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. Comment re Proposed Examiner’s Amendment It is noted that, on August 27, 2025 , Examiner faxed a proposed Examiner’s Amendment to Applicant’s representative to place the case in condition for allowance . This proposed Examiner’s Amendment has been made of record in an Interview Summary attached to this Office Action. No agreement could be reached at the present time. That said, attention is directed to that proposed Examiner's Amendment for details and suggestions as to how to overcome any issues outlined in this Office Action. That said, additional to what was proposed in the proposed Examiner’s Amendment, Examiner would additionally suggest changing “the semi-finished mold” in claim 1 , line 33 to –the measured semi-finished mold--, given that the limitation “the semi-finished mold” in claim 1 , line 33 lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim (as noted in a rejection under 35 USC 112(b) hereinbelow). Drawings The drawings are objected to because the usage of the reference characters “S21” and “S22” in each of Figures 1, 9, and 10, is inconsistent with the usage of those reference characters in the specification. In particular, note that in each of Figures 1, 9, and 10, the reference characters “S21” and “S22” are shown as coming from the tool placement module 4. However, paragraph 0046 teaches that the mold placement module 3 provides the semi-finished mold information S2, including semi-finished mold quantity information S21 and semi-finished mold location information S22, to the central control module 1 . See also paragraphs 0052 and 0053, as well as paragraphs 0011-0012 and original claims 2, 5, and 8 . 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. Claim Objections Claim s 1 , 3, 6, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1 , line 37, it appears that “is” should be –be—(in the limitation “dimension information is within a predetermined error range”) ; in claim 3 , line 49, in claim 6 , line 49, and in claim 9 , line 49, it appears that –a—should be inserted between “provide” and “heat source”. . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-9 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. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp. , 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “ medicine ” in claims 1, 3 (plural occurrences in claim 3 ), 4, 6 (plural occurrences in claim 6 ), 7 , and 9 (plural occurrences in claim 9 ) is apparently used by the claim to mean “ cleaning ,” while the accepted meaning is “ a medical remedy .” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The term “ hot air ” in claim 1; in claim 3 , line 45; in claim 4 ; claim 6 , line 45; claim 7 , and claim 9 , line 45 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ hot air ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear as claimed as to how hot the air must be in order to be considered to be “hot” vs. how cool the air must be in order to be excluded by the term. There are several positively recited limitations that lack sufficient antecedent bases in the claims. Examples of this are: “the semi-finished mold” in claim 1 , line s 29 , 30, 33, and 36 , in claim 4 , lines 29, 30 (noting that plural semi-finished molds were previously set forth, it is thus unclear which specific semi-finished mold is intended to be referenced); “the mold identification barcode” throughout claims 3, 6, and 9 (in the event plural mold identification barcodes were intended to be recited in the earlier limitation “each of the mold carrying seats has a mold identification barcode”); “the mold carrying seat” throughout claims 3, 6, and 9 (noting that the claim previously recited “a plurality” of mold carrying seats); “the mold material” throughout claims 3, 6, and 9 (plural mold materials previously claimed); “the semi-finished mold” throughout claims 3, 6, and 9 (plural semi-finished mold materials previously claimed); “the tool holder” throughout claims 3, 6, and 9 (plural tool holders previously recited); “the tool” throughout claims 3, 6, and 9 (plural tools previously recited); and “the material processing machine” throughout claims 3, 6, and 9 (plural material processing machines previously recited) . This is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of such occurrences. Applicant is required to review the claims and correct any other such occurrences of limitations lacking sufficient antecedent basis. The term “ standard ” in claim 1 , lines 35 and 36, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ standard ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what criteria a given dimension information must have in order to be considered “standard” dimension information, and it is unclear what dimension information is excluded by the term “standard”. In claim 1 , lines 27-37, the claim recites : a dimension measurement module electrically connected to the central control module, wherein the dimension measurement module is configured to measure the semi-finished mold, thereby obtaining actual dimension information of the semi-finished mold ; and an electrical discharge machining module electrically connected to the central control module, wherein the electrical discharge machining module is configured to perform precision machining on the semi-finished mold according to a difference between the actual dimension information and standard dimension information, thereby making the difference between the actual dimension information of the semi-finished mold and the standard dimension information is within a predetermined error range . However, it is unclear as set forth in claim 1 , lines 27-37, how or in what regard performing precision machining {via the electrical discharge machining (EDM) module} on the semi-finished mold (which is configured to have the “actual dimension information”, i.e., the actual dimension information that was measured prior to the precision machining) serves to change a difference between the (i.e., previously-measured) “actual dimension information” (i.e., the actual dimension information of the semi-finished mold prior to the precision EDM machining) of the semi-finished mold and the “standard” dimension information. In other words, it is unclear how performing precision machining on the measured workpiece (which will thus change the dimensions of the workpiece from the “actual dimension information” that existed prior to the precision machining) serves to change a difference between the “actual dimension information” and a standard, given that the claimed “actual dimension information” of the semi- finished mold is dimensional information at a given point in time, i.e., the point in time at which the measuring (via the dimension measurement module, as claimed) occurred. In claim 1 , lines 42-46, the claim sets forth “ wherein the robot arm module is configured to be movably disposed among the mold placement module, the tool placement module, the material processing module, the mold cleaning module, the dimension measurement module and the electrical discharge machining module and along the system track ” . Similarly, in claim 4 , lines 35-38, the claim sets forth “ wherein the robot arm module is configured to be movably disposed among the mold placement module, the tool placement module, the material processing module, the mold cleaning module and the dimension measurement module and along the system track ” . Similarly, in claim 7 , lines 30-32, the claim sets forth “ wherein the robot arm module is configured to be movably disposed among the mold placement module, the tool placement module, the material processing module and the mold cleaning module and along the system track. However , in each of these claim limitations, the intended scope of “movably disposed among” is unclear as claimed. For example, it is unclear as claimed whether such merely intends for the robot arm module to be able to move in a location that is somehow considered “among” the group of claimed modules, whether or not the robot arm module is able to move to each of the claimed modules. Alternatively, it is unclear as claimed whether such instead intends to require that the robot arm module be able to move to each of the claimed modules. Additionally, it is unclear as claimed whether or not “and along the system track” is intended to go with “movably disposed among”, i.e., whether the robot arm module must be capable of being moved along the system track “among” the claimed modules, or whether the limitation regarding the movement of the robot arm module along the system track is independent of/additional to the limitation regarding the robot arm module being movably disposed among the claimed modules (i.e., it is unclear whether a robot arm module that is somehow considered to be “movable among” the claimed modules meets the limitation if the movement “among” the modules is not also “along” the system track). In claim 3 , lines 11-13 , the claim sets forth “ wherein, the mold materials and the semi-finished molds are respectively and detachably disposed on a plurality of corresponding mold carrying seats ”. However, noting that “a” plurality of mold materials and “a” plurality of semi-finished molds were previously recited, it is unclear as claimed whether the “plurality” of mold materials and the “plurality” of semi-finished molds are being collectively referenced in this limitation. The intended effect of the term “respectively” in this limitation is likewise unclear, such that it is unclear whether the limitation intends for each plurality of the workpieces (i.e., the plurality of the mold materials and the plurality of the semi-finished molds) to be provided to a respective plurality of mold carrying seats, or whether such instead intends to indicate that each of the mold materials and each of the semi-finished molds are disposed on a respective mold carrying seat. The same situation exists in claim 6 , lines 11-13, and in claim 9 , lines 11-13. In claim 3 , lines 13-14, the claim set forth “each of the mold carrying seats has a mold identification barcode that is configured to be read by the barcode reader of the robot arm”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether the claim intends for each of the mold carrying seats to have a respective identification barcode or not. The same situation also exists in claims 6 and 9 . That said, it is noted that in the event plural barcodes are intended (i.e., such that each of the mold carrying seats has a respective identification barcode) then all subsequent recitations of “the mold identification barcode” lack sufficient antecedent basis in these claims (i.e., claims 3, 6, and 9 ). In claim 3 , lines 15-17, the claim sets forth “ and mold information provided by the mold identification barcode of the mold carrying seat corresponds to a type of the mold material or a type of the semi-finished mold that is carried by the mold carrying seat ”. However, it is unclear as claimed in this limitation whether “that is carried by the mold carrying seat” is intended to only go with “a type of the semi-finished mold”, or whether “that is carried by the mold carrying seat” is also intended to o with “a type of the mold material”. The same situation exists in claims 6 and 9 . In claim 3 , lines 1 8 -1 9 , the claim set forth “ the tool holder has a tool identification barcode that is configured to be read by the barcode reader of the robot arm”. However, noting that plural tool holders were previously claimed, it is unclear as claimed whether the claim intends for each of the tool holders to have a respective tool identification barcode or not. The same situation also exists in claims 6 and 9 . That said, it is noted that in the event plural barcodes are intended (i.e., such that each of the tool holders has a respective identification barcode) then all subsequent recitations of “the tool identification barcode” lack sufficient antecedent basis in these claims (i.e., claims 3, 6, and 9 ). The same situations exist in claims 3, 6, and 9 regarding the limitation “tool information”. In claim 3 , lines 51-53, the claim recites “wherein the material processing module includes a plurality of barcode confirmation sensors respectively disposed inside the material processing machines”. However, it is unclear as claimed what effect the term “respectively” is intended to have on the scope of the claim. For example, noting that a plurality is one (collective) entity, it is unclear as claimed whether the claim intends to recite a respective plurality of barcode confirmation sensors inside of each of the material processing machines, whether the claim intends to require a respective (one) barcode confirmation sensor be disposed inside each of the material processing machines, etc. The same situation exists in each of claims 6 and 9 . In each of claims 3, 6, and 9 , the claim recites “ the first water quality detector is configured to detect a water quality of the liquid medicine in the first cleaning tank , and the second water quality detector is configured to detect a water quality of the clear water in the second cleaning tank ”. However, in the foregoing limitation(s), it is unclear as claimed what is intended to be set forth as located or occurring “in the first cleaning tank”, e.g., the “liquid medicine”, the detection of the water quality of the liquid medicine, or the first water quality detector itself. Similarly, in the foregoing limitation(s), it is unclear as claimed what is intended to be set forth as located or occurring “in the second cleaning tank”, e.g., the “ clear water ”, the detection of the water quality of the clear water , or the second water quality detector itself. 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 1-3 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. In claim 1 , lines 27-37, the claim recites: a dimension measurement module electrically connected to the central control module, wherein the dimension measurement module is configured to measure the semi-finished mold, thereby obtaining actual dimension information of the semi-finished mold ; and an electrical discharge machining module electrically connected to the central control module, wherein the electrical discharge machining module is configured to perform precision machining on the semi-finished mold according to a difference between the actual dimension information and standard dimension information, thereby making the difference between the actual dimension information of the semi-finished mold and the standard dimension information is within a predetermined error range . However, as noted above in a separate rejection under 35 USC 112(b), it is unclear as set forth in claim 1 , lines 27-37, how or in what regard performing precision machining {via the electrical discharge machining (EDM) module} on the semi-finished mold (which is configured to have the “actual dimension information”, i.e., the actual dimension information that was measured prior to the precision machining) serves to change a difference between the (i.e., previously-measured) “actual dimension information” (i.e., the actual dimension information of the semi-finished mold prior to the precision EDM machining) of the semi-finished mold and the “standard” dimension information. In other words, it is unclear how performing precision machining on the measured workpiece (which will thus change the dimensions of the workpiece from the “actual dimension information” that existed prior to the precision machining) serves to change a difference between the “actual dimension information” and a standard, given that the claimed “actual dimension information” of the semi-finished mold is dimensional information at a given point in time, i.e., the point in time at which the measuring (via the dimension measurement module, as claimed) occurred. The specification as filed thus does not appear to demonstrate possession of the invention as set forth in claim 1 . In contrast, it would appear that a first actual dimension information is obtained by the dimension measurement module 7, that first actual dimension information is compared to the “standard” information and if the difference between that first actual dimension information and the “standard” information is not within a predetermined “error range”, the electrical discharge machining module 8 performs “precision” machining on the semi-finished mold, thus resulting in a semi-finished mold having different, second, actual dimension information. Note that what is claimed is that the electric discharge machining module 8 is configured to perform machining on the semi-finished mold (i.e., that has the first actual dimension information) to thus make the difference between the (first) actual dimension information be within a predetermined error range. However, performing such machining will not change what the measured first actual dimension information was (as is recited in claim 1 ) , but rather, performing such machining (with the electric discharge machining module 8) will result in the different/second actual dimension information. 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 7 and 4 , as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0364138 A1 (hereinafter, “EP ‘138”) in view of JP 2002-304208 A (hereinafter, “JP ‘208”) and U.S. Pat. No. 6,615,852 to Kitahara (hereinafter “Kitahara”). Regarding claim 7 , EP ‘138 teaches a mold manufacturing system ( the manufacturing system of EP ‘138 is considered to be at least inherently capable of performing the claimed function or intended use of manufacturing a “mold” via a machining center such as 53A-53D , noting that the machining center is blind as to the workpiece on which they operate, but rather, will machine whatever workpiece with which the tooling thereof is brought into operative contact, including a “mold”; see Figure 3 and at least col. 3, line 50 through col. 4, line 11, for example ), comprising: a central control module (47) (see Figure 3 and at least col. 3, line 50 through col. 4, line 48, for example); a robot arm module (66 ; see Figure 3 and col. 4, lines 11-19, for example ) electrically connected to the central control module (47) (see Figure 3 , and col. 4, lines 12-37, noting that controller 68 controls the robot 66, and that 47 controls 68 via a local data transmission network 48 of the overall cell shown in Figure 3) wherein the robot arm module (66) is movably disposed on a system track (67) (Figure 3, col. 4, lines 12-37) ; a “ mold ” placement module (69 ; see Figure 3 and col. 4, lines 19-20 ) electrically connected (at least ultimately; see Fig. 3, noting electrical connection to 70 of/for 69 , which 70 of/for 69 is controlled by control unit 71, and 47 controls control unit 71 via the local data transmission network 48 of the overall cell shown in Figure 3; see also col. 4, lines 12-37, for example) to the central control module (47), wherein the mold placement module (69) includes a mold carrying frame ( see Fig. 3) and a first movable safety door adjacent to the mold carrying frame, and the mold carrying frame is configured to carry a plurality of mold materials that have not yet been processed ( EP ‘138 expressly teaches that 69 is a store for parts to be machined ; see col. 4, lines 12-37, for example ) and ( is inherently capable of storing , noting that 69 is blind as to whether the parts it stores have or have not been machined ) a plurality of semi-finished molds that have been processed; a tool placement module ( see col. 9, line s 48-54, which teaches that there can be a tool store/mag azine common to the cell, and that the same trolley /robot can be used for tool carrying and parts carrying; see also col. 11 , lines 16-20) electrically connected (at least ultimately, given that 66 is electrical connected to 47, as described above, and given that the teachings in col. 9, lines 48-54 indicate that the trolley/robot 66 would also effect movement of the tools re the tool store/magazine of the cell ) to the central control module (47), wherein the (aforedescribed) tool placement module includes a tool carrying frame ( noting that any structure of the tool store/magazine described in col. 9, lines 48-54 would inherently include some sort of a frame or else no such store/magazine would exist ) and a second movable safety door adjacent to the tool carrying frame , the tool carrying frame is configured to carry a plurality of processing tools (col. 9, line s 48-54 ), and each of the processing tools includes a tool holder and a tool detachably clamped by the tool holder ( note that the claim does not expressly require the plural processing tools/tool holders/tools detachably clamped by the tool holders, but rather, the claim sets forth that the tool carrying frame is “configured to carry” a plurality of processing tools that each include a tool holder and tool detachably clamped by the tool holder; that said, the tool store/magazine is considered to be inherently capable of performing the claimed function/intended use of carrying a plurality of tools that each include a tool holder and tool clamped thereby, noting that the tool storage is blind as to what is carried thereby, and is inherently capable of “carrying” whatever is placed thereon/therein in some capacity, such as by laying such tool/tool holder thereon, for example ); a material processing module (53A-53D) electrically connected to the central control module (47), wherein the material processing module includes a plurality of material processing machines (53A-53D), and each of the material processing machines is configured to use one of the processing tools to process one of the mold materials, thereby obtaining a corresponding one of the semi-finished molds (see Figure 3 and col. 3, line 50 through col. 4, line 37, for example) ; and a mold cleaning module (washer station 63) electrically connected to the central control module (47), wherein the mold cleaning module includes a first cleaning tank for accommodating liquid medicine, a second cleaning tank for accommodating clear water and a drying tank for providing hot air; wherein the mold placement module (69), the (aforedescribed) tool placement module, the material processing module (53A-53D) and the mold cleaning module (63) are all adjacent to the system track (67) and arranged along the system track (67) (Fig. 3; see also col. 9, line s 48-54 ; see also col. 4, lines 12-20, which further teaches that robot module 66 brings parts to 53A-53D, to washing station 63, and to measuring station 61 ); wherein the robot arm module (66) is configured to be movably disposed “ among ” the mold placement module (69), the (aforedescribed) tool placement module, the material processing module (53A-53D) and the mold cleaning module (63) and along the system track (67). See Figure 3, as well as col. 9, lines 48-54 and col. 4, lines 12-20, for example. Additionally regarding claim 4 (which also includes the above-referenced limitations of claim 7 ) , note that EP ‘138 teaches the part measuring station/module 61 (i.e., the claimed “dimension measurement module”) that is electrically connected to the central control module (47) (see Figure 3; see also at least col. 4, lines 12-15 and 27-34, for example) , and furthermore, teaches that the robot arm module 66 is configured to provide parts to 61 via movements of 66 along track 67. See Figure 3, and at least col. 4, lines 12-20, and col. 14, lines 17-47, for example. See also col. 14, lines 17-54 and Figure 11. The text of claim 7 that is lined through above are limitations (of both claims 4 and 7 ) that are not expressly taught by EP ‘138 , i.e., EP ‘138 does not expressly teach that the mold placement module (69) includes a first movable safety door adjacent to the mold carrying frame , that the tool placement module includes a second movable safety door adjacent to the tool carrying frame , or that the mold cleaning module (washer station 63) includes a first cleaning tank for accommodating liquid medicine, a second cleaning tank for accommodating clear water and a drying tank for providing hot air . However, regarding the first and second “movable safety doors”, it is noted that the use of protective covers (having movable safety doors) for tool and workpiece magazines is well known. For example , attention is directed to JP ‘208. It is noted that a machine translation of JP ‘208 is being made of record on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying this Office Action. That said, attention is directed to that translation regarding any references herein to paragraph numbers, line numbers, page numbers, or the like re JP ‘208. See particularly Figure 5 of JP ‘208 , noting that 2 is a magazine (able to be accessed via robot 4, shown in Figure 4, for example; see also paragraph 0022, for example) for tools T and workpieces W, and that 2 has doors 26a, 26b. See also at least paragraphs 0016 and 0017. Additionally, the magazine 2 includes a door open/close detection sensor 31 connected to the controller 39 of the robot 4, and a signal from the door open/close sensor 31 is sent to the controller 39 (see Figure 5 and paragraphs 0010, 0016, 0019, and 0021-0022), which allows the controller to know that the setup operation has ended and that the controller can then carry out other tasks (see at least paragraphs 0010, 0016, 0019, and 0021-0022 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the frame of each of the magazines (i.e., the “mold placement module” and the “tool placement module” of the independent claims) of EP ‘138 with a respective cover and movable safety doors and door open/close sensor 31 in communication with the robot controller , as taught by JP ‘208, for the purpose of providing protection to the tools and parts/workpieces housed therein from dirt, debris, and/or damage , as would be benefits of a cover and movable safety doors that are readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and/or for the purpose of increasing efficiency by letting the controller know that the set up work in the magazine is completed and the door is closed to thus allow an automatic mode to be automatically started, as expressly taught by JP ‘208 (see paragraphs 0010, 0016, 0019, and 0021-0022 , and particularly paragraph 0010, for example) . Regarding the cleaning module, while it is noted that EP ‘138 teaches a washing module 63 as described above, it is noted that EP ‘138 is silent as to the details thereof, and does not expressly teach the recited two cleaning tanks and the recited drying tank. However, it is noted that such a configuration of cleaning module is known. For example , attention is directed to U.S. Pat. No. 6,615,852 to Kitahara (hereinafter “Kitahara”). Note that Kitahara teaches a cleaning module that includes a f irst cleaning tank (3) for accommodating liquid medicine (electrolytic cleaning fluid; see Figures 1-2 and col. 2, lines 53-58, and col. 4, lines 3-14, for example) , a second cleaning tank (18) for accommodating “ clear ” water (see Figures 1-2 and col. 7, lines 27-32, for example) and a drying tank (19’) for providing hot air (see Figures 1-2 and col. 7, lines 32-38, for example). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the specific known cleaning module (having the various tanks described above) taught by Kitahara for the generically-disclosed washing station 63 taught by EP ‘138, for the purpose of providing a cleaning that “enables elimination of attachments adhering to” the building side of a “mould”, such as resin dregs, as taught by Kitahara (see col. 1, lines 5-14, for example, of Kitahara). Comment Regarding Non-Indication of Allowable Subject Matter A thorough search has been conducted re the elected invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claims 1-3 , no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of elected claims 1 -3 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 USC 112(a), set forth above, particularly given that is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issues with respect to 35 USC 112(a). Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 5-6 and 8-9 , as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112(b), would be allowable if rewritten (without broadening in any way) to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, (and the objections to claims 3, 6, and 9 ) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4474 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sunil K Singh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-3460 . 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. /ERICA E CADUGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 eec September 3, 2025