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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not in a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “conveyor device” in claim 27, first and second “cleaning apparatus” in claim 27, movement machine in claim 37.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 27-44 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.
In claim 27 in lines 5 and line 8 it is unclear what is meant by “preferably large-area” or “preferably sharp-edged”. Does claim 27 require that the first cleaning apparatus is for large-area cleaning? Does claim 27 require that the second cleaning apparatus is a sharp-edged cleaning apparatus?
Claim 32 recites that there is “…a roller diameter of less than 35 cm, less than 32 cm or less than 29 cm and of greater than 10 cm.” The phrase “and of greater than” is grammatically confusing. Does “of greater than” means “having a diameter greater than”?
Claims 33 and 35 are considered indefinite as improper Markush groupings. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group “consisting of” (rather than “comprising” or “including”) the alternative members (see MPEP 2173.05(h) and 2117). It is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim; the list of alternatives needs to be a closed grouping.
Claim 36 lines 3-4 recite “the first roller outer diameter is larger than the second roller outer diameter, preferably by a factor of at least 1.5 or at least 2.0.” It is unclear what is meant by “preferably”. Does claim 36 require the first roller outer diameter be at least 1.5 times larger than the second roller outer diameter?
Claim 38 recites “the automatic movement machine comprises a multi-axis robot adapted to move the first cleaning apparatus…” However, claim 37 (which claim 38 depends from) recites that “the cleaning device comprises in addition to the multiaxial robot, an automatic movement machine…” It is unclear if the device of claim 38 includes the multiaxial robot of claim 37 and additionally the multi-axis robot of claim 38, or alternatively if these are the same robots.
Regarding claim 41, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 43 recites the limitation "the automatic movement machine" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is claim 43 meant to depend on claim 37 instead of claim 27?
Claim 44 recites the limitation "the automatic movement machine" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 27-29, 34-35, 37-40, and 42-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al., CN 205762149 (see also English translation).
Regarding claim 27, Lin et al. disclose a cleaning device for cleaning a motor vehicle body component (vehicle, see Figures 2-5; see English translation of Abstract), comprising: a cleaning station (station of Figure 1), a conveyor device for transporting the component through the cleaning station (not shown, see English translation, “a mechanical transporting device, such as a vehicle body conveying roller or a conveying chain”), a first cleaning apparatus for large-area cleaning of the component (one of brushes 22 shown in Figure 1), characterized in that the cleaning device comprises a multiaxial robot (one of robots 21, Figure 1) which carries a second cleaning apparatus for cleaning the component (other one of brushes 22 shown in Figure 1) which is adapted to guide the second cleaning apparatus laterally along a partial region of the component (see English translation, particularly the second paragraph under the heading “Preferred Embodiment”). Regarding claims 28-29, the partial region is a wet partial region and/or a partial region with not yet dried-out surface, or a seam with not yet dried-out surface and/or a coating face with not yet dried out surface (see English translation and Figure 1, the partial region of the vehicle that is being cleaned is capable of being the wet partial region, partial region with not yet dried-out surface, a seam with not yet dried-out surface, and/or a coating face with not yet dried out surface; additionally the partial region is the article being worked upon by the cleaning device structure and is not positively recited, see MPEP 2115: “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).”). Regarding claim 34, the multiaxial robot comprises at least 5 or at least 6 axes of movement (6 axes, see English translation, second paragraph under the heading “Preferred Embodiment”). Regarding claim 35, the first cleaning apparatus is a sword brush (see English translation of Abstract). Regarding claim 37, the cleaning device comprises an automatic movement machine which carries the first cleaning apparatus (sliding block or robot 20, see English translation, second paragraph under the heading “Preferred Embodiment”). Regarding claim 38, the automatic movement machine comprises a multi-axis robot adapted to move the first cleaning apparatus along the component (other of 21 carrying the first cleaning apparatus 22 in Figure 1, see also English translation). Regarding claim 39, the cleaning device comprises on both sides of the conveyor device at least one of the first cleaning apparatus and at least one of the second cleaning apparatus (Figure 1). Regarding claim 40, the multiaxial robot is adapted to guide the second apparatus laterally along the partial region without the second cleaning apparatus entering the partial region (in that the second cleaning apparatus on one side is moved along the component to a predetermined position, discussed in the English translation, as the first mode/step in the description of “A stepping mode…steps…”; alternatively the sliding block travels along the linear guide rail parallel to the machine direction 20, see English translation describing the “Stepping vehicle system…shown in Fig 1-2…”). Regarding claim 42, the cleaning device comprises a control device for controlling the second cleaning apparatus (see English translation, particularly the Abstract, the discussion of the stepping mode, and claim 1) and/or for controlling the multiaxial robot in order to guide the second cleaning apparatus laterally along the partial region (see English translation, particularly the Abstract, the discussion of the stepping mode, and claim 1). Regarding claim 43, the automatic moving machine (sliding block or robot mentioned previously) is adapted to guide the first cleaning apparatus along the component, with a lateral distance to the partial region and without the first cleaning apparatus entering the partial region (in that the first cleaning apparatus on one side is moved along the component to a predetermined position, discussed in the English translation, as the first mode/step in the description of “A stepping mode…steps…”; alternatively the sliding block travels along the linear guide rail parallel to the machine direction 20, see English translation describing the “Stepping vehicle system…shown in Fig 1-2…”). Regarding claim 44, the multiaxial robot carries only a single second cleaning apparatus (in that each of the first and second robots 21 carry a single cleaning apparatus 22, see Figure 1) and the automatic movement machine carries only a single first cleaning apparatus (in that sliding block or 20 carries only one cleaning apparatus 22, see Figure 1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 30-31, 33, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al., CN 205762149 (see also English translation) in view of Butz et al., US 2018/0290633.
Lin et al. disclose all elements previously described above but does not disclose that the second cleaning apparatus is a plastic cleaning brush or plastic cleaning roller. In Lin et al. the cleaning brush (22) comprises ostrich hair mounted as a sword brush (see English translation).
Butz et al. teach a similar cleaning device to Lin et al. in that it is for use in cleaning vehicles in a painting process (paragraph 0005). Regarding claims 30-31 and 33, the cleaning apparatus comprises a plastic cleaning brush roller having plastic bristles (18, 20, or 22 and paragraph 0023), the cleaning apparatus is carried by a multiaxial robot (92, Figure 8). The plastic cleaning brush roller is advantageous for cleaning and dust removal before painting (paragraph 0020). Regarding claim 41, the cleaning apparatus comprises at least one lateral shielding device (cover 19, 21, 23; Figures 1-2) capable of preventing the plastic bristles from being deflected beyond the shielding device laterally outward (Figures 1-2), the shielding device is advantageous for connecting the brush to a suction device (paragraph 0071).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the second cleaning apparatus of Lin et al. for a plastic cleaning brush roller having at least one shielding device, as taught by Butz et al., as plastic brush rollers are effective at cleaning a workpiece being readied for painting and the shielding device allows for use with suction to remove debris after cleaning.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al., CN 205762149 (see also English translation) and Butz et al., US 2018/0290633 as applied to claim 31, in view of Roncaglione, US 4,628,562.
Lin et al. and Butz et al. disclose all elements previously described above and fail to disclose a specific diameter for the cleaning roller, specifically that the cleaning roller has a roller outer diameter of less than 35 cm, less than 32 cm, or less than 29 cm and greater than 10 cm.
Regarding claim 32, Roncaglione teach a cleaning roller for vehicles (Title, see Figures) that has an outer diameter of less than 35 cm, less than 32 cm, or less than 29 cm and greater than 10 cm (35 cm and 10 cm convert to 13.77 inches and 3.94 inches, respectively; column 8 lines 8-11 give a preferable range from 6 inches to 24 inches). Roncaglione teaches that brushes of this range efficiently wash or clean a vehicle without damage (column 8 lines 12-20).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning roller brush of Lin et al. and Butz et al. so that it has a diameter of less than 35 cm, less than 32 cm, or less than 29 cm and greater than 10 cm, as taught by Roncaglione, as a desirable diameter for a roller brush that cleans vehicle surfaces to efficiently wash without damage.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al., CN 205762149 (see also English translation) in view of JP 6493139 (see also English translation).
Lin et al. disclose all elements previously described above, however fails to disclose that the first cleaning apparatus is a cleaning roller with a first outer diameter and the second cleaning apparatus is a cleaning roller with a second roller outer diameter, the first roller outer diameter is larger than the second roller outer diameter by a factor of at least 1.5 or 2.
Regarding claim 36, JP 6493139 teach a cleaning device having a first cleaning apparatus of a cleaning roller with a first outer diameter (5, diameter best shown in Figures 3-4 and 6) and a second cleaning apparatus of a cleaning roller with a second roller outer diameter (6, diameter best shown in Figures 3-4 and 6), the first roller outer diameter is larger than the second roller outer diameter, preferably by a factor of at least 1.5 or 2 (as it appears in Figures 3-4 and 6). The first and second cleaning apparatus of cleaning rollers each work together to clean one side of the vehicle (Figures 3-4 and 6) and are of different diameters as they have different cleaning functions (see English translation, 5 is a side brush and 6 is a rocker brush).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a single cleaning apparatus/sword brush of Lin et al. and replace it with a first and second cleaning apparatus of cleaning rollers where the first roller outer diameter is larger than the second roller outer diameter by a factor of at least 1.5 or 2, as taught by JP 6493139, so that there are two rollers working as a pair to one as side cleaning brush and the other as a rocker brush to clean one side of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg