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 Amendment
As to applicant’s claim amendments and remarks filed on 6/15/26, the previous rejections are withdrawn and new grounds of rejection are set forth to address the claim amendments.
Claim Status
Claims 1-17 are pending with claims 9-10, 12-17 being examined and claims 1-8 and 11 deemed withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: #7004 in [121] of the instant application PGPub is not in the figures. 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. 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 10 is objected to because it recites “the tip” where a tip has not been discussed previously. The examiner suggests that the tip be related to the tip cleaning region in claim 1.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-16 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.
As to claim 15, it is unclear how the source roll or waste roll relate to the floss advancing reel of claim 9. In claim 9 there is a floss advancing reel. However, the examiner believes that the floss advancing reel must be one of the source or waste rolls that are recited in claim 15. As drafted, it is unclear whether the rolls of claim 15 are attempting to be recited as different structures from that of the reel of claim 9.
With respect to claim 16, it is unclear what pump exit is intending to describe since no pump has been defined. Are applicants attempting to claim a pump as part of the liquid doser?
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Wakatake, K (US 20070166194; hereinafter “Wakatake”; already of record).
As to claim 9, Wakatake teaches an apparatus comprising a floss, a floss-advancing reel, a floss wetter comprising a liquid doser configured to supply a cleaning liquid to the floss, and a tip cleaning region (Wakatake teaches a floss/tape that is wounded on a roller/reel to contact and clean the tip of a nozzle where the region of space of the device in which the floss/tip contact each other is the tip cleaning region; [19-26], Fig. 2. Wakatake teaches that the tip is wet in the washing trough position k/l and then rises and rotates to wiping position b/g, where the washing trough is interpreted as the floss wetter because the floss gets wet by wiping the liquid from the washing trough away; [19-26], Fig. 2. Wakatake teaches that the fluid in the washing position is in a trough/sluice where the wash fluid is delivered into the trough where the delivery of the fluid is the supply/liquid doser; [12, 20, 25]).
Note: The instant Claims contain functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claim 10, Wakatake teaches the apparatus of claim 9 further comprising a traverse motion profile that wipes the surface of the tip across a floss (The examiner notes that the recitations of claim 10 relate to intended use and function of how the tip is moved. The tip is not positively recited as part of the device and how the tip moves does not further limit the apparatus beyond that of a capability. Wakatake teaches that the tip is wet in the washing trough position k/l and then rises and rotates to wiping position b/g, where this rotation/movement to wipe is a transverse motion profile, and also Wakatake teaches that the nozzle tip and floss are contacted where the nozzle and floss wipe with respect to each other which is a transverse motion profile; [19-26], Fig. 2).
As to claim 12, Wakatake teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the floss wetter further comprises a sluice configured to facilitate applying the cleaning liquid onto the floss (Wakatake teaches that the fluid is in a trough/sluice; [12, 20, 25]).
As to claim 13, Wakatake teaches the apparatus of claim 9, further comprising a slit feature configured to resist wicking of the cleaning liquid toward the floss-advancing reel (Wakatake teaches a slit at wiping position b/g formed by reel 25A/25B where the slit is a narrowing gap that close where this would prevent wicking towards the floss advancing reel; [19-26], Fig. 2).
As to claim 15, Wakatake teaches the apparatus of claim 9, further comprising a source roll configured to supply clean floss to the tip cleaning region, and a waste roll configured to collect used floss from the tip cleaning region (Wakatake teaches two rollers to supply and collect the floss; [19-26], Fig. 2).
As to claim 17, Wakatake teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the traverse motion profile comprises a zig-zag, circular, or elliptical helical motion of the tip relative to the floss (The examiner notes that the recitations of claim 10 relate to intended use and function of how the tip is moved. The tip is not positively recited as part of the device and how the tip moves does not further limit the apparatus beyond that of a capability. Wakatake teaches that the tip is wet in the washing trough position k/l and then rises and rotates to wiping position b/g, where this rotation/movement to wipe is a circular/radial motion profile, and also Wakatake teaches that the nozzle tip and floss are contacted where the nozzle and floss wipe with respect to each other which is a circular/radial motion profile; [19-26], Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakatake, K (US 20070166194; hereinafter “Wakatake”; already of record).
As to claim 14, Wakatake teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the floss comprises a plurality of flosses within the tip cleaning region (Wakatake teaches multiple flosses that converge where the floss is wiped; [19-26], Fig. 2)
Although Wakatake teaches that the flosses converge and meet together, Wakatake does not specifically teach that the flosses cross each other. It would have been obvious to change the shape of the floss that converges to have been crossed to provide the advantage of helping ensure the tip can be placed against the floss with force to better rub against, and clean, the tip and this would also provide the advantage of tension and wiping that would not be present if the wipe were not crossed as the wipe would just push into the gap and separate the flosses instead of providing a pushing force that would be achieved by crossing the floss, since it has been held that changes in shape are not patentably distinct from prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the floss that converges to have been crossed to provide the advantage of helping ensure the tip can be placed against the floss with force to better rub against, and clean, the tip and this would also provide the advantage of tension and wiping that would not be present if the wipe were not crossed as the wipe would just push into the gap and separate the flosses instead of providing a pushing force that would be achieved by crossing the floss, since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, and is an obvious matter of design choice, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400 (MPEP 2144.04 VI. C).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakatake, K (US 20070166194; hereinafter “Wakatake”; already of record) in view of Cohen, B (US 20150192601; hereinafter “Cohen”).
As to claim 16, Wakatake teaches the apparatus of claim 9, with the liquid doser providing cleaning liquid (see claim 9 above).
Wakatake does not teach the liquid doser further comprises a gas or air gap between a pump exit and the floss wetter, the gas or air gap configured to prevent back-contamination of the cleaning liquid. However, Cohen teaches the analogous art of a device for providing cleaning fluid to a tip (Cohen; Fig. 3) with liquid doser further comprises a gas or air gap between a pump exit and the floss wetter, the gas or air gap configured to prevent back-contamination of the cleaning liquid (Cohen teaches a distributor 326 which provides liquid for cleaning and then provides air, where an air gap would be between the vacuum pump 320 exit and the distributor 326 and b/w the vacuum and rinse liquid 330/331 when air was provided; [43, 44], Fig. 3. The function of the gas or air gap is a matter of intended use). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the liquid doser which supplies cleaning liquid into the trough of Wakatake to have provided an air gap via distributor as in Cohen because Cohen teaches that this helps to clean off the probe (Cohen; [44]) and also helps to selectively flow fluids/gas and liquids which would allow the flow of liquid to stop (Cohen; [44]) thereby providing the advantage of ensuring the liquid was not constantly being used and saving consumables.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/15/26 have been considered, but are moot because the arguments are towards the amended claims and not the current grounds of rejection.
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Range, R (US 4131426; hereinafter “Range”; already of record) teaches a floss/tape/ribbon that is wounded on a roller/reel to contact and clean the tip of a nozzle where the region of space of the device in which the floss/tip contact each other is the tip cleaning region; Fig. 3, 5, 6, col. 3 lines 30-42, col. 7 line 61-col. 8 line 19, col. 9 line 26-35. Range teaches that the tip has been wet by a sample, where the sample is interpreted as the floss wetter because the floss gets wet by wiping the sample away; Fig. 3, 5, 6, col. 3 lines 30-42, col. 7 line 61-col. 8 line 19, col. 9 line 26-35.
Downing et al (US 3753657; hereinafter “Downing”; already of record) teaches a floss/tape-like member that is wounded on a reel to contact and clean the tip of a nozzle where the region of space of the device in which the floss/tip contact each other is the tip cleaning region; col. 3 line 6-12, col. 14 line 14-27, col. 18 line 7-25, Fig. 12. Downing teaches that the tip has been wet by a sample, where the sample is interpreted as the floss wetter because the floss gets wet by wiping the sample away; col. 3 line 6-12, col. 14 line 14-27, col. 18 line 7-25, Fig. 12.
Shohmi et al (US 20080240994; hereinafter “Shohmi”; already of record) teaches a floss/tape-like member that is wounded on a roller/reel to contact and clean the tip of a nozzle where the region of space of the device in which the floss/tip contact each other is the tip cleaning region; [82]. Shohmi teaches that the tip has been wet by a sample, where the sample is interpreted as the floss wetter because the floss gets wet by wiping the sample away; [82].
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 BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights