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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 17, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, 16-18 are currently pending.
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 16-18 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.
Regarding claims 16-18, it is unclear where Applicant originally discloses “the radiation scattering characteristic is a proportion of reflected radiation received from the predetermined region by the detector to the electromagnetic radiation emitted onto the predetermined region by the electromagnetic radiation source.” That is, there is no ratio disclosed in the original disclosure. Examiner believes Applicant intended to say that the reflected light is part of a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 3, 10, 12, 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Brown et al. (U.S. Patent 5,373,365).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 14, Brown et al. disclose (Fig. 1) a method and a contact cleaning apparatus, comprising: an elastomeric roller (12, 14; col. 3, lines 29-32), rotatably mounted within said contact cleaning apparatus such that an outer surface (14) of said elastomeric roller is contactingly engageable with a substrate surface (10); and an apparatus for evaluating said outer surface of said elastomeric roller, comprising: an electromagnetic radiation source (16), configured to selectively emit electromagnetic radiation of a predetermined electromagnetic spectrum (e.g. IR) onto at least one predetermined region (incident light region) of said outer surface; a detector (18), configured to receive at least a first reflection of said electromagnetic radiation (col. 4, lines 59-60 “reflected light intensity IS”) from said at least one predetermined region; and a controller (26) operably coupled to said detector and adapted to determine at least one characteristic parameter of at least said first reflection, wherein said at least one characteristic parameter is a radiation scattering (IS) characteristic of at least said first reflection from said at least one predetermined region. As understood, since Brown et al. detects particle accumulation (col. 5, lines 4-30) on a surface, it determines a surface roughness as claimed.
Regarding claims 16-18, as understood, the radiation scattering characteristic is a part or a proportion of the reflected radiation (received by 18) that is from the electromagnetic radiation source.
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.
Claim(s) 4-8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. in view of Hamilton et al. (GB 2523786).
Regarding claims 4-8, 13, Brown et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Brown et al. further disclose (col. 2, line 51) monitoring continuously (real-time) and using light intensity (col. 4, line 17) as claimed. As the roller (12) spins, the electromagnetic radiation is emitted onto a plurality of predetermined regions. Brown et al. do not explicitly disclose actuating an alarm signal when the characteristic parameter deviates by a predetermined threshold. Hamilton et al. teach (pg. 11, lines 23- 29) in a similar apparatus activating an alarm based on deviation from a predetermined threshold. The predetermined threshold can be designated as a maximum deviation from an initial value as claimed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such an arrangement in the method and apparatus of Brown et al. in view of Hamilton et al. to conventionally notify a user of a met condition and improve operation of the device as taught, known and predictable.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. in view of Hamilton et al., further in view of Clemente et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2023/0069111).
Regarding claim 9, Brown et al. in view of Hamilton et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Brown et al. and Hamilton et al. do not disclose averaging the parameter as claimed. Clemente et al. teach ([0031[) averaging detected intensities in different regions to increase the accuracy of measurements. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide averaging as claimed in the apparatus of Brown et al. in view of Hamilton et al. and Clemente et al. to obtain more accurate results as taught, known and predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights