantly the maintenance operations needed to prevent blockage” (p. 15, lines 1-2, BIANCHI).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PL-228860 (hereinafter Folek) in view of US10638875 (hereinafter Senger), US20190313841 (hereinafter Quinn), and Non-Patent Literature (hereinafter APC) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20200060453 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 17, which claim 19 depends upon, as discussed above.
Folek as modified by Senger further discloses wherein said two separate outwardly directed projections are in the form of ears which are arranged diametrically opposed from each other and are . Specifically, Senger further discloses cams 38 in the form of ears, arranged diametrically opposed from each other, and wherein the cams are about a constant thickness (see fig. 7).
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach the projections shaped with a decreasing thickness.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor (i.e., improved sealing member for a cup fitted with a lid assembly), teaches that flanges/protrusions shaped with a decreasing thickness (“In addition, the upper flange 16 has a maximum thickness (C) at the first pair of opposite locations on the major axis (see FIG. 4). Also, the upper flange 16 has a minumum thickness (ED) at the second pair of opposite locations on the minor axis. As such, each of the projection width and thickness of the upper flange 16 is gradually changed from a maximum value to a minimum value.”: para. 0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Folek and Senger to incorporate the teachings of Wang to shape the projections with a decreasing thickness, since Wang teaches that this would further force the body against the lower face of the dispensing group (“During the forward rotation of the sealing member 2, the increasing thickness of the upper flange 16 enables the two pads 24, 25 to force against the water outlet 13 and the air vent 14, respectively, thereby closing a cup that is fitted with the lid assembly.”: para. 0020).
Claims 23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PL-228860 (hereinafter Folek) in view of US10638875 (hereinafter Senger), US20190313841 (hereinafter Quinn), and Non-Patent Literature (hereinafter APC) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of WO-2019074448 (hereinafter Robnik).
Regarding claim 23, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 16, which claim 23 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach the body (body 1: figs. 1 and 5, Folek), a handle (handle 39: figs. 5, 3a, 3b, 7, 8, and 10, Senger), and a battery (battery 128: fig. 2, Quinn). Further, Folek discloses being “powered from an external source” (p. 1, line 27).
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach the battery housed, at least partially, in the handle.
Robnik, in the same field of endeavor (i.e., a cleaner for standard coffee machines, shaped like a standard portafilter: Abstract), teaches a battery (battery 20: fig. 1, reproduced below) housed, at least partially, in a handle (handle 3: fig. 1).
(fig. 1, Robnik)
PNG
media_image5.png
530
928
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to integrate Folek’s external power source into body 1, as demonstrated with Robnik’s battery 20 being included in handle 3, because the integration of the power source would not have modified the operation of cleaning a coffee machine. See also MPEP 2144.04(V)(B). PHOSITA would have known of these advantages and would have performed the substitution with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 25, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 16, which claim 25 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach the body (body 1: figs. 1 and 5, Folek).
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach a modified portafilter.
Robnik, in the same field of endeavor (i.e., a cleaner for standard coffee machines, shaped like a standard portafilter: Abstract), teaches a modified portafilter (fig. 1, reproduced below, Robnik).
(fig. 1, Robnik)
PNG
media_image5.png
530
928
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Folek to incorporate the teachings of Robnik to include a modified portafilter, because doing so makes a secure connection that is water-tight. PHOSITA would have known of these advantages and would have performed the substitution with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 26, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 16, which claim 25 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach the body (body 1: figs. 1 and 5, Folek).
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach wherein the body has shape and an outer dimension conforming to shape and an outer dimension of the portafilter used in brewing.
Robnik, in the same field of endeavor (i.e., a cleaner for standard coffee machines, shaped like a standard portafilter: Abstract), teaches wherein the body has shape and an outer dimension conforming to shape and an outer dimension of the portafilter used in brewing (fig. 1, reproduced below, Robnik).
(fig. 1, Robnik)
PNG
media_image5.png
530
928
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Folek to incorporate the teachings of Robnik to include wherein the body has shape and an outer dimension conforming to shape and an outer dimension of the portafilter used in brewing, because doing so makes a secure connection that is water-tight. PHOSITA would have known of these advantages and would have performed the substitution with reasonable expectations of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding amended claims 12 and 16 are not persuasive (pp. 8-10). Claims 12 and 16 have been amended to specify that:
the liquid reservoir defines a cylindrical volume having a first depth in a reservoir depth direction, and
the piezoelectric transducer has a greater extent in the reservoir depth direction than the liquid reservoir.
Applicant argues, on p. 8-9: “Support for the amendatory limitations resides throughout the original disclosure. See, for example, Fig. 4C, reproduced at the left below, which clearly shows liquid reservoir 61 as having a cylindrical volume and in which piezoelectric transducer 62 has a greater extent in the reservoir depth direction than liquid the reservoir… By contrast, the Folek basin 8 (shown at the left below) is not cylindrical nor does it have uniform depth. The Quinn transducer 132 is much shorter than the Quinn cavity 118 (as shown at the right below).” Folek is directed towards a cleaner for a coffee machine, comprising a liquid reservoir (“a dispenser in the form of a basin for the cleaning substance”, p. 2), wherein mechanical cleaning is achieved through the rotation of brushes and spreading of cleaning agent stored in the reservoir (“The rotation of the brush spreads the cleaning agent over the machine head, so that the head is cleaned”, p. 2). Quinn is directed towards the known element of ultrasonic cleaning, which is achieved through a piezoelectric transducer creating a mechanical action in liquid in a liquid reservoir (“an ultrasonic transducer configured to transmit ultrasonic energy into the container in use.”: para. 0048). However, although the liquid reservoir of Folek (basin 8) does not explicitly define a cylindrical volume, in view of the substantially cylindrical volume defined by the cavity 118 of Quinn, and since the specification is silent with regards to any criticality to the shape of the liquid reservoir and merely gives an example shape of a liquid reservoir in fig. 4C, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the liquid reservoir define a cylindrical volume as necessitated by a given application, e.g., the reservoir is intended to accommodate submerging of the part to be cleaned, which is a known feature of ultrasonic cleaning (“The hand-held assembly 102 is then lifted from the base 104 by the handle 114 and moved into position to submerge at least part of the wand 10.”: para. 0052, Quinn). Similarly, with regards to a shape of the piezoelectric transducer relative to the liquid reservoir (i.e., the limitation requiring the piezoelectric transducer has a greater extent in the reservoir depth direction than the liquid reservoir), selecting a dimension of the piezoelectric transducer relative to a corresponding dimension of the liquid reservoir would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application. Specifically, since the specification is silent with regards to any criticality to the relative sizes (in the reservoir depth direction) of the piezoelectric transducer relative to the liquid reservoir, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the piezoelectric transducer have a greater length in a vertical direction relative to a length of the liquid reservoir.
Applicant continues on pp. 9-10: “Moreover, the skilled person would not be led to combine Folek with ultrasonic technology since, e.g., the non-uniformity of the Folek basin 8 would not provide uniform interface of the liquid with a surface or parts above, such as a screen of a dispensing group, for sufficient cleaning of the surface or parts above even if the liquid were ultrasonically agitated. The motivation would especially be lacking in conjunction with a liquid reservoir having shape and aspect relative to a transducer as now claimed (which is entirely different from both Folek and Quinn)… The skilled person would not conclude from Quinn's structure, in which cavity 116 appears only partially filed and in which the dimensions of the Quinn transducer 132 are relatively small, that the Quinn structure could replace or be substituted for the Folek rotating mechanical system nor be used to clean an above-mounted screen of a dispensing group.” With regards to combining Folek and Quinn, Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that it would have been obvious to substitute Folek’s mechanical cleaning with Quinn’s ultrasonic cleaning, wherein the shape of the liquid reservoir would be selected according to the requirements of ultrasonic cleaning, as opposed to the requirements of rotational, mechanical cleaning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm EST.
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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761