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 .
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 22, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 3 – 4, 6 and 9 are pending. Claims 1 – 2, 5 and 7 – 8 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 – 4, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warfvinge (U. S. Patent No. 4,594,748) in view of Testone (5596783 A).
Regarding Independent Claim 3, Warfvinge teaches a dust removal device (web cleaner, 1)
comprising: a dedusting head (wall, 19) disposed to face a surface of a target object (web, 9) to be dedusted that moves in a predetermined moving direction (direction of arrow, 18) relative to the dedusting head (Fig. 3),the dedusting head (9) including a discharge outlet (slit, 7) and suction inlet (slits 6 and 8) formed on a bottom surface facing the surface of the target object (9) and arranged at a predetermined interval in the moving direction of the target object (9) relative to the dedusting head (9; Fig. 3), the discharge outlet being configured to discharge gas toward the surface of the target object (Abstract), and the suction inlet (6 and 8) being configured to suck gas from the surface of the target object while the discharge outlet is discharging the gas (Col. 2, line 62 – Col. 3, line 50); wherein the dedusting head (9) further comprises gas discharge paths (Annotated Fig. 3), each of which extending from an opening facing the surface of the target object (9) to the slit; and wherein a cross-section of each of the gas discharge paths (Annotated Fig. 3), parallel to the extending direction of the slit and perpendicular to the slit, has a shape that gradually widens from the opening toward both ends of the slit in the extending direction (As shown in Fig. 3, as the gas flows pass the blades, 10 and 11 the flow gradually widens and further is in an arc shape).
.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Warfvinge teaches a plurality of suction inlets, the references fails to explicitly teach wherein the discharge outlet comprises a plurality of slits arranged in an arrangement direction traversing the moving direction of the target object relative to the dedusting head, each slit extending in an extending direction traversing the arrangement direction of the plurality of slits and inclining obliquely with respect to the moving direction of the target object relative to the dedusting head
Testone, however, teaches the discharge outlet comprises a plurality of slits (spaces, 58) arranged in an arrangement direction traversing the moving direction of the target object (S) relative to the dedusting head (12; Fig. 6), each slit (58) extending in an extending direction traversing the arrangement direction of the plurality of slits and inclining obliquely with respect to the moving direction of the target object relative to the dedusting head (suction hood, 12; Figs. 5 and 6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Warfvinge to further include a plurality of slits, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MEP 2144.04). This modification would be beneficial in providing sufficient gas in which to remove the particles from the web and further could serve as a backup in case one port is not working.
Regarding Claim 4, Warfvinge, as modified, teaches the dust removal device (web cleaner, 1) wherein a cross-section of the gas discharge path (Annotated Fig. 3) has a shape which gradually expands in an arc shape (As shown in Fig. 3, as the gas flows pass the blades, 10 and 11 the flow is an arc shape).
Regarding Claim 6, Warfvinge, as modified, teaches the dust removal device (web cleaner, 1)
according to claim 3 as discussed above.
Warfvinge does not teach wherein the plurality of slits are arranged in parallel.
Testone, however, teaches wherein the plurality of slits (58) are arranged in parallel (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Warfvinge to further include each of the plurality of slits is formed inclining obliquely to the direction of relative movement of the object to be dedusted, as taught by Testone, providing sufficient gas in which to remove the particles from the web and further could serve as a backup in case one port is not working.
Regarding Claim 9, Warfvinge, as modified, teaches the dust removal device (web cleaner, 1)
according to claim 3 as discussed above.
Warfvinge does not teach wherein the arrangement direction of the slits is perpendicular to the moving direction of the target object..
Testone, however, teaches wherein the arrangement direction of the slits (58) is perpendicular to the moving direction of the target object (S; Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Warfvinge to further include each of the plurality of slits extends in parallel to the direction of relative movement of the object to be dedusted, as taught by Testone, providing sufficient gas in which to remove the particles from the web and further could serve as a backup in case one port is not working.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated December 22, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 2 - 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, after further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Testone.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723