Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1 The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2 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 2, 4, 8-9 and 10 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.
Claims 2 and 9 contain the trademark/trade names “Dispers 750W, Dispers 655, Tego 688, Tego 755” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe (1) and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “wherein a weight of the auxiliary cleaning agent is 0-3% of a weight of the main cleaning agent, excluding 0”. It is unclear what the lower limit of the range?. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim limitation cannot be defined.
Claim 8 recites “mixing is caried out at a normal temperature” It is unclear what is meant by normal temperature. Normal is a relative term. . The claim should recite “room temperature” which is a defined temperature range.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “An application of the cleaning liquid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. According to claim 1 in a cleaning green”.
Claim 10 does not contain any transitional language. i.e comprising or consisting of. Therefore, it is unclear if the claim is closed or open?.
Claim 10 provides an application (use) of the cleaning liquid, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a application (use), without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
4 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Wang Li-kun (CN 111559174 A). English translation of the Patent No. (CN 11155917 A) is used in this Office action.
Wang Li-kun (CN’ 174 A) teaches an inkjet printing head protection liquid can effectively remove the residue on the surface of the nozzle of the printing head having a wiping and cleaning effect (see page 11, second paragraph from the bottom), wherein the protection fluid comprises acryloyl morpholine (ACMO) and isobornyl acrylate (IBXA) mixed with 1g (1%) by wt., of surfactant (auxiliary cleaning agent) to obtain the inkjet head protection fluid as claimed in claims 1, 3-5 and 7 (see page 14, Embodiment 1 and claim 11) and wherein the mixture obtained without applying temperature which inherently is carried out at a normal temperature as claimed in claim 8 (see page 14, Embodiment 1 (the preparation method). Wang Li-kun (CN’ 174 A) teaches all the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Wang Li-kun (CN’ 174 A) anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5 The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang Li-kun (CN 111559174 A). English translation of the Patent No. (CN 11155917 A) is used in this Office action.
The teaching of Wang Li-kun (CN’ 174 A) as described above, does not teach the amount of the auxiliary cleaning as claimed in claim 6. The reference of Wang Li-kun (CN’ 174 A1) also does not teach or disclose the claimed species of auxiliary cleaning agents as claimed in claims 2 and 9. Further, the reference of Wang Li-kun (CN’ 174 A1) does not teach the application of the cleaning liquid to clean a green body of 3D printing of high-yield-stress ceramic material as claimed in claim 10.
However, the reference of Wang Li-kun (CN’ 174 A) teaches a cleaning fluid comprising a surfactant (cleaning agent) in the amount of 1g (1%) by wt., which is closed to the claimed amount 0.9% as claimed in claim 6 (see page 14, Embodiment 1), and wherein the cleaning fluid also comprises surfactants (cleaning agents) include TEGO wet 270, TEGO Glide 450, TEGO Rad 2010, TEGO Rad 2011 and TEGO RAD 2200 (see page 13, paragraph, 6).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Wang Li-kun (CN’ 174 A), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the amount of the cleaning agents in the cleaning fluid in order to get the maximum effective amounts of these cleaning agents in the fluid, and also the person of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select any of the TEGO species that used in the cleaning formulation including the claimed species Tego 755 and Tego 688 to arrive at the claimed, because the ordinary artisan would have the reasonable expectation that any of the species of the Tego would have similar properties and thus, the same use as those claimed, absent unexpected result.
Regarding claim 10, Wang Li-kun (CN’ 174 A), teaches an inkjet printing head protection liquid can effectively remove the residue on the surface of the nozzle of the printing head having a wiping and cleaning effect (see page 11, second paragraph from the bottom), wherein the protection fluid comprises acryloyl morpholine (ACMO) and isobornyl acrylate (IBXA) mixed with 1g (1%) by wt., of surfactant (auxiliary cleaning agent) to obtain the inkjet head protection fluid (see page 14, Embodiment 1 and claim 11).
Therefore, and based on the teaching of Wang Li-kun (CN’ 174 A), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply such a protection fluid as taught by Wang Li-kun (CN’ 174 A) for cleaning 3D printing green body of high-yield-stress ceramic material to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious because the reference of Wang Li-kun (CN’ 174 A) teaches a protection fluid having ingredients similar to those claimed, and, thus, the person of the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that similar composition would have similar utilities of cleaning, absent unexpected results. Further, the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. (In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571)272-2817. 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761