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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claim only requires that the device is capable of performing some rinse or flush operation as currently written in the recitation. The arguments are that:
Paulson (US 3,481,474) fluid filter device not a device for testing technical cleanliness
Mill destroying or breaking up the particles makes analysis impossible.
Paulson does not explicitly disclose a rinsing mode (No Rinsing Mode)
Paulson does not disclose that rinsing is carried out with a cleaning liquid.
However, the claims have not been amended to reflect the Applicant’s arguments and the Examiner is going to maintain the rejection of the claims 1-6, 10, 13-14, 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH (DE2018110320), in view of, Paulson (US 3,481,474).
CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 teaches:
In regards to claim 1, CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 A particle collecting device (1) for collecting particles from surfaces for a particle analysis when testing the technical cleanliness of test objects in a suction mode of the particle collecting device (1), the particle collecting device (1) (1 fig.1, ‘collecting apparatus’) comprising:
a suction line (12) (20 fig. 1, ‘suction line’) configured for aspirating a particle/air mixture from a surface to be tested; and
a particle collection unit (120) configured to filter out aspirated particles of the particle/air mixture before it reaches a vacuum source (8), (12, 13 fig. 1, ‘first particle collection unit’, ‘second particle collection unit’)
CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 teaches a cleaning device as disclosed in paragraph [0033] as a ‘cleaning system’. It comprises a cloth, soaked in ethanol made up of a fabric, and a sliding means comprising a holding element. The holding element being arranged on the sliding means in such a way that the cloth can be slid through axially through the suction hose. This enables the cleaning of the inside of the suction hose. However, CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 does not teach the cleaning device configured that it executes a rinsing mode by aspirating a cleaning liquid.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 to provide a device for the detection and analysis of dust particles.
CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 does not teach:
wherein the particle collecting device (1) comprises a cleaning unit (101) configured in such a manner that the particle collecting device (1) can be rinsed in a rinsing mode of the particle collecting device (1) by aspirating a cleaning liquid, in order to flush out particles accumulated during suction mode.
Paulson teaches:
wherein the particle collecting device (1) comprises a cleaning unit (101) configured in such a manner that the particle collecting device (1) can be rinsed in a rinsing mode of the particle collecting device (1) by aspirating a cleaning liquid, in order to flush out particles accumulated during suction mode. (abstract; ‘provides a Centrifugal fluid strainer that performs the function of particle collection using fluid by centrifugal flow action similar to centrifugal separator/cyclone technology.’; 1-4, 14 fig 1, ‘stream inlet and outlet’, ‘particulate outlet’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Paulson to provide a cleaning device for a particle collecting device to remove dust particles.
In regards to claim 2, CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 & Paulson teach a particle collecting device according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1)
CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 teaches wherein the particle collecting device (1) (CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320: 1 fig.1, ‘collecting apparatus’) comprises a second particle collection unit (121) for collecting the particles, (CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320: 12-13 fig 1, ‘first particle collection device’, ‘second particle collection device’) the first particle collection unit (120) being a filter holder (25) (CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320: 16 fig. 1, ‘filter holder’) or a centrifugal separator (11), and the second particle collection unit (121) being a filter holder (25), and the filter holder (25) being configured to hold an exchangeable analysis filter. (CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320: claim 11; para [0026-0028, 0037]; 15 fig.1, ‘centrifugal separator’)
In regards to claim 3, CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 & Paulson teach a particle collecting device according to claim 2, (see claim rejection 2)
wherein the suction line (12) for aspirating the particle/air mixture from the surface to be tested is connected to the centrifugal separator (11) in such a manner that the aspirated particle/air mixture rotates in the centrifugal separator (11) and the particles can be flung against a wall and thus be separated in suction mode, (CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320: 15, 20 fig. 1, ‘suction line’, centrifugal separator’, para [0026])
the centrifugal separator (11) comprising a seat (100) for attaching a collecting vessel (17) for collecting the separated particles in a detachable manner, (CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320: 15 fig. 1, ‘centrifugal separator seated’)
and wherein the centrifugal separator (11) (CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320: 15 fig. 1, ‘centrifugal separator seated’) comprises an immersion tube (22) to which a vacuum supply line (9) is connected in such a manner that the air suctioned out of the centrifugal separator (11) and flowing through the vacuum supply line (9) in suction mode flows through the analysis filter, (CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320: 14 fig. 1, ‘connecting hose’) which is disposed in the filter holder (25) (CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320:16 fig. 1, ‘filter holder’) and serves to retain the particles on a particle collecting surface of the analysis filter, before reaching the vacuum source (8). (9, 12 fig. 1, ‘vacuum cleaner’, ‘pump’, ‘particle collection vessel’; para [0026])
In regards to claim 4, CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 & Paulson teach a particle collecting device according to claim 3, (see claim rejection 3) wherein the suction line (12) (CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320: 20 fig. 1, ‘suction hose’) is connected to the centrifugal separator (11) in a detachable manner, and the vacuum supply line (9) is connected to the filter holder (25) in a detachable manner, (CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320: 15 fig. 1, ‘centrifugal separator’) the suction line (12) being configured in such a manner that it can be replaced with the vacuum supply line (9) (CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320: 11, 14 fig 1, ‘vacuum cleaning suction hose & a connecting hose’) in order to implement the rinsing mode while the centrifugal separator (11) (Paulson: abstract; ‘provides a Centrifugal fluid strainer that performs the function of particle collection using fluid by centrifugal flow action similar to centrifugal separator/cyclone technology.’; 1-4, 14 fig 1, ‘stream inlet and outlet’, ‘particulate outlet’) is by passed in a fluid-conducting manner.
In regards to claim 5, CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 & Paulson teach a particle collecting device according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the cleaning unit (101) comprises a liquid storage unit (102) configured to provide a cleaning liquid which is in detachable or a separate component from the particle collecting device (1), and/or the liquid storage unit (102) has a storage capacity of 5 l. (Paulson: abstract; ‘provides a Centrifugal fluid strainer that performs the function of particle collection using fluid by centrifugal flow action similar to centrifugal separator/cyclone technology.’; 1-4, 14-15 fig 1, ‘a chamber 1 with an outlet section 15’ ‘stream inlet and outlet’, ‘particulate outlet 14’)
In regards to claim 6, CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 & Paulson teach a particle collecting device according to claim 5, (see claim rejection 5) Paulson teaches wherein the liquid storage unit (102) is in operative connection with the suction line (12) in such a manner that the cleaning liquid can be aspirated by means of the suction line (12) in rinsing mode. (Paulson: abstract; ‘provides a Centrifugal fluid strainer that performs the function of particle collection using fluid by centrifugal flow action similar to centrifugal separator/cyclone technology.’; 1-4, 14 fig 1, ‘stream inlet and outlet’, ‘particulate outlet’)
In regards to claim 10, CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 & Paulson teach a particle collecting device according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) Paulson teaches a wherein the cleaning unit (101) comprises a membrane suction end portion (106) configured to be connected to the suction line (12) in a suction-air-conducting manner when in a connected state, a suction opening (62) formed by the suction line (12) and serving to aspirate the particle/air mixture (Paulson: abstract; ‘provides a Centrifugal fluid strainer that performs the function of particle collection using fluid by centrifugal flow action similar to centrifugal separator/cyclone technology.’; 1-4, 14 fig 1, ‘stream inlet and outlet’, ‘particulate outlet’) being covered by an air-permeable membrane (123) in the connected state for aspirating a pure air mixture, which contains no particles. (Paulson: 56- 75 col. 3 to 1-7 col. 4, ‘comprises a cylindrical screen 6 with lower opening 5 and particulate outlet 14.’)
In regards to claim 16, CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 & Paulson teaches a particle collecting device according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the test objects comprise work pieces, machines and/or printed circuit boards. (CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320: abstract; 12 fig. 1, ‘first particle collection unit’)
In regards to claim 17, CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 & Paulson teach a particle collecting device according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) Paulson teaches wherein the cleaning unit (101) is configured in such a manner that the suction line (12) and the particle collection unit (120) can be rinsed in the rinsing mode. (Paulson: abstract; ‘provides a Centrifugal fluid strainer that performs the function of particle collection using fluid by centrifugal flow action similar to centrifugal separator/cyclone technology.’; 1-4, 14 fig 1, ‘stream inlet and outlet’, ‘particulate outlet’)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH (DE2018110320), in view of, Paulson (US 3,481,474).
CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 teaches:
In regards to claim 13, A cleaning method for cleaning a particle collecting device (1) for collecting particles from surfaces for a particle analysis when testing the technical cleanliness of test objects, in particular work pieces, machines and/or printed circuit boards, the cleaning method comprising the following steps: (abstract; (1 fig.1, ‘collecting apparatus’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 to provide a device for the detection and analysis of dust particles.
CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 does not teach:
- bringing a cleaning unit (101) into operative contact with the particle collecting device (1);
- rinsing a suction line (12) and a particle collection unit (120) (1 fig.1, ‘collecting apparatus’) with the cleaning liquid in a rinsing mode.
Paulson teaches:
- bringing a cleaning unit (101) into operative contact with the particle collecting device (1); (Paulson: abstract; ‘provides a Centrifugal fluid strainer that performs the function of particle collection using fluid by centrifugal flow action similar to centrifugal separator/cyclone technology.’; 1-4, 14 fig 1, ‘stream inlet and outlet’, ‘particulate outlet’)
- rinsing a suction line (12) and a particle collection unit (120) (1 fig.1, ‘collecting apparatus’) with the cleaning liquid in a rinsing mode. (Paulson: abstract; ‘provides a Centrifugal fluid strainer that performs the function of particle collection using fluid by centrifugal flow action similar to centrifugal separator/cyclone technology.’; 1-4, 14 fig 1, ‘stream inlet and outlet’, ‘particulate outlet’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Paulson to provide a cleaning device for a particle collecting device to remove dust particles.
In regards to claim 14, CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320 & Paulson teach a cleaning method according to claim 13, (see claim rejection 13)
further comprising rinsing, a centrifugal separator (11) (CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320: 12 fig. 1, ‘first particle collection unit’) and/or a filter holder (25) (CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-320: 14, 16 fig. 1, ‘connecting hose’, ‘filter holder’) Paulson teaches with the cleaning liquid in order to flush out accumulated particles. (Paulson: abstract; ‘provides a Centrifugal fluid strainer that performs the function of particle collection using fluid by centrifugal flow action similar to centrifugal separator/cyclone technology.’; 1-4, 14 fig 1, ‘stream inlet and outlet’, ‘particulate outlet’)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7-9, 11-12, 15, 18-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
A PE2E-search was completed 3/20/2025, and a PE2E-Interference Search was completed 11/13/2025. See PCT/EP2021/064509 dated 05/31/2021. As stated in the prior Office Action the Examiner did not find the adapter unit (103) configured for being connected to the centrifugal separator (11) of claim 7 which claims 8, and 9 are dependent on; the seat (100) which comprises a threaded connection (52) of claim 18; a control means (107) configured to the effect that: in rinsing mode, the valve (104) is switched to the fluid-blocking state of claim 12 which claims 19 and 20 are dependent on; and the steps or method of claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Kumano (WO 2019/187976), Ariesohn (US 2013/0042893), and CLEANCONTROLLING GMBH-164 (DE202016106164) references further describe a particle analysis device as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached on (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights