DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 3/31/2026.
Claims 1-7 and 9-24 are pending, Claims 14-22 are withdrawn, and Claims 1-7, 9-13 and 23-24 have been examined.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
Previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The following is new:
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 1-7, 9-13 and 23-24 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.
Claim 1 recites in the last wherein clause “wherein the restriction device, the overflow port, and automated controls located on the separate, automated and stationary clean in place system rather than on the mobile small parts cleaning device”. It is unclear as recited whether the restriction device and an overflow outlet are a part of the separate clean in place system (and therefore not structurally required by the claim) or a part of the claimed mobile small parts cleaning device. Here, Examiner believes Applicant intended to recite “wherein the restriction device and the overflow port cooperate with automated controls located on the separate, automated and stationary clean in place system rather than on the mobile small parts cleaning device to…”. [Examiner notes this suggestion does not resolve the outstanding issue that the automated controls of the clean in place system are simply intended use of the input and output hoses. See Response to Arguments below].
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, 7 and 9-13 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).
Re claim 1, CN’687 discloses a mobile small parts cleaning device (abstract; re “small parts” is a statement of intended use, and edible food further satisfies “small parts [of food]”. 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 mobile small parts cleaning device and configured to allow an operator to move the mobile small parts cleaning device and tank after small parts have been loaded into 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),
wherein the restriction device, the overflow port, and the automated controls of the clean in place system cooperate to ensure that all small parts placed into the interior volume of the mobile small parts cleaning device are submersed in liquid during a wash cycle. (see fig. 4 liquid level above cleaning basket).
CN’687 does not explicitly disclose to move the small parts cleaning device to a separate automated and stationary clean in place system and the intended use of the restriction device and the overflow port cooperating with automatic controls of the separate automated and stationary clean in place system.
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 separate clean in place system, if so desired. See MPEP 2114 Intended Use. 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) including automatically controllable components (ref. 170, 175 motor and pump via auxiliary timer ref. 240) via input and output hoses (refs. 160, 180).
Regarding the limitation “[cooperate with] automated controls located on the separate, automated and stationary clean in place system rather than on the mobile small parts cleaning device cooperate”, this recitation is a statement of intended use which does not patentably distinguish over CN’687/Sheldon since the combination meets all the structural elements of the claim(s), i.e. an input hose and an output hose, and is capable being capable of being connected to any separate automated and stationary clean in place system, including one with automated controls. See MPEP 2114 Intended Use. (That is, the combination does not turn on whether it is obvious to combine with a clean in place system with automated controls, but whether it is capable of being connected to a clean in place system with automated control, if so desired, e.g. a separate filter timer or additional features, e.g. ozone controls, or any other automated controls such as flow rate control. It being a matter of the clean in place system so connected, not a structural feature of the claimed mobile small parts cleaning device itself).
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 or use of the clean in place system with multiple washers.
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.
Claims 23-24 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), as applied above, and further in view of Chong et al. (US 2003/0041877 A1).
Re claims 23-24, CN’687/Sheldon discloses as shown above but does not explicitly disclose 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. However, Chong discloses it is known in the part cleaning device art (abstract) to provide a filling cycle (¶ [0033]-[0034]) and a constant flow rate washing cycle (abstract, ¶ [0015], [0035]) through an output hose (ref. 26); 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.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of CN’687/Sheldon to further enable a filling cycle and a constant flow washing cycle, as suggested by Chong, in order assure constant rate of supply and compensate for sudden and dramatic fluctuation of fluid supply and demand.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104001687A in view of Sheldon, as applied above, and further in view of Schild (US 6,145,520 A).
Re claim 4, CN’687/Sheldon 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 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 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. At issue is the claim apparatus “A mobile small parts cleaning device”. Here, the recitation of a “separate automated and stationary clean in place system” and further the restriction device and the overflow “cooperat[ing]” [presumably by only fluid flow] with automated controls of the clean in place system is a recitation of intended use of the connecting an input hose and an output hose. See MPEP 2114. That is, the “separate automated and stationary clean in place system”, and said clean in place system features including automated controls, are not structurally required by the mobile small parts cleaning device. So long as the combination of CN’687/Sheldon is capable of connecting to a clean in place system (that has automated controls), i.e., an input hose and an output hose capable of connecting to any circulating circuit, and the fluid flow passing the restriction device and the overflow in “cooperat[ion]”, the limitation is met. See MPEP 2114. If Applicant believes the inventive feature exists in the clean in place system and its control, Applicant may claim a combination small parts cleaning system comprising a mobile small parts cleaning device and a clean in place system.
It is fundamental that an apparatus claim defines the structure of the invention and not how the structure is used in a process, or what materials the structure houses in carrying out the process. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, 1648 (BPAI 1987). See also In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959, 177 USPQ 705,706 (CCPA 1973); In re Finsterwalder, 436 F.2d 1028, 1032, 168 USPQ 530, 534 (CCPA 1971); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235,238 (CCPA 1967). Applicant has not established on this record any structural distinction between the apparatus within the scope of the rejected claims and the apparatus fairly described by the combination above, and no such structural distinction is apparent.
In response to Applicant’s arguments as to teaching away, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, Applicant’s interpretation of CN’687’s disclosed embodiment does not constitute a teaching away because it does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of a separate, stationary clean in place system, as in Sheldon. In fact, CN’687 does not speak to any self-containment, other than the ability to move to “Appropriate location, which is convenient for operation”. Here, as apparent in Sheldon, there no conflict with movable, appropriate location and convenience for operation when a separate, stationary clean in place system is used. With respect to Sheldon, Sheldon’s disclosure of a timer 40/240 for operation of the apparatus does not constitute teaching away from a clean in place system with automated control, since the presence of multiple automated controls on both the claimed mobile cleaning apparatus and the intended use clean in place system are not in conflict. E.g., control of the device (pumps, time, etc.) can be independent of a clean in place automated control (such as ozone operation or filter pump).
In response to Applicant’s arguments as to Sheldon and submersion, Examiner highlights CN’687 was cited for submersion. Sheldon is simply cited for the idea that a clean in place system can be stationary with respect to a mobile cleaning reservoir.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Solely for Applicant’s convenience, Examiner highlights that it is known to use either standalone, integrated or hybrid clean in place system including automated controls cited in the conclusion as relevant art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20160213025A1 note ¶ [0063] explicitly teaching standalone CIP with controller assembly, integral CIP, and hybrid with portions separate or interchangeable with the device connected to the CIP.
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
Prosecution Insights