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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/8/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. The claim rejections are withdrawn, new rejections are set forth herein.
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) in view of Giradat (US 6315482).
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, 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 20, Suzuki in view of Whittaker in view of Giradot 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).
Regarding claim 23, Suzuki in view of Whittaker in view of Giradot 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 in view of Giradot 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 in view of Giradot 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 in view of Giradot 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 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).
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 Giradat (US 6315482) 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 and 29 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 6315482) 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, 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.
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 Giradot 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 and 35, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/8/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21 under 103 – Suzuki in view of Whittaker in view of Mori have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Suzuki in view of Whittaker in view of Giradat (US 6315482).
Conclusion
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