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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference number(s) mentioned in the description: 431 (Spec. ¶¶ 0018-0019).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) or amendment to the specification to delete the reference number(s) (and any related portions) in the description in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, 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 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“an first nozzle” (claim 5, line 5) should be changed to --a first nozzle--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
Claim 1 is 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) contain 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 recites “wherein the positioning component comprises a fixture, a side pushing member, an exhaust member, and a suction member”. Although this claim language is part of an original claim, this particular arrangement as claimed is not supported by the specification. That is, the specification describes the “exhaust member” and “suction member” as part of the “cleaning component” and not part of the “positioning component” (Spec. ¶¶ ¶¶ 0016-0017). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.”); MPEP § 2163.03(V). For examination purposes, the “exhaust member” and “suction member” are interpreted as being part of the “cleaning component”. Claims 2-19 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 1.
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites the limitation “an end of the output shaft” (line 3). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, does this “end” refer to the same “end portion of the output shaft” recited earlier or does this refer to a different end or end portion? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 C.F.R. § 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 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.
Huang in view of Gong
Claims 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109261641 A (“Huang”) in view of CN 111112228 A (“Gong”) (citations are to the translations filed herewith (Examiner notes that the paragraph numbers in the translations may not match the paragraph numbers in the original foreign references)).
Huang pertains to a workpiece cleaning device (Figs. 1-6; ¶¶ 0005-0009). Gong pertains to a workpiece cleaning device (Figs. 1-6; ¶ 0007). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a cleaning device for cleaning contaminants inside a hole of a workpiece (Figs. 1-6; ¶¶ 0005-0009, device as shown for cleaning contaminants inside holes 101 of workpiece 100), comprising:
a base (Figs. 1-2, base 10);
a positioning component mounted on the base (Figs. 1-3, positioning component 20 mounted on base 10);
and a cleaning component mounted on the base (Figs. 2, 5-6, cleaning component 30 mounted on base 10),
wherein the positioning component comprises a fixture, a side pushing member, an exhaust member... (Figs. 1-6, positioning component 20 includes fixture 23 and side pushing member 29, and the cleaning component 30 includes exhaust member 33 (see § 112(a) rejection)),
the fixture comprises a limiting area, the side pushing member is positioned at a side of the fixture, the side pushing member is configured to push the workpiece to the limiting area, the fixture is configured to secure the workpiece within the limiting area (Figs. 1-4, side pushing member 29 is capable of pushing a workpiece 100 (e.g., when a workpiece is dropped vertically on top of the side pushing members where their taper aligns the workpiece) to the limiting area (the area within the rectangular confines of side pushing members 29), where the fixture 23 secures the workpiece in the limiting area via the side pushing members 29 and vacuum nozzles 22),
the exhaust member is configured to blow clean gas into the hole to remove the contaminants, thereby causing the clean gas to become contaminated gas... (Figs. 2, 5-6; ¶¶ 0045, 0048, exhaust member 33 blows air into the holes 101 of workpiece 100, where the air is contaminated due to debris particles from the holes 101 mixed with the air).
Huang does not explicitly disclose:
a suction member,
and the suction member is configured to suck the contaminated gas.
However, the Huang/Gong combination makes obvious this claim.
Gong discloses:
an exhaust member, and a suction member (Figs. 1-6, exhaust member 421 and 43, and suction member 422 and 44),
and the suction member is configured to suck the contaminated gas (Figs. 1-6; ¶¶ 0047-0049, exhaust and suction device 42 includes exhaust member 43 that blows air from element 421 into a hole and suction member 44 that sucks out contaminated air (including debris from the hole) and passes that contaminated air to element 422).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Gong with Huang by replacing or modifying exhaust member 33 of Huang to an exhaust and suction device 42 as taught by Gong. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the addition of the suction component that provides a suction function would provide for a cleaner work environment than the Huang device where no suction function is disclosed to remove the debris expelled by the exhaust members 33). For example, a separate cleaning process (which may include machine downtime) would be periodically required to remove debris expelled from the holes (as disclosed in the original Huang device) or else the debris could contaminate workpieces or interfere with the mechanisms of the device).
Regarding claim 11, the Huang/Gong combination makes obvious the cleaning device of claim 1 as applied above. Gong further discloses:
wherein the side pushing member comprises a bottom plate, a second driving component, a second linear rail, and a pushing portion, the bottom plate is disposed on one side of the fixture, the second driving component and the second linear rail are mounted on the bottom plate, the pushing portion is movably mounted on the second linear rail, and the second driving component is configured to drive the pushing portion to push the workpiece (Fig. 2, side pushing member 23 includes bottom plate 21 and driving component 232 (mounted to bottom plate 21) that is capable of pushing a workpiece into position via the pushing portion 231, where the driving; Figs. 5-6, driving component 45 and linear rail (bottom part of element 41) mounted on bottom plate 41, pushing portion 42 is movably mounted on the linear rail and driven by driving component 45; see discussion below re “a second linear rail” and “the bottom plate is disposed on one side of the fixture, the...second linear rail are mounted on the bottom plate, the pushing portion is movably mounted on the second linear rail”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Huang/Gong combination by adding a side pushing member (adding to or replacing (on a side of the fixture 23 of Huang) the “side pushing member” 29 of Huang, and sizing the bottom plate 21 to be fit onto and be compatible with the fixture 23 of Huang). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the Gong side pushing member would provide for greater positional accuracy of the workpiece relative to the fixture (e.g., where elements 29 by themselves are insufficient to accurately position the workpiece to the fixture) because the Gong side pushing member is capable of movement independent from the rest of the device. Although the Gong does not explicitly disclose that the side pushing member has a linear rail configuration as recited, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify side pushing member 23 of Gong to use the linear rail, driving component, and bottom plate configuration as disclosed for the cleaning component 40 (Gong Figs. 5-6) because the use of a linear rail with a driving component (which is disclosed by Gong) allows for predictable and precise movement of the pushing portion (as compared to the use of a driving component alone). These proposed modifications would address the limitations “a second linear rail” and “the bottom plate is disposed on one side of the fixture, the...second linear rail are mounted on the bottom plate, the pushing portion is movably mounted on the second linear rail”.
Regarding claim 12, the Huang/Gong combination makes obvious the cleaning device of claim 11 as applied above. Gong further discloses wherein the second driving component is a motor (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0038, 0044, the second driving component 232 is a motor that is capable of movement).
Huang in view of Gong and Brown
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109261641 A (“Huang”) in view of CN 111112228 A (“Gong”) and US 9744567 B2 (“Brown”) (citations are to the translations filed herewith (Examiner notes that the paragraph numbers in the translations may not match the paragraph numbers in the original foreign references)).
Huang pertains to a workpiece cleaning device (Figs. 1-6; ¶¶ 0005-0009). Gong pertains to a workpiece cleaning device (Figs. 1-6; ¶ 0007). Brown pertains to a workpiece cleaning device (Abstr.; Figs. 3A-B). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 17, the Huang/Gong combination makes obvious the cleaning device of claim 1 as applied above. Huang further discloses wherein the base comprises...an outer box (Figs. 1-2, outer box 10).
Huang and Gong do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the base comprises an inner box and an outer box, and the inner box is separably disposed within the outer box.
However, the Huang/Gong/Brown combination makes obvious this claim.
Brown discloses:
wherein the base comprises an inner box and an outer box, and the inner box is separably disposed within the outer box (Figs. 3A-B; 8:41-55, outer box including the entire frame as shown, inner box 310 or 320 (for a control circuit) is separably disposed within the outer box).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Brown with the Huang/Gong combination by adding a separate inner box within the outer box 10 of Huang in order to store the control system components and other associated electrical components. Huang discloses a control system that controls the positioning component 20 and the cleaning component 30 (Huang ¶¶ 0037-0038, 0042-0048). Although Huang does not explicitly state that the control system resides inside outer box 10, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that is where it would be (or could modify the placement of such a control system to be inside the outer box 10) because switches 60 and sensors 37 and 38 are all located on or near the outer box 10, and outer box 10 would provide a central location for a controller for switches 60 and sensors 37, 38. This modification of adding a separate inner box would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it would allow the control system to be removable from the rest of the cleaning device for servicing, including electrical servicing (or replacement) of the control system or mechanical servicing (including liquid washing) of the non-electrical portions of the cleaning system including the positioning component 20 and the cleaning component 30.
Regarding claim 18, the Huang/Gong/Brown combination makes obvious the cleaning device of claim 17 as applied above.
Huang further discloses:
a control unit (¶¶ 0037-0038, 0042-0048),
wherein...the positioning component and the cleaning component are mounted on the outer box, the control unit is electrically connected to the positioning component and the cleaning component (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0037-0038, 0042-0048, the positioning component 20 and the cleaning component 30 are mounted on outer box 10 and electrically connected to the control unit).
As modified in the Huang/Gong/Brown combination (see claim 17 above), the control unit is disposed within the inner box.
The obviousness rationale for claim 18 is the same as for claim 17.
Huang in view of Gong, Brown, and Means
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109261641 A (“Huang”) in view of CN 111112228 A (“Gong”), US 9744567 B2 (“Brown”), and US 5143529 A (“Means”) (citations are to the translations filed herewith (Examiner notes that the paragraph numbers in the translations may not match the paragraph numbers in the original foreign references)).
Huang pertains to a workpiece cleaning device (Figs. 1-6; ¶¶ 0005-0009). Gong pertains to a workpiece cleaning device (Figs. 1-6; ¶ 0007). Brown pertains to a workpiece cleaning device (Abstr.; Figs. 3A-B). Means pertains to a workpiece cleaning device (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 19, the Huang/Gong/Brown combination makes obvious the cleaning device of claim 18 as applied above. Huang further discloses:
wherein the control unit comprises...two start buttons...the two start buttons...are electrically connected to the control board, the two start buttons are spaced from each other outside the inner box (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0018, 0037-0038, 0042-0048; cl. 10, control unit includes two start buttons 60 (only one is referenced as element 60 in Figs. 1-2) on two sides of the outer box 10 and are electrically connected to the control unit; see discussion below re “control board”).
Huang, Gong, and Brown do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the control unit comprises a control board, two start buttons, and a timer, the two start buttons and the timer are electrically connected to the control board,
and the timer is positioned between the two start buttons.
However, the Huang/Gong/Brown/Means combination makes obvious this claim.
Means discloses:
wherein the control unit comprises...a timer (5:13-33, “a timer controlled switch system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Means with the Huang/Gong/Brown combination by adding a timer (e.g., on the side of outer box 10 near reference 43, between the two start buttons 60) that is electrically connected to the control unit. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because a timer (i.e., a timer that could be operator modified) would allow the operator to adjust the cleaning duration to adapt for instances where the holes are dirtier than usual (Means 5:13-33, “For example, it may be programmed to go through a sequence of cleaning maneuvers, such as an initial shaking of the filter, followed by a cleaning step wherein the cleaning heads move vertically in a continuously reciprocating manner while the filter rotates at a selected speed for a predetermined period of time.”; see US 20120030901 A1 (“Manninen”) ¶ 0018, “The support box 200 also includes a programmable timer module 208 that can be configured to include one or more or a group of time relays 210....The timer module 208 also allows a user to set the duration of the air bursts for 1 second up to 1 minute.”). Examiner notes that Huang teaches that the use of two separated start buttons promotes operator safety (Huang ¶ 0038, “both foolproof switches 60 need to be activated at the same time for the entire equipment to start. When only one foolproof switch 60 is activated, the entire equipment will not be started, effectively preventing misoperation and reducing the occurrence of safety accidents.”).
With respect to the limitation “a control board”, to the extent this is not disclosed by Huang, it would have been obvious to implement the control unit on a control board (i.e., a circuit board) as this is a common way to implement a control unit (as opposed to separate control and electrical components connected using only wires without a circuit board) (see e.g., US 20170203337 A1 (“Luo”) Figs. 14-17; ¶ 0061, “The control module 38 comprises a circuit board”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten (claim 1) to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 2, the Huang/Gong combination makes obvious the cleaning device of claim 1 as applied above.
Huang further discloses wherein the cleaning component comprises a driving member, the driving member comprises a first driving component, a first linear rail, a first slider, and a second slider (Figs. 2, 5-6; ¶ ¶ 0044-0045, cleaning component 30 includes lifting assembly 31 (“driving member”) that includes a driving component 35, a first slider 34 (cylindrical sleeve on one side of element 35), a second slider 34 (cylindrical sleeve on other side of element 35), and linear rail (cylinder inside the cylindrical sleeve)).
Gong further discloses wherein the cleaning component comprises a driving member, the driving member comprises a first driving component, a first linear rail, a first slider (Figs. 5-6, cleaning component 40 includes driving member including driving component 45, where nozzle 43 extends and retracts via a linear rail (part of element 41) and slider (attached to element 42)).
Huang and Gong do not disclose:
the first and second sliders are movably mounted on the first linear rail, the first driving component is configured to drive the first and second sliders to move, the exhaust member is connected to the first slider, and the suction member is connected to the second slider.
Gong also does not disclose the limitation “a second slider”.
Based on the prior art of record, it would appear that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application would not have further modified the Huang/Gong combination to use two different sliders to separately mount the exhaust member and suction member to the first linear rail and first driving component to implement claim 2 without hindsight based on Applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 13, the Huang/Gong combination makes obvious the cleaning device of claim 11 as applied above. Gong further discloses wherein the pushing portion comprises a third slider...the third slider is movably mounted on the second linear rail (Figs. 5-6, slider (upper portion of element 42) movably mounts onto linear rail of element 41); see discussion for claim 11 regarding the use of the mechanism of Fig. 5 with the side pushing member 232).
Huang and Gong do not disclose:
wherein the pushing portion comprises...a linkage, and two side pushing blocks...the linkage is mounted on the third slider, the two side pushing blocks are mounted on the linkage, and the second driving component is configured to drive the linkage to push the workpiece.
It would appear that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application would not have further modified the Huang/Gong combination to arrive at the recited combination without hindsight based on Applicant’s disclosure. Examiner notes that although the component above element 42 and below the slider identified in Gong Fig. 5 may be said to be a “linkage”, it would appear that the modification of this “linkage” component into the claimed linkage that supports two side pushing blocks as recited would also be impermissible hindsight.
In view of the prior art of record and its deficiencies, Applicant’s invention is novel, non-obvious, and allowable as claimed. Claims 3-10 and 16 are allowable for depending from claim 2 and claims 14-15 are allowable for depending from claim 13 (subject to overcoming the objections and § 112 rejections where applicable).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-19 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to workpiece cleaning devices that include injecting gas to clean a workpiece along with a suction to collect the resulting debris.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/ Date: June 5, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights