DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 12/1/2025.
Claims 1-24 are pending, Claims 14-22 are withdrawn, and Claims 1-13 and 23-24 have been examined.
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 .
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: “clean in place system” in claim 1. The relevant sections of the Specification appear in the background ¶ [0004].
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 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 1-13 and 23-24 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.
Claim 1 lines 22-28 recite “a constant flow through the output hose regardless of whether the liquid level in the interior volume of the mobile small parts cleaning device is rising due to liquid being provided by the automated and stationary clean in place system through the input hose, or whether the liquid level in the interior volume of the mobile small parts cleaning device is falling due to no liquid being provided by the automated and stationary clean in place system through the input hose.
Applicant cited ¶ [0029] and ¶ [0030] in support for the amendments. However, ¶ [0029]-[0030] only recites “constant flow through tank 110” and “restriction device 136 is configured to allow only about 100 LPM through CIP return line 128”. That is, there is support for a constant flow rate through the tank, as a function of both the restriction device AND the overflow port, but that does not equate to support for any structural feature that enables “constant flow through the output hose…whether liquid level…is rising…or…is falling”.
Examiner does find support for the interpretation of “the output hose” as the combined CIP return line 128 with BOTH the restriction device AND the overflow port, however, the specification does not define this limitation with respect to “an output hose”.
Examiner does not find any support for any control of flow rate when the liquid level is falling. The only dropping of liquid is in the draining stage described in ¶ [0032] which does discuss flow rates.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104001687A (“CN’687”) (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached in prior action) in view of Sheldon (US 5,398,708) and Chong et al. (US 2003/0041877 A1).
Re claim 1, CN’687 discloses a mobile small parts cleaning device (abstract; re “small parts” is a statement of intended use. See MPEP 2114.) comprising:
a tank (ref. 11) having an interior volume configured to receive small parts;
wheels (ref. 6) attached to a bottom portion of the tank and configured to allow an operator to move the mobile small parts cleaning device and tank when small parts are loaded in the tank;
at least one jet (ref. 112, 113) located within the tank and configured to spray small parts loaded therein with liquid;
an input hose (ref. 211, 212, 213) configured to couple the at least one jet to an automated clean in place system (Statement of Intended Use. See MPEP 2114. Nonetheless, see fig. 4 ref. 24, 26, 29) to deliver liquid to the at least one jet;
an output hose (hoses from refs. 111, 121 see fig. 4) configured to couple the tank to the automated clean in place system to return liquid from the tank to the clean in place system;
a bottom outlet (ref. 111, 121) located on a bottom portion of the tank and fluidically connected with the output hose;
a restriction device (orifices of refs. 111, 121) located between the bottom outlet and the output hose; and
an overflow outlet (at ref. 14 or also consider “outer rims are connected with the overflow passage (not indicating) of a connection spout hole 122) located on an upper portion of the tank and fluidically connected with the output hose (see fig. 4 both leading to drainage),
wherein the input hose, the bottom outlet, the restriction device and the overflow outlet are configured to cooperate to ensure that liquid can flow into the interior volume of the tank at a greater rate than liquid flowing out of the bottom outlet, thereby causing a liquid level in the interior volume to rise until it reaches the overflow outlet (see fig. 4 liquid level 200; see also step S100 inject a liquid to flow over 14).
CN’687 does not explicitly disclose to move the small parts cleaning device to a separate automated and stationary clean in place system and wherein the restriction device is configured to provide a constant flow rate through the output hose regardless of whether the liquid level in the interior of the mobile small parts cleaning device is rising due to the liquid being provided by the automated and stationary clean in place system through the input hose, or whether the liquid level in the interior of the mobile small parts cleaning device is falling due to no liquid being provided by the automated and stationary clean in place system through the input hose.
Regarding “wheels…to move the small parts cleaning device to a separate automated clean in place system”, Examiner highlights that CN’687 further discloses machine 51 connected to an outside water source and drains 111, 121 to the outside, which are capable of connecting to a clean in place system, if so desired. See MPEP 2114. Nonetheless, Examiner cites Sheldon for explicitly disclosing a small parts cleaning device (ref. 10, see fig. 1) with wheels (ref. 57) to move the small part cleaning device to a separate automated and stationary clean in place system (ref. 100, 150, 180, 160).
Regarding “constant flow rate”, Chong discloses is it s well-known in the part cleaning device art (abstract) to provide a restriction device (ref. 14, see fig. 1) is configured to provide a constant flow rate through the output hose (ref. 26) regardless of whether the liquid level in the interior of the mobile small parts cleaning device is rising due to the liquid being provided by the automated and stationary clean in place system through the input hose, or whether the liquid level in the interior of the mobile small parts cleaning device is falling due to no liquid being provided by the automated and stationary clean in place system through the input hose (abstract, ¶ [0015], [0035] constant flow rate through the container by controlling valve 14 to compensate for sudden and dramatic fluctuation of fluid supply and demand in real-time).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the small parts cleaning device of CN’687 to further be movable to a separate automated clean in place system, as suggested by Sheldon, in order to enable portability for the entire parts washer and ease of maintenance of the clean in place system; and to further include a restriction device providing constant flow rate, as suggested by Chong, in order to assure constant rate of supply and compensate for sudden and dramatic fluctuation of fluid supply and demand.
Re claims 8-10, CN’687 further discloses wherein the restriction device and the overflow port cooperate to ensure that all small parts placed into the interior volume are submersed in liquid during a wash cycle (see fig. 4 liquid level above workpiece). Re claims 9-10, Claims 9-10 recite limitations drawn to specific liquid flow rates provided from the Clean in place system. This is a statement of intended use, since the device itself does not control the flow rate but is dependent on the pressure and flow rate provided by or accepted (depending on the pump) the CIP system. See MPEP 2114.
Re claims 2-3, CN’687 discloses as shown above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the restriction device comprises a transverse cross-sectional area that is smaller than a transverse cross-sectional area of the output hose. However, the mere change in size of the cross-sectional area of the output hose is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, moreso where multiple outlets (see fig. 4 refs. 111, 121) would combine into a single discharge line requiring greater throughput capacity. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion. Re claim 3, Regarding “wherein the restriction device comprises an intermediate section located between an entry section and an exit section, the intermediate section comprising a constant transverse cross-sectional area that is smaller than a transverse cross- sectional area of the entry section and smaller than a transverse cross-sectional area of the exit section”, as discussed above, as seen in fig. 4, the intermediate connection between 111 and the combined discharge line would be expected to be smaller than the inlet of 111 or the larger diameter discharge line combining multiple outlet feeds. Similarly, for the intermediate connection between 121 and the discharge line (not shown) combining discharged feeds.
Re claim 7, Regarding “wherein the restriction device comprises a transverse cross-sectional area that is configured to not be changed during a wash cycle”, the fixed structure of CN’687 at 111, 121 is not expected to change.
Re claim 11, Regarding “wherein the cleaning device further comprises a plurality of removable baskets configured to receive small parts to be washed and configured to be received within the interior volume of the cleaning device”, the mere duplication of the basket (ref. 13) is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to enable multiple object separation and loading.
Re claims 12-13, Claims 12-13 are drawn to not including any automated equipment and no electronic signals, respectively. Here, the “cleaning device” as limited to only the tank, the fluid inlets, and fluid outlets, do not appear to require any automated equipment nor electronic signals, where the controls/signals are isolated to the pump and valves, i.e. the CIP system. Nonetheless, it would be prima facie obvious to perform any automated or electronic task manually, if so desired. The performance of known processor steps by hand is known.
Re claims 23-24, Regarding “wherein the input hose, the bottom outlet, the restriction device and the overflow outlet are configured to cooperate to allow the cleaning device to switch from a filling cycle to a constant flow washing cycle automatically when a liquid flow rate through the input hose from the automated and stationary clean in place system does not change”, Chong discloses the filling cycle (¶ [0033]-[0034]) and constant flow (abstract, ¶ [0015], [0035]); Regarding “wherein the input hose, the bottom outlet, the restriction device and the overflow outlet are configured to cooperate to allow the cleaning device to switch from a constant flow washing cycle to a drain cycle automatically when a liquid flow rate through the input hose from the automated and stationary clean in place system stops” CN’687 discloses a drain cycle (“liquid 200…drained…through the water outlets 111 and 121”) and Chong further discloses “fluid can rapidly be removed from the container”, such to render a rapid drain cycle prima facie obvious after cleaning.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104001687A in view of Sheldon and Chong, as applied above, and further in view of Schild (US 6,145,520 A).
Re claim 4, CN’687/Sheldon/Chong discloses as shown above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the intermediate section comprises an orifice plate. However, Schild teaches it is well-known in the fluid processing tank art (abstract) to provide a drain in the form of an orifice plate (see figs. 2-4 orifices 2, 4; also consider “at least two…openings…at different height” ), for the purpose of obtaining optimum flow characteristics and restricting fluid flow to adjust rate of fluid flow or fluid quantity/height.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to modify the drain of CN’687/Sheldon/Chong to further include an orifice plate, as suggested by Schild, in order to adjust flow characteristics through the overflow openings and enable adjustment based on entirely or partially closing a drain orifice.
Re claims 5-6, Claims 5-6 recite specific dimensions of the intermediate section and the constant transverse cross-sectional area of the intermediate section. The mere optimization of the size/shape of the intermediate section of the restriction device is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the purposes of obtaining optimum flow characteristics as discussed by Schild. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion. See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as shown in the rejection above.
Examiner highlights a 112(a) rejection has been made with respect to the newly amended subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN210497373U note valve to control return/drain line.
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 KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711