DETAILED ACTION
DEDUSTING DEVICE, SANDER AND METHOD FOR DEDUSTING A WORKPIECE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12-05-2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12-05-2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2,7-14,17,19-24 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 3-6 and 15-16, 18 have been cancelled. The previous rejection has been updated due to applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09-30-2025, with respect to the
rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and their dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.103 have been fully
considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (as necessitated by
amendment) relies on a different combination of prior art references, not applied in the
prior rejection of record to teach the new limitations.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Exhaust air device in claims 1-2
Supporting device in claims 1-2,12,14,17-19
Examiner is interpreting the supporting device as a transport carpet or transport belt or conveyor roller as disclosed in applicant disclosure page 6 of specification) or equivalent structure.
Supporting unit would not be considered under 112(f) in claims 4-6
Workpiece detection device in claims 12,14,19
Transport unit in claim 2
Transport unit would not be considered under 112(f) in claim 6
Nozzle control device in claim 19
Ionizing Device in claims 7,24
Ultrasonic device in claims 9-11,24
Particle charging device in claim 20
Vibration exciter device in claim 20
Sanding unit in claim 22
Examiner is interpreting the sanding unit as a belt sander as disclosed in applicant disclosure (see page 2 of specification) or equivalent structure
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,8,12-14,17,19,21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You (KR20130052990A) cited in IDS in view of Weber (EP3006162A1) cited in IDS and Zhao (CN112643533A).
Regarding claim 1, You teaches
a nozzle device (140, figure 1) designed to remove the particles from the edge of the workpiece with a blasting fluid, wherein the nozzle device has at least one nozzle outlet opening (figure 1) through which the blasting fluid emerges from the nozzle device for dedusting in a blasting region;
an exhaust air device (130, figure 1) designed to extract by suction the particles removed from the edge of the workpiece, wherein the exhaust air device has at least one exhaust air inlet opening (figure 1) through which a composition of the blasting fluid containing particles enters the exhaust air device for dedusting (“140 can remove dust attached to the bottom surface of the tile is generated in the grinding process. The dust collector may be made through the dust collecting part (130).”); and
a supporting device (110, figure 1) on which the workpiece to be dedusted bears in the operating state, wherein the supporting device is arranged between the nozzle device and the exhaust air device; the nozzle device (see You 140, figure 1) has at least one first nozzle unit (see You 140, figure 1) wherein one or more of the at least first nozzle half-open (see You 140, figure 1).
You fails to teach wherein the supporting device has a bearing channel profile with a plurality of bearing channels, and wherein the bearing channel profile of the supporting device is designed such that at least half of the nozzle elements of the at least a first nozzle unit and/or the at least a second nozzle unit of the nozzle device are fluidically connected simultaneously to the bearing channels.
Zhao discloses substrate thinning processing cleaning device (abstract), that has supporting device (111 and 112, figure 3), wherein the supporting device has a bearing channel profile (abstract, figure 3) with a plurality of bearing channels (1112, figure 4) and wherein the nozzle device comprises at least a first nozzle unit (113, figure 4)
wherein the bearing channel profile (abstract, figures 3-4) of the supporting device is designed such that at least half of the nozzle elements of the at least a first nozzle unit and/or the at least a second nozzle unit of the nozzle device are fluidically connected simultaneously to the bearing channels. (“The vertical channel 1111 of the first mounting plate 111 communicates with the fluid channel 161 inside the rotary structure 16, and the cleaning fluid is sprayed from the nozzle 113 to the substrate W and/or the chuck table via the fluid channel 161, the vertical channel 1111 of the first mounting plate 111, and the horizontal channel 1112.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified You to include a bearing channel profile with a plurality of bearing channels, and wherein the bearing channel profile of the supporting device is designed such that at least half of the nozzle elements of the at least a first nozzle unit and/or the at least a second nozzle unit of the nozzle device are fluidically connected simultaneously to the bearing channels, based on the teachings of Zhao. This modification would help improve the processing efficiency by providing cleaning device that has a simple structure. (see pages 1-3 of Zhao)
You in view of Zhao fails to teach a workpiece detection device designed to sense a position or location of at least one edge of the workpiece.
Weber teaches a device for blowing circulating abrasive belt (abstract) that includes a workpiece detection device (40, figure 1) designed to sense a position or location of at least one edge of the workpiece (“sensors (40) for detecting the contour of the workpiece to be machined”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified You to include a workpiece detection device based on the teachings of Weber. This modification would help improve the cleaning effect. (see Weber “the cleaning effect achieved can be further improve”).
Regarding claim 2, modified You teaches the exhaust air device (see You 130, figure 1) is arranged above the supporting device (see You 110, figure 1) and the nozzle device (see You 140, figure 1) is arranged beneath the supporting device.
Regarding claim 8, modified You teaches the blasting fluid is compressed air (see You “the compressed air generated by the comb puree standing on tile surface is discharged through the air nozzle 140 can remove dust”).
Regarding claim 12, modified You teaches the workpiece detection device (see Weber 40, figure 1) is designed to sense a length and/or width.
Regarding claim 13, modified You teaches the nozzle device (see You 140, figure 1) has at least one first nozzle unit (see You 140, figure 1) wherein one or more of the at least first nozzle half-open (see You 140, figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, modified You teaches all limitations stated above but fails to teach the at least first nozzle unit and/or second nozzle unit is arranged so as to be displaceable relative to the supporting device, wherein the at least first nozzle unit and/or second nozzle unit is displaceable depending on a length and/or a width and/or a thickness.
Weber teaches a device for blowing circulating abrasive belt (abstract) that includes the at least first and/or second nozzle unit is arranged so as to be displaceable (“The device 10 shown comprises a drive unit for generating an oscillating movement of the nozzle assembly 20 along the axis”)relative to the supporting device, wherein the at least first and/or second nozzle unit is displaceable depending on a length and/or a width and/or a thickness(“sensors (40) for detecting the contour of the workpiece to be machined”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified You to include a drive unit allow the nozzle would be displaceable depending on a length or a width or thickness based on teachings of Weber. This modification would improve the cleaning effect (see Weber “the cleaning effect achieved can be further improve”).
Regarding claim 17, modified You teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach a valve device with at least one valve unit which fluidically connects the pressure chamber to at least the first nozzle unit and/or at least the second nozzle unit of the nozzle device.
Weber teaches a device for blowing circulating abrasive belt (abstract) that includes a valve device with at least one valve unit which fluidically connects the pressure chamber to at least one first and/or at least one second nozzle unit of the nozzle device (“Weber discloses the nozzle sections are individually activated via associated check valves, each nozzle section is assigned at least one sensor, and if the device has a control device which controls the blocking valves; at least one nozzle opening 23 via associated shut-off valves 52 are individually activated. In this case, each nozzle section 22 is assigned at least one sensor 40. The blocking valves 52 of the nozzle sections 22 are controlled by the control device 50 via lines 53 the control device 50 is expediently provided with time delay elements 57 which comprise both the individual members 63 of the sectional pressure bar 60 and the check valves 52 of the nozzle sections 22 in accordance with the transport speed of the conveyor belt 7 and the distance of the sensors 40 from the segment pressure bar 60”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified You to include a valve device based on the teachings of Weber. This modification would help improve the cleaning effect. (see Weber “the cleaning effect achieved can be further improve”).
Regarding claim 19, modified You teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach a nozzle control device which is connected in signalling terms to the nozzle device and/or a workpiece detection device,
wherein the nozzle control device is designed to operate the nozzle device in pulsed operation and/or constant operation, and/or depending on a sensed length.
Weber teaches a device for blowing circulating abrasive belt (abstract) that includes a nozzle control device which is connected in signalling terms to the nozzle device (“ the device has a control device which controls the compressed air supply to the nozzle sections”)
wherein the nozzle control device is designed to operate the nozzle device in pulsed operation and/or constant operation, and/or depending on a sensed length (““sensors (40) for detecting the contour of the workpiece to be machined”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified You to include a nozzle control device based on the teachings of You. This modification would help improve the cleaning effect. (see Weber “the cleaning effect achieved can be further improve”).
Regarding claim 21, modified You teaches a dedusting device according to claim 1. (see claim 1 above)
Regarding claim 22, modified You teaches at least one sanding unit (see You “a cup-shaped diamond wheel (cup grinding diamond wheel)”) for processing the workpiece to be dedusted by the dedusting device.
Regarding claim 23, modified You teaches sensing the edge of the workpiece to be dedusted(see Weber “sensors (40) for detecting the contour of the workpiece to be machined”), resulting in the edge being a sensed edge (see weber 40); and blasting the edge with a blasting fluid to remove particles from a sensed edge.
Regarding claim 24, modified You teaches wherein the step of sensing the edge of the workpiece to be dedusted comprises the following sub-steps:
sensing a length and/or a width and/or a thickness. (see Weber “sensors (40) for detecting the contour of the workpiece to be machined”).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You (KR20130052990A) cited in IDS in view of Weber (EP3006162A1) cited in IDS and Zhao (CN112643533A) further in view of Zoell (US 4,751,759).
Regarding claim 7, modified You teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach an ionizing device for ionizing the blasting fluid.
Zoell teaches a cleaning device that removes dust from solid objects, where the cleaning device includes an ionization device (7, abstract) that produces positive and negative ions in the blasting fluid (see abstract) to neturalize electrostatically dust particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified You to include the teachings of Zoell so that cleaning device of You includes an ionzing device. This modification would help to remove dust particles by neutralizing the dust particles. (see Zoell’s abstract).
Claim(s) 9-11,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You (KR20130052990A) cited in IDS in view of Weber (EP3006162A1) cited in IDS and Zhao (CN112643533A) as applied to claim 1 further in view of Biedermann (US4364147A).
Regarding claim 9, You teaches all limitations stated above, but fails to teach an ultrasonic device designed to generate an ultrasonic exciter signal to detach the particles from the edge of the workpiece.
Biedermann teaches an apparatus that removes dust from flat surfaces where the apparatus includes a source (9’, figures 3) that discharges or emits ultrasonic radiation at right angles (col 3 lines 51-60) to help remove particles from the work piece (col 5 lines 1-20) and adjusting means to control the frequency of source (claims 13-14 and claims 6 lines 1-25) of ultrasonic radiation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified You to include the teachings of Biedermann’s ultrasonic device to generate ultrasonic exciter signal to detach particles. This modification would help with removing dust from the surface (see abstract of Biedermann and claims 13-14 and claims 6 lines 1-25)
Regarding claim 10, modified You teaches ultrasonic device (see Biedermann col 5 lines 1-20) is designed to generate the ultrasonic exciter signal with a frequency (see Biedermann claims 13-14).
Modified You does not explicitly teach the frequency will be at least 16 kHz and/or at most 10 GHz.
Since modified You does disclose ultrasonic device is designed to generate ultrasonic radiation at a frequency, there would be reasonable expectations of success.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the frequency at least 16 kHz and/or at most 10 GHz because the claimed range does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
Furthermore, the frequency of ultrasonic device is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that if frequency is too small it will need be able to have the object to shake loose any particles . Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim are met (e.g. in this case modified You teaches ultrasonic exciter signal with a frequency) then it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range/value by routine experimentation. Thus, as set forth above, it would have not been inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to have the frequency will be at least 16 kHz and/or at most 10 GHz.
Regarding claim 11, modified You teaches the ultrasonic device is designed to excite the blasting fluid. (see col 6 lines 1-27 of Biedermann capable of performing this action )
Regarding claim 20, modified You teaches all limitation states all limitation stated above , but fails to teach an exhaust air device comprising: a particle charging device designed to electrically charge the particles removed from a blasted edge of the workpiece, wherein the particle charging device electrically charges particles in accordance with a principle of static charging and/or diffusion charging and/or field charging; and/or a vibration exciter device designed to detach the particles removed from the blasted edge of the workpiece and then charged particles.
Biedermann teaches an air device (abstract, figures 1-3) that removes dust from flat surfaces where the apparatus includes a source (9’, figures 3) that discharges or emits ultrasonic radiation at right angles (col 3 lines 51-60) to help remove particles from the work piece (col 5 lines 1-20) and adjusting means to control the frequency of source (claims 13-14 and claims 6 lines 1-25) of ultrasonic radiation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified You to include the teachings of Biedermann’s ultrasonic device to generate ultrasonic exciter signal to detach particles. This modification would help with removing dust from the surface (see abstract of Biedermann and claims 13-14 and claims 6 lines 1-25)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
