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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the acquisition unit recited in claims 1-3, dust removing unit recited in claims 1-3, the blower recited in claim 1, the cooler recited in claim 1, and control unit recited in claims 1-3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Examiner notes that while Fig. 1 of Applicant’s supplied drawings shows a schematic with each of these elements, more than a schematic is necessary to determine whether Applicant was in possession of the claimed limitations at the time of filing (e.g. structural elements of each of these limitations need to be shown). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 7/21/2025 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: a clean copy of the substitute specification has not been supplied.
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:
“Control unit” in claims 1-3, because (A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “control spraying” designates a function performed by the unit, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “control spraying” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for controlling spraying.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Acquisition unit” in claims 1-3.
“Dust removing unit” in claims 1-3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a control unit”, but Applicant’s specification fails to provide any structure for these limitations. Is the control unit a processor? Is the control unit a structure which comprises multiple structural components cooperating together to control different functions? It is unclear to examiner what structure makes up “a control unit”.
Claim 1 recites “the acquisition sensor includes a sensor”, is not found or alluded to in the specification, rendering the recitation of “the acquisition sensor includes a sensor” as new matter.
Claims 2-4 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-3, it is unclear to examiner what the meets and bounds of the claim limitations “dust removing unit”, “blower”, and “cooler” are. The specification merely provides the functions of each of these limitations, but fails to provide any structure which performs the functions. The dust removing unit comprises the blower and the cooler, but what are the blower and the cooler? What structural elements define the blower and the cooler? Without any structure for the blower or the cooler, it is unclear to examiner what subject matter the inventor regards as the invention, and claims 1-3 are therefore indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 4 is rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
Claim limitation “control unit” in claims 1-3 each invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function of the “control unit”. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 4 is rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 are considered to read over the prior art of record because the closest prior art of record, Merlaku (DE102019001571), supplied as a PDF in non-final rejection filed 4/23/2025, and Nielsen (US20180272996), does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features, specifically that the dust removing unit is configured to reduce a temperature of gas to be sprayed to the object to be processed as recited in claim 1. Examiner finds that to meet the claimed limitation of the dust removing unit being configured to reduce a temperature of gas, examiner would need to find a system that cleans objects using gas which teaches a dust removing unit which reduces the temperature of the gas before spraying, and examiner finds that the prior art, specifically Nielsen, teaches the opposite, where the dust removing unit is configured to increase a temperature of gas before spraying (see paragraph 0044 of Nielsen). However, this claim cannot be considered "allowable" at this time due to the rejection(s) under U.S.C. 112(a) and U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office Action. Therefore upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action, further consideration of this claim with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/21/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) enablement have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) enablement have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2025 with respect to the drawing objections, interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “dust removing unit”, “acquisition unit”, “blower”, “cooler”, an “control unit” are all conventional features and therefore supplying only a labeled representation is required. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that each of the “dust removing unit”, “acquisition unit”, “blower”, “cooler”, an “control unit” are not conventional features as there are multiple structures which could perform the function of each feature, and therefore structural elements of each of these features need to be shown.
Applicant argues that “dust removing unit”, “acquisition unit”, “blower”, “cooler”, an “control unit” should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that while “control unit” may be a term which is an art-recognized structure in the art of computer devices, examiner finds that no computer device has been disclosed in the original disclosure and that “control unit” is not an art-recognized structure within the art of Applicant’s invention (i.e. cleaning with air blast). Examiner does find that the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), specifically written description, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn for the claim limitations of “dust removing unit” and “acquisition unit”. However, the new limitations of a “sensor” is not supported in the specification and therefore claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), specifically new matter. Examiner also notes that Applicant has supplied links to support “sensor”, “blower”, and “cooler” as being terms that are art-recognized structures, but the link supplied for “blower” and “cooler” links to a page for the definition of “fan” as it relates to a computer device. Examiner finds that this does not supply any evidence that “blower” and “cooler” are well known structures in the art, and examiner finds that the terms “blower” and “cooler” are in fact no well known structures in the art as there are multiple different known structures which can perform blowing and cooling, and therefore the generic terms of “blower” and “cooler” do not denote any specific structure.
Applicant argues that the specification provides sufficient detail for “dust removing unit”, “acquisition unit”, and “control unit” so “that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention” and therefore should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that “dust removing unit” and “acquisition unit” are generic structures which are not defined in the specification other than the “dust removing unit” “sprays gas” and “reduces the temperature of carbon dioxide”, the “acquisition unit” “acquires the temperature of the window glass”, and the “control unit” controls different operations using signals. All of these functions discussed in the specification can be done by multiple different structures, and therefore, without sufficiently describing the structures performing the functions, it is unclear what Applicant had possession of at the time of filing. Examiner notes that examiner is taking the same position on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) arguments as the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description arguments described above.
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 CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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 on 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723