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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Xu does not disclose a device for cleaning the vent of the first forging die, and that the vent may need to be cleaned.
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Watt was presented to show that it was known in the art to add a device to a workpiece comprising a cavity for cleaning the cavity. Watt teaches a flushing unit for cleaning any suitable workpiece or component having a cavity in need of cleaning [0014].
In addition, the applicant argues that Xu does not disclose a device for cleaning located at an outlet of the vent of the first die using a cleaning liquid at an ambient temperature.
However, since the apparatus of the Xu/Watt/Zhu teaching includes the structural features of the claimed apparatus, it is the base presumption that the apparatus of the Xu/Watt/Zhu teaching is fully capable of being used wherein the cleaning liquid is injected at an ambient temperature.
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Consult MPEP 2114.
Moreover, the applicant argues that Watt does not teach a forging tool comprising forging dies fitted with at least one vent. In addition, the applicant argues that Watt teaches that the flushing device comprises a heater for heating the contents to a suitable temperate depending upon the cleaning fluid employed, about 85°C.
This argument is not persuasive. Watt teaches a flushing unit for cleaning any suitable workpiece or component having a cavity in need of cleaning [0014]. In addition, Watt teaches that the heater can heat the contents to a suitable temperate depending upon the cleaning fluid [0027]. Moreover, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggest to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Consult MPEP 2123.
Furthermore, the applicant argues that the cleaning device disclosed by Zhu is not adapted for cleaning the vent of a forging die because the pipe to be cleaned is not connected to any die or other piece.
This argument is not persuasive. The refence of Zhu was presented to show that a cleaning device comprising an ultrasonic cleaning generator is effective for cleaning the inner surfaces of a cavity (English translation [0024] Zhu).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 3, claim limitation “evacuation device adapted to evacuate” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Regarding claim 12, claim limitation “evacuation device in order to evacuate” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 12 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In the specification, “evacuation device” has been defined blower [0046], evacuation pipe [0040] or a suction device (0049-0050), reference #120 of figure 4, [0037 and 0040] and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
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 1-5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 105945196 to Xu (hereinafter “Xu”) in view of US 2005/0199271 to Watt (hereinafter “Watt”), and in further view of CN106694457 to Zhu et al. (hereinafter “Zhu”).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches an assembly of a forging tool comprising a vent (figure 1, #7), a first forging die (figure 1, #1), and a second die (figure 1, #2), wherein the vent extends in the entire thickness of the first forging die between an inner face and an external face of the first forging die (see figure 1, English translation [0016]).
Xu does not teach a device for cleaning the vent, wherein the device is located at an outlet of the vent and comprises an injection pump adapted to inject an aqueous solution at an ambient temperature inside the vent, an ultrasound generator adapted to generate ultrasound waves within the vent, an air intake adapted to ensure a venting of the vent, and a valve system adapted to alternately control at least the injection of aqueous solution and ultrasound and the venting of the vent.
However, it was known in the art to add a device to a workpiece comprising a cavity for cleaning the cavity. For example, Watt teaches a flushing unit for cleaning any suitable workpiece or component having a cavity in need of cleaning [0014]. Watt teaches that the flushing unit comprising a hose located at the outlet of the cavity of the workpiece to be cleaned ([0006, 0014, and 0025] and figure 6), an injection pump for injecting a cleaning fluid and water inside the cavity ([0026-0030], and figure 6), an air intake adapted to ensure venting of the cavity ([0030], and figure 6), and a valve system adapted to alternately control at least the injection of the cleaning fluid ([0031], and figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly disclosed by Xu with a device for cleaning the vent, wherein the cleaning device is located at an outlet of the vent and comprises an injection pump adapted to inject a cleaning fluid inside the vent, an air intake adapted to ensure a venting of the vent, and a valve system adapted to alternately control at least the injection of the cleaning liquid and the venting of the vent, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to clean the cavity of the vent cleaned, since Watt teaches that it is effective to include a flushing unit to a workpiece, wherein the flushing unit is effective for cleaning any suitable workpiece or component having a cavity in need of cleaning ([0014] of Watt), the flushing unit comprising a hose which can be located at an outlet of the cavity of the workpiece ([0006, 0014, and 0025] and figure 6 of Watt), an injection pump for injecting a cleaning fluid and water inside the cavity ([0026-0030], and figure 6 of Watt), an air intake adapted to ensure venting of the cavity ([0030], and figure 6 of Watt), and a valve system adapted to alternately control at least the injection of the cleaning fluid ([0031], and figure 6 of Watt).
Xu/Watt does not explicitly teach that the injection pump is adapted to inject an aqueous solution at an ambient temperature inside the vent.
However, since the assembly of the Xu/Watt teaching includes the structural features of the claimed assembly, and Watt teaches that the flushing unit comprises an injection pump for injecting a cleaning fluid and water inside the cavity ([0026-0030], and figure 6), and that the cleaning fluid can be any conventional cleaning fluid capable of dissolving materials desired to be removed from the cavity to be cleaned ([0006, and 0026] of Watt), it is the base presumption that the assembly of the Xu/Watt teaching is fully capable of being used for injecting an aqueous solution at an ambient temperature inside the vent.
Xu/Watt does not teach that the cleaning device comprises an ultrasound generator adapted to generate ultrasound waves within the vent.
However, Zhu teaches a cleaning device for cleaning the inner surfaces of a pipe (English translation [0006]), a pump for injecting the cleaning liquid into the pipe (English translation [0014], figure 2, #10), an ultrasonic generator (English translation [0013]), and a valve system (valves, figure 2, #3, and English translation [0024 and 0026]). Zhu further teaches that the ultrasonic cleaning generator is used for ultrasonic cleaning of the inner walls of the pipe to be cleaned (English translation [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly disclosed by Xu/Watt wherein the cleaning device further comprises an ultrasound generator adapted to generate ultrasound waves within the vent, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Zhu teaches that a cleaning device comprising an ultrasonic cleaning generator is effective for cleaning the inner surfaces of a cavity (English translation [0024] Zhu).
Regarding claim 2, Xu/Watt/Zhu further teaches the vent extending between an inlet opening inside the first forging die and an outlet opening outside the first forging die (see figure 1 of Xu). In addition, the combination of Xu/Watt/Zhu teaches that the injection pump can be installed at the outlet of the vent to spray the cleaning fluid from the outlet to the inlet of said vent (see figure 6 of Watt).
Regarding claim 3, Xu/Watt/Zhu further teaches an evacuation device adapted to evacuate, outside the vent, residues, the evacuation of the residues being controlled, after the injection of cleaning fluid and ultrasound, by the valve system (see figure 6, and English translation [0029-0031] of Watt, and (figure 2, and English translation [0024] of Zhu).
Regarding claim 4, Xu/Watt/Zhu further teaches that the evacuation device comprises an air blowing device installed at the outlet of the vent and ensuring an injection of air inside the vent from the outlet of the vent (see figure 6, and [0029-0031] of Watt).
Regarding claim 5, Xu/Watt/Zhu does not teach that the evacuation device comprises a suction device installed at the outlet of the vent and ensuring a suction of the cleaning fluid with the residues.
However, Zhu further teaches that the cleaning device comprises a suction device installed at the outlet of the pipe to be cleaned and ensuring a suction of the cleaning liquid (English translation [0007-0008, and 0024] of Zhu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Xu/Watt/Zhu wherein the evacuation device comprises a suction device installed at the outlet of the vent and ensuring a suction of the cleaning fluid with the residues, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate the removal of the cleaning fluid and residues from the vent.
Regarding claim 8, Xu/Watt/Zhu further teaches that the valve system comprises a first valve connected to the evacuation device, a second valve connected to the injection pump and a third valv
Regarding claim 9, Xu/Watt/Zhu does not teach that the cleaning fluid injected by the injection pump comprises a corrosion inhibitor.
However, since the apparatus of the Xu/Watt/Zhu teaching includes the structural features of the claimed apparatus, it is the base presumption that the apparatus of the Xu/Watt/Zhu teaching is fully capable of being used for injecting an aqueous solution comprising a corrosion inhibitor.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 105945196 to Xu (hereinafter “Xu”) in view of US 2005/0199271 to Watt (hereinafter “Watt”), and CN106694457 to Zhu et al. (hereinafter “Zhu”), and in further view of DE102018109217 to Ehmer et al. (hereinafter “Ehmer”).
Regarding claim 6, Xu/Watt/Zhu does not teach that the ultrasound generator comprises a plurality of ultrasound transducers mounted axisymmetrically around the outlet of the vent.
Ehmer teaches a cleaning unit for cleaning a lance (figure 1, #6), wherein the cleaning device is located at the outlet of the lance (see figure 1), the device comprising an injection inlet (figure 1, #3) for injecting a cleaning solution or rinse agent such as water into the lance (lance, figure 1, #6) (English translation [0038 and 0046] and figure 1), and an ultrasound emitter (see figure 1, #12) adapted to generate ultrasound waves within the lance (English translation [0011, and 0046] and figure 1). Ehmer further teaches that the ultrasonic emitter comprises an ultrasound transducer, wherein the ultrasound emitter can be arranged on at least one section of the lance (see figures 1-4, and English translation [0011] of Ehmer). In addition, Ehmer teaches that the ultrasonic emitter can be located around the lance to be cleaned (see figures 4 and 5, and English translation [0057] of Ehmer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Xu/Watt/Zhu wherein the ultrasound generator comprises a plurality of ultrasound transducers mounted axisymmetrically around the outlet of the vent, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Ehmer teaches that a cleaning device comprising an ultrasound transducer located around the outlet of the lance to be cleaned is effective for cleaning the lance (see figures 1-5, and English translation [0011, and 0057] of Ehmer). Moreover, the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Consult 2144.04 VI.
Regarding claim 7, Xu/Watt/Zhu does not teach that the ultrasound generator comprises an annular ultrasound transducer, mounted, via a central opening, around the outlet of the vent.
Ehmer teaches a cleaning unit for cleaning a lance (figure 1, #6), wherein the cleaning device is located at the outlet of the lance (see figure 1), the device comprising an injection inlet (figure 1, #3) for injecting a cleaning solution or rinse agent such as water into the lance (lance, figure 1, #6) (English translation [0038 and 0046] and figure 1), and an ultrasound emitter (see figure 1, #12) adapted to generate ultrasound waves within the lance (English translation [0011, and 0046] and figure 1). Ehmer further teaches that the ultrasonic emitter comprises an ultrasound transducer, wherein the ultrasound emitter can be arranged on at least one section of the lance and/or components carrying the cleaning fluid (see figures 1-4, and English translation [0011] of Ehmer). In addition, Ehmer teaches that the ultrasonic emitter can be located around the lance to be cleaned (see figures 4 and 5, and English translation [0057] of Ehmer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Xu/Watt/Zhu wherein the ultrasound generator comprises an annular ultrasound transducer, mounted, via a central opening, around the outlet of the vent, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Ehmer teaches that a cleaning device comprising an ultrasound transducer located around the outlet of the lance to be cleaned is effective for cleaning the lance (see figures 1-5, and English translation [0011, and 0057] of Ehmer).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 105945196 to Xu (hereinafter “Xu”) in view of US 2005/0199271 to Watt (hereinafter “Watt”), and CN106694457 to Zhu et al. (hereinafter “Zhu”), and in further view of CN110976410 to Wei et al. (hereinafter “Wei”).
Regarding claim 10, Xu/Watt/Zhu does not teach a pressure probe adapted to detect a pressure of the injected aqueous solution, the pressure probe being connected to an automatic processing system able to automatically control the valve system and the ultrasound generator.
Wei teaches a device for cleaning a cavity of a pipe (English translation [0007]), the device comprising an ultrasonic generator, a controller, and a pump, pressure sensor (figure 1, #8) and control valve (figure 1, #9) arranged in a cleaning fluid delivery pipeline (see figure 1) (English translation [0050 and 0058]). In addition, Wei teaches that the pressure sensor is adapted to detect that the pressure of the injected cleaning fluid be within a predetermined threshold value, and controlling the control valve and the ultrasonic generators based on the pressure detected (English translation [0077-0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly disclosed Xu/Watt/Zhu with a pressure probe adapted to detect a pressure of the injected aqueous solution, wherein the pressure probe is connected to an automatic processing system able to automatically control the valve system and the ultrasound generator, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of detecting blockages in the pipeline delivering the cleaning fluid as disclosed by Wei (English translation [0077 and 0080] of Wei).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0199271 to Watt (hereinafter “Watt”) in view of CN 105945196 to Xu (hereinafter “Xu”), and in further view of CN106694457 to Zhu et al. (hereinafter “Zhu”).
Regarding claim 11, Watt teaches a method for implementing an assembly for cleaning any suitable workpiece or component having a cavity in need of cleaning [0014], the method comprising the steps of providing a flushing device for cleaning at an outlet of a cavity of a workpiece ([0014] and figure 6), opening of an injection pump and injecting a cleaning fluid, wherein the cleaning fluid can be any conventional cleaning fluid capable of dissolving materials desired to be removed from the cavity to be cleaned [0006, and 0026], and opening of an air intake [0030-0031].
Watt does not explicitly teach that the cleaning fluid is an aqueous solution.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Watt wherein the cleaning fluid is an aqueous solution, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Watt teaches that the cleaning fluid can be any conventional cleaning fluid capable of dissolving materials desired to be removed from the cavity to be cleaned [0006, and 0026].
Watt does not teach that the aqueous solution is at an ambient temperature.
However, the temperature of the aqueous solution is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the temperature the aqueous solution is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants, while if the temperature of the aqueous solution is too high, it wastes energy. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate temperature of the aqueous solution (cleaning fluid) with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Watt does not teach that the method is implemented on a forging tool comprising forging dies fitted with at least one vent, wherein the flushing device is for cleaning a vent of a first forging die suitable for receiving between the first forging die and a second forging die a metal blank to be shaped in order to produce a metal part, the vent extending in the entire thickness of the first forging die between an inner face an external face of said first forging die, wherein the method is performed at an end of an operation of forging the metal part.
Xu teaches that an assembly of a forging tool comprising a vent (cavity) (figure 1, #7), a first forging die (figure 1, #1), and a second die (figure 1, #2), wherein the vent extends in the entire thickness of the first forging die between an inner face and an external face of the first forging die was known in the art (see figure 1, English translation [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Watt, wherein the method is implemented on a forging tool comprising forging dies fitted with at least one vent, wherein the flushing device is for cleaning a vent of a first forging die suitable for receiving between the first forging die and a second forging die a metal blank to be shaped in order to produce a metal part, the vent extending in the entire thickness of the first forging die between an inner face an external face of said first forging die, wherein the method is performed at an end of an operation of forging the metal part, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Watt teaches that the method is effective for cleaning any suitable workpiece or component having a cavity in need of cleaning ([0014] of Watt).
Watt/Xu does not teach the step of starting an ultrasound generator so as to insert the aqueous solution and ultrasound inside the vent, and that after the step of separating and detaching of residues, closing of the injection pump and turning off the ultrasound generator.
Zhu teaches a method for cleaning a cavity of a pipe (see figure 2) with a device comprising an injection pump (figure 2, #10) for injecting a cleaning liquid into the pipe (see figure 2), an ultrasound generator adapted to generate ultrasound waves within the pipe (English translation [0024]), an air intake (air compressor, figure 2, #2) for venting the pipe (see figure 2), and a valve system (figure 2, #3) adapted to alternately control the injection of the cleaning liquid and the venting of the pipe (see figure 2) (English translation [0024-0026]). Zhu teaches that the cleaning method comprises the steps of opening the injection pump and starting the ultrasound generator so as to insert the cleaning liquid and ultrasound into the pipe (see figure 2), and after separating and detaching residues, closing of the injection pump, and opening of the air intake (air compressor, figure 2, #2) (English translation [0024-0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Watt/Xu with the step of starting an ultrasound generator so as to insert the aqueous solution and ultrasound inside the vent, and that after the step of separating and detaching of residues, closing of the injection pump and turning off the ultrasound generator, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Zhu teaches that the method is effective for cleaning the internal surfaces of a cavity (e.g., inner surfaces of a pipe) (English translation [0024-0026] and figure 2 of Zhu).
Regarding claim 12, Watt/Xu/Zhu further teaches the step of opening an evacuation device in order to evacuate the cleaning liquid and residues after the step of closing of the injection pump, wherein the evacuation device is closed before the opening of the air intake (English translation [0024-0026] of Zhu).
Watt/Xu/Zhu does not teach that the step of opening the evacuation device is performed after the step of turning off the ultrasonic generator.
However, it is noted that there are only three possibilities: a) the step of opening the evacuation device is performed after the step of turning off the ultrasonic generator, b) the step of opening the evacuation device is performed before the step of turning off the ultrasonic generator, and c) the step of opening the evacuation device is performed at the same time as the step of turning off the ultrasonic generator, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Watt/Xu/Zhu wherein the step of opening the evacuation device is performed after the step of turning off the ultrasonic generator, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, Watt/Xu/Zhu further teaches that the opening/closing of the injection pump, the opening/closing of the evacuation device and the opening/closing of the air intake are controlled with a valve system, wherein a first valve controls the evacuation device, a second valve controls the injection pump and a third valve controls the air intake (see figure 2 of Zhu).
Regarding claim 14, Watt/Xu/Zhu does not teach that the method is implemented during an inter-operation period of setting up materials and tools required for forging of a new metal part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method disclosed by Watt/Xu/Zhu during an inter-operation period of setting up materials and tools required for the forging of a new metal part, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of removing contaminants present in the vent of the forging die tool, since Watt teaches a method effective for cleaning any suitable workpiece or component having a cavity in need of cleaning ([0014] of Watt), and Zhu teaches a method effective for cleaning the internal surfaces of a cavity (e.g., inner surfaces of a pipe) (English translation [0024-0026] and figure 2 of Zhu).
Regarding claim 15, Watt/Xu/Zhu does not teach that the method is implemented at the end of each forging operation of a predefined series of metal parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method disclosed by Watt/Xu/Zhu at the end of each forging operation of a predefined series of metal parts, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of removing contaminants present on the vent of the forging die tool, since Watt teaches a method effective for cleaning any suitable workpiece or component having a cavity in need of cleaning ([0014] of Watt), and Zhu teaches a method effective for cleaning the internal surfaces of a cavity (e.g., inner surfaces of a pipe) (English translation [0024-0026] and figure 2 of Zhu).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights