DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16, 23-27, 30, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP2005218968A) in view of Whittaker (US 7,814,613)
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki discloses a contact cleaning surface, for a contact cleaning roller (Figure 10), configured to collect and remove contaminating particles from a contaminated substrate, the contact cleaning surface comprising: a polymeric layer defining a contact surface (at least paragraph 80-83); and at least one cell recessed into said polymeric layer (Items 12 and 13), said at least one cell comprising a base and at least one wall extending between said contact surface and said base.
Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose wherein said at least one wall extends perpendicularly to said contact surface AND wherein said base extends perpendicularly to said at least one wall, wherein a ratio between a surface area of said contact surface and a surface area of said base remains substantially the same as said contact surface contacts the contaminated substrate and wears during use. (Paragraph 66 discloses all changes to the shape of the cuts or recesses are obvious variants from the original disclosure. Cuts are disclosed to be perpendicular, but not the recesses. Recesses are disclosed to be any shape including stars)
Whittaker teaches a cleaning roll wherein said at least one wall extends perpendicularly to said contact surface, wherein said base extends perpendicularly to said at least one wall (Figure 6 Item 34). 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 angle of the recess to be perpendicular to the contact surface as taught by Whittaker. Such a modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be routine by one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Further, the instant application fails to disclose any criticality or unexpected results from the claimed limitation.
As modified above, wherein a ratio between a surface area of said contact surface and a surface area of said base remains substantially the same as said contact surface contacts the contaminated substrate and wears during use (as modified above, Whittaker teaches a perpendicular wall, so the area of the recess remains consistent).
Regarding claim 23, Suzuki in view of Whittaker disclose the contact cleaning surface according to claim 16, wherein said polymeric layer comprises an elastomeric material (Suzuki Paragraph 65).
Regarding claim 25, Suzuki in view of Whittaker disclose the contact cleaning surface according to claim 16, wherein said plurality of cells are uniformly distributed across at least a portion of said contact cleaning surface (Suzuki Figure 5 and Whittaker Figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 26, Suzuki in view of Whittaker disclose a contact cleaning roller, comprising a roll core (Item 3) having a contact cleaning surface according to claim 16configured to at least one of collect or remove contaminating particles from the contaminated substrate (Suzuki Paragraph 89).
Regarding claim 27, Suzuki in view of Whittaker disclose the contact cleaning roller according to claim 26, wherein said roll core defines a longitudinal axis (Suzuki Figure 10), and wherein said at least one wall extends substantially perpendicularly to said longitudinal axis (Whittaker Figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 38, Suzuki in view of Whittaker disclose the contact cleaning surface according to claim 16, wherein said at least one cell has at least one of a substantially circular footprint or a substantially polygonal footprint (Suzuki paragraph 66).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP2005218968A) in view of Whittaker (US 7,814,613) in view of Tomita (US4,566,911).
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki in view of Whittaker disclose the contact cleaning surface according to claim 17. Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose wherein the surface area of said contact surface is in the range 10% to 80% of the total surface area of said contact cleaning surface.
Tomita teaches a cleaning roll wherein the surface area of said contact surface is in the range 10% to 80% of the total surface area of said contact cleaning surface (Column 2 Lines 45-65). 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 size and quantity of recessed surfaces such that the contact surface was in the range of 10% to 80% of the total surface area of said contact cleaning surface as taught by Tomita. Such a modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be routine by one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Further, the instant application fails to disclose any criticality or unexpected results from the claimed limitation.
Claims 22, 28, 29, 31, 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP2005218968A) in view of Whittaker (US 7,814,613) in view of in view of Hamilton (GB 2492991A).
Regarding claim 22, Suzuki in view of Whittaker disclose the contact cleaning surface according to claim 16. Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose wherein said at least one cell has a depth of less than or equal to about 100 microns.
Hamilton teaches a cleaning surface wherein said at least one cell has a depth of less than or equal to about 100 microns (Page 8 Lines 25- Page 9 Line 30). 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 size of Suzuki cells to be the depth as taught by Hamilton. Such a modification is a considered a change in shape, which has been held to be routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Further there is no criticality or unexpected results for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 28, Suzuki discloses a contact cleaning apparatus for at least one of collecting or removing contaminating particles from a contaminated substrate, comprising: at least one contact cleaning roller comprising a roll core (Suzuki Item 3) having a contact cleaning surface comprising: a polymeric layer defining a contact surface (at least paragraph 80-83); and at least one cell recessed into said polymeric layer (Items 12 and 13), said at least one cell comprising a base and at least one wall extending between said contact surface and said base.
Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose wherein said at least one wall extends perpendicularly to said contact surface AND wherein said base extends perpendicularly to said at least one wall, wherein a ratio between a surface area of said contact surface and a surface area of said base remains substantially the same as said contact surface contacts the contaminated substrate and wears during use. (Paragraph 66 discloses all changes to the shape of the cuts or recesses are obvious variants from the original disclosure. Cuts are disclosed to be perpendicular, but not the recesses. Recesses are disclosed to be any shape including stars)
Whittaker teaches a cleaning roll wherein said at least one wall extends perpendicularly to said contact surface, wherein said base extends perpendicularly to said at least one wall (Figure 6 Item 34). 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 angle of the recess to be perpendicular to the contact surface as taught by Whittaker. Such a modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be routine by one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Further, the instant application fails to disclose any criticality or unexpected results from the claimed limitation.
As modified above, wherein a ratio between a surface area of said contact surface and a surface area of said base remains substantially the same as said contact surface contacts the contaminated substrate and wears during use (as modified above, Whittaker teaches a perpendicular wall, so the area of the recess remains consistent).
Suzuki fails to at least one adhesive roll comprising a roll core having at least one layer of adhesive material thereon, said at least one adhesive roll configured to at least one of collect or remove contaminating particles from said contact cleaning surface of said at least one contact cleaning roller.
Hamilton teaches a cleaning roller wherein at least one adhesive roll comprising a roll core having at least one layer of adhesive material thereon, said at least one adhesive roll configured to at least one of collect or remove contaminating particles from said contact cleaning surface of said at least one contact cleaning roller (Item 110, abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki in the system of Hamilton. The addition of the adhesive roller would allow for the surface of Suzuki to remain clean and clean other parts of the substrate.
Regarding claim 29, Suzuki in view of Whittaker in view of Hamilton disclose the contact cleaning apparatus according to claim 28, comprising a pair of contact cleaning rollers and a pair of adhesive rolls, each contact cleaning roller separately configured to collect or remove contaminating particles from opposing surfaces of the contaminated substrate, and each adhesive roll being separately configured to at least one of collect or remove contaminating particles from each contact cleaning roller (Hamilton Figure 3).
Regarding claim 31, Suzuki in view of Whittaker in view of Giradot in view of Hamilton disclose the contact cleaning apparatus according to claim 28. As currently modified, Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of said plurality of cells has a depth of less than or equal to about 100 microns.
Hamilton teaches a cleaning surface wherein said at least one cell has a depth of less than or equal to about 100 microns (Page 8 Lines 25- Page 9 Line 30). 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 size of Suzuki cells to be the depth as taught by Hamilton. Such a modification is a considered a change in shape, which has been held to be routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Further there is no criticality or unexpected results for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 32, Suzuki in view of Whittaker in view of Giradot in view of Hamilton disclose the contact cleaning apparatus according to claim 28, wherein said polymeric layer comprises an elastomeric material (Suzuki Paragraph 71).
Regarding claim 33, Suzuki in view of Whittaker in view of Giradot in view of Hamilton disclose the contact cleaning apparatus according to claim 28, wherein said plurality of cells are uniformly distributed across at least a portion of said contact cleaning surface (Giradot Column 4 Lines 11-17).
Regarding claim 34, Suzuki in view of Whittaker in view of Giradot in view of Hamilton disclose the contact cleaning apparatus according to claim 28, wherein said roll core defines a longitudinal axis, and wherein said at least one wall extends substantially perpendicularly to said longitudinal axis (Whittaker Figure 6).
Claims 30, 36, 37, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP2005218968A) in view of Whittaker (US 7,814,613) in view of Giradat (US 6,315,482)
Regarding claim 30, Suzuki discloses a method of at least one of collecting or removing contaminating particles from a contaminated substrate, the method comprising: providing said contaminated substrate including said contaminating particles thereon; providing a contact cleaning surface comprising: a polymeric layer defining a contact surface (at least paragraph 80-83); and at least one cell recessed into said polymeric layer (Items 12 and 13), said at least one cell comprising a base and at least one wall extending between said contact surface and said base,; and at least one of contacting or urging said contact cleaning surface against said contaminated substrate, such that at least some or substantially all of said contaminating particles on said contaminated substrate are at least one of collected or removed (Suzuki, at least paragraphs 76-79).
Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose wherein said at least one wall extends perpendicularly to said contact surface AND wherein said base extends perpendicularly to said at least one wall, wherein a ratio between a surface area of said contact surface and a surface area of said base remains substantially the same as said contact surface contacts the contaminated substrate and wears during use, AND wherein said at least one cell has a substantially hexagonal footprint thereby forming a honeycomb structure. (Paragraph 66 discloses all changes to the shape of the cuts or recesses are obvious variants from the original disclosure. Cuts are disclosed to be perpendicular, but not the recesses. Recesses are disclosed to be any shape including stars)
Whittaker teaches a cleaning roll wherein said at least one wall extends perpendicularly to said contact surface, wherein said base extends perpendicularly to said at least one wall (Figure 6 Item 34). 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 angle of the recess to be perpendicular to the contact surface as taught by Whittaker. Such a modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be routine by one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Further, the instant application fails to disclose any criticality or unexpected results from the claimed limitation.
As modified above, wherein a ratio between a surface area of said contact surface and a surface area of said base remains substantially the same as said contact surface contacts the contaminated substrate and wears during use (as modified above, Whittaker teaches a perpendicular wall, so the area of the recess remains consistent).
Giradot teaches a cleaning arrangement wherein said at least one cell has a substantially hexagonal footprint thereby forming a honeycomb structure (Column 4 Lines 11-17). 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 shape of the cell to be substantially hexagonal footprint. Such a modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be routine by one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Further, the instant application fails to disclose any criticality or unexpected results from the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 36, Suzuki in view of Whittaker in view of Giradot disclose the contact cleaning apparatus according to claim 30, wherein said polymeric layer comprises an elastomeric material (Suzuki Paragraph 71).
Regarding claim 37, Suzuki in view of Whittaker in view of Giradot disclose the method according to claim 30, wherein said plurality of cells are uniformly distributed across at least a portion of said contact cleaning surface (Giradot Column 4 Lines 11-17).
Regarding claims 39 and 40, Suzuki in view of Whittaker disclose the contact cleaning surface according to claim 38, wherein said at least one cell has a substantially hexagonal footprint.
Giradot teaches a cleaning arrangement wherein said at least one cell has a substantially hexagonal footprint (Column 4 Lines 11-17). 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 shape of the cell to be substantially hexagonal footprint. Such a modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be routine by one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Further, the instant application fails to disclose any criticality or unexpected results from the claimed limitation.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP2005218968A) in view of Whittaker (US 7,814,613) in view of Giradat (US 6,315,482) in view of Hamilton (GB 2492991A).
Regarding claim 35, Suzuki in view of Whittaker in view of Giradot in view of Hamilton disclose the contact cleaning apparatus according to claim 30. As currently modified, Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of said plurality of cells has a depth of less than or equal to about 100 microns.
Hamilton teaches a cleaning surface wherein said at least one cell has a depth of less than or equal to about 100 microns (Page 8 Lines 25- Page 9 Line 30). 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 size of Suzuki cells to be the depth as taught by Hamilton. Such a modification is a considered a change in shape, which has been held to be routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Further there is no criticality or unexpected results for the claimed limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the edges of Whittaker are not perpendicular to the surface to be cleaned because Whittaker discusses in Column 3 Lines 60-67 that there may be a bevel on the recess. While this may be true, the Examiner believes Applicant misinterpreting what is being taught. The bevel discussed does not need to take up the whole length of the perpendicular wall. A bevel can be a fraction of the wall, and is more commonly a fraction of the wall and not the whole length of the wall. Routing molding and milling (the processes disclosed from the same paragraph of Whittaker) can have any shape, including straight/perpendicular. In fact, almost all edges have a slight bevel due to standard manufacturing processes. The Examiner has made a small sketch to better show that the bevel can be in part of the wall while still having a straight segment.
PNG
media_image1.png
890
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues Giradot is not analogous. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. All the cited art are cleaning articles that are moved across an object intended to be cleaned and/or treated. All the articles of cleaning also have different recesses. In the Examiner’s opinion it shows how the type of recess is an obvious variant. Thus all are viewed as analogous.
Applicant argues the modification of Giradot would change how Suzuki functions. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Suzuki discloses (Paragraph 65-66):
“Using the above elastomer composition, injection molding, extrusion molding, hollow molding, compression molding, vacuum molding, laminate molding, calendar molding, cast molding, coater molding, roll molding, T-die coater, T-die extrusion molding, injection molding, etc. A molded body (cleaning film) having a desired shape can be obtained by a known method.
A schematic view of the cleaning film of the present invention is shown in FIG. The cleaning film 1 shown in FIG. 1 is a film having a uniform thickness and a flat surface.In addition, the cleaning film of the present invention can have various surface structures or cross-sectional structures depending on the purpose and application. For example, at least one surface of the present cleaning film may be provided with a portion such as a convex portion, a concave portion, a groove portion, and a cut portion, either singly or in combination of two or more. The shape of each of these parts is not particularly limited, and in the case of a convex part and a concave part, it can be a circle, a square (polygon such as a triangle or a quadrangle), a star, or a random shape. There are no particular limitations on the length of the opening (maximum length or the like) in the case of these shapes, the height in the case of a convex portion, the depth or the like in the case of a concave portion. Moreover, in the case of a groove part, it can be set as the shape arbitrarily selected or combined from linear form, curvilinear form, etc. The cross-sectional shape of the groove portion can also be a shape corresponding to the purpose and application, such as a square shape, a U-shape. Further, the width and depth of the groove are not particularly limited.In the case of the cut portion, it may be a point or a line (straight line, curved line, cross shape, etc.). Further, the cut may be perpendicular to the film body or oblique.In addition, also when providing the said site | part with two or more, the shape, size, etc. of each site | part may be the same, and the combination of a different thing may be sufficient. Furthermore, the interval between adjacent parts is not particularly limited.”
As discussed above, the change in shape is viewed as an obvious variant because Suzuki discussed the change in shape is obvious and the claimed configuration does not contain any criticality or unexpected result.
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 TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights