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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The disclosure does not recite that the application claims the benefits of an international application, PCT/EP2022/025193 filed on 04/28/2022. The applicant is reminded to update the continuity data of their invention.
In addition, the headings of the sections are missing. Appropriate corrections are required.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC OR AS A TEXT FILE VIA THE OFFICE ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM (EFS-WEB).
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
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.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, claim limitation “movement generating device” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Regarding claim 5, claim limitation “guiding device” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 4, 5 and 13 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In the specification, “movement generating device” has been defined as a robotic arm, reference #7 of figure 1 (page 8, lines 16-18) and equivalents thereof.
In the specification, “guiding device” has been defined as at least one roller or slider that preferably allow only one degree of movement, reference #70 of figure 1 (page 10, lines 6-10) and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 4, 5, 8, 9 and 13 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.
Regarding claims 4, 9 and 13, the phrase “preferably” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. The metes and bound of the claim limitations are not clearly defined. It appears that the intended meaning may be that the limitations following the phrase “preferably” are not part of the claimed invention, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as their dependency from a base claim that is indefinite.
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 (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 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.
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.
Claims 1-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/170588 to Reis et al. (hereinafter “Reis”) in view of WO 2006136467 to Buske et al. (hereinafter “Buske”, see attached English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Reis teaches a method for cleaning a surface of a workpiece made from a light metal material such as aluminum (page 6, lines 1-4, and page 8, line 28 to page 9, line 9), the method comprising the steps of generating a plasma jet by means of a torch (page 8, line 28 to page 9, line 9), applying the plasma jet to the surface (page 8, line 31 to page 9, line 9), and moving the torch and the workpiece relative to one another to clean the surface by evaporating impurities of the surface using the plasma jet (a joining device comprises a joining head (figure 1, #16) including cleaning unit (figure 1, #32) comprising the torch (figure 1, #48) is guided by a robot (figure 1, #18, articulated arm)) (see figure 1, page 6, lines 10-14, and page 8, line 31 to page 9, line 9 of Reis).
Reis does not explicitly teach that the method is for cleaning a surface of a workpiece made out of an aluminum alloy.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method disclosed by Reis for cleaning a surface of a workpiece made out of an aluminum alloy, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Reis teaches that the method is effective for cleaning a surface of a workpiece made from a light metal material such as aluminum (page 6, lines 1-4).
Reis does not teach the step of generating at least one output signal indicative of the presence of impurities of the surface evaporated by the plasma jet, wherein the step of generating at least one output signal corresponds to one of: detecting light coming from the plasma jet by means of an optical sensor, wherein the optical sensor generates at least one output signal indicative of the presence of impurities of the surface evaporated by the plasma jet, wherein the optical sensor detects the light based on its spectrum, deriving at least one output signal indicative of the presence of impurities of the surface evaporated by the plasma jet from an electrical voltage used to generate plasma jet and/or from a corresponding electrical current, and detecting sound waves coming from the plasma jet by means of a sound sensor, wherein the sound sensor generates at least one output signal indicative of the presence of impurities of the surface evaporated by the plasma jet.
However, Buske teaches a method for cleaning a surface of a workpiece with a plasma jet (English translation [0003]) comprising the step of generating at least one output signal indicative of the presence of impurities of the surface evaporated by the plasma jet, wherein the step of generating at least one output signal comprises the step of detecting light coming from the plasma jet by means of an optical sensor, wherein the optical sensor generates at least one output signal indicative of the presence of impurities of the surface evaporated by the plasma jet, wherein the optical sensor detects the light based on its spectrum (English translation [0023-0033, and 0065-0067] and figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Reis with the step of generating at least one output signal indicative of the presence of impurities of the surface evaporated by the plasma jet, wherein the step of generating at least one output signal comprises the step of detecting light coming from the plasma jet by means of an optical sensor, wherein the optical sensor generates at least one output signal indicative of the presence of impurities of the surface evaporated by the plasma jet, wherein the optical sensor detects the light based on its spectrum, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of determining the degree of cleaning of the surface of the workpiece as disclosed by Buske (English translation [0023-0032] of Buske).
Regarding claim 2, Reis/Buske further teaches that the surface is processed by the plasma jet until the at least one output signal obeys a predefined criterion corresponding to a desired degree of cleaning of the surface of the workpiece (English translation [0029-0032] of Buske).
Regarding claim 3, Reis/Buske further teaches that the step of moving the torch and the at least one workpiece relative to one another includes the step of moving the torch relative to the stationary workpiece (the joining head (figure 1, #16) including the cleaning unit (figure 1, #32) comprising the torch (figure 1, #48) is guided by a robot (figure 1, #18, articulated arm)) (see figure 1, page 6, lines 10-14, and page 8, line 31 to page 9, line 9 of Reis).
Regarding claim 4, Reis/Buske further teaches that the torch is moved with a movement generating device such as a robotic arm (the joining head (figure 1, #16) including the cleaning unit (figure 1, #32) comprising the torch (figure 1, #48) is guided by a robot (figure 1, #18, articulated arm) of Reis) (see figure 1, page 6, lines 10-14, and page 8, line 31 to page 9, line 9 of Reis).
Regarding claim 5, Reis/Buske further teaches that the torch is guided by a guiding device (figure 1, #42, base member, and figure 1, #16, joining head of reis) so that a distance between the torch and the surface of the workpiece is maintained at a constant magnitude upon said relative movement between the torch and the workpiece (see figure 1 of Reis).
Regarding claim 6, Reis/Buske does not teach that an electric current corresponding to the plasma jet is automatically adapted to said relative movement of the torch and the at least one workpiece and/or to the at least one output signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Reis/Buske wherein an electric current corresponding to the plasma jet is automatically adapted to the at least one output signal, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Buske teaches that the output signal can determine the completeness of the plasma treatment (English translation [0028-0028] of Buske).
Regarding claim 7, Reis/Buske further teaches that a degree of cleaning of the surface of the workpiece, which is derived from the at least one output signal, is displayed to a user using an optical display (English translation [0080 and 0082] of Buske).
Regarding claim 8, Reis/Buske does not teach that a recommended speed for moving the torch manually is displayed to the user using an optical display.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Reis/Buske wherein a recommended speed for moving the torch manually is displayed to the user using an optical display, since Buske teaches that depending on the control signal of the control means (figure 1, #58), the movement drive of the plasma nozzle can thus be controlled and the adjustment speed of the drive mechanisms can be influenced, and that the control means can be connected to a control device and a display (English translation [0081-0082] of Buske).
Regarding claim 10, Reis/Buske does not explicitly teach that at least one output signal is recorded for a workpiece having a clean surface in case of no melting during cleaning and in case of melting of the surface during cleaning, wherein when cleaning of a workpiece having a contaminated surface is conducted, the at least one output signal is continuously compared to both recorded output signals in order to determine if the surface is clean and/or if the surface is getting melted upon cleaning of the surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Reis/Buske wherein at least one output signal is recorded for a workpiece having a clean surface in case of no melting during cleaning and in case of melting of the surface during cleaning, wherein when cleaning of a workpiece having a contaminated surface is conducted, the at least one output signal is continuously compared to both recorded output signals in order to determine if the surface is clean, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Buske teaches that a reference value for comparison with the light intensities to be measured can be used so that the intensity of the spectrum in the spectral range of interest can be determined beforehand, and that if the light intensity in the spectral ranges of interest is measured continuously or at time intervals during plasma treatment, and if necessary, the temporal behavior of the measured values is compared with a predetermined reference or threshold value, a condition can be established from which it can be determined that the treatment in the current surface area is completed or can be completed (English translation [0031 and 0040] of Buske).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/170588 to Reis et al. (hereinafter “Reis”) in view of WO 2006136467 to Buske et al. (hereinafter “Buske”, see attached English translation), and in further view of DE 202015009154 (hereinafter “DE’154”, see attached English translation).
Regarding claim 9, Reis/Buske does not teach that the impurities evaporated by the plasma jet are withdrawn by suction.
DE’154 teaches a method for cleaning a surface with a plasma jet, the method comprising the step of using a suction device to remove gaseous and aerosol-like waste products from the cleaning process (English translation [0002, 0019, and 0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Reis/Buske wherein the impurities evaporated by the plasma jet are withdrawn by suction, with a reasonable expectation of success, since DE’154 teaches that it is effective in a method for cleaning a surface by a plasma jet to use a suction device for the purpose of removing gaseous and aerosol-like waste products from the cleaning process (English translation [0002, 0019, and 0026] of DE’154).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2006136467 to Buske et al. (hereinafter “Buske”, see attached English translation).
Regarding claim 11, Buske teaches a system for cleaning a surface of a workpiece comprising a torch (figure 1, #10, plasma nozzle) and configured to generate a plasma jet (English translation [0032, and 0053], wherein the system is configured to generate at least one output signal indicative of the presence of impurities of the surface evaporated by the plasma jet wherein the system comprises an optical sensor configured to detecting light coming from the plasma jet by its spectrum, wherein the optical sensor generates said at least one output signal (English translation [0023-0033, and 0065-0067] and figure 1).
Buske does not teach that the system is for cleaning a workpiece made out of aluminum alloy.
However, since the system of Buske teaching includes all the structural features of the clamed system, it is the base presumption that the system of the Buske teaching is fully capable of being used for cleaning a workpiece made out of aluminum alloy.
Regarding claim 12, Buske further teaches that the system comprises a processing unit configured to analyze the at least one output signal (the spectrometer (figure 1, #50) is connected to an evaluation means (figure 1, #58) for analyzing the measured intensity distribution of the light and to control means for controlling the plasma treatment, English translation [0067]), wherein the system is configured to direct the plasma jet onto the surface of the at least one workpiece until the processing unit determines that the at least one output signal obeys a predefined criterion corresponding to a desired degree of cleaning of the surface of the at least one workpiece (English translation [0031, 0066-0067, and 0081]).
Regarding claim 13, Buske further teaches that the system comprises a movement generating device (robot arm) configured to move the torch (plasma nozzle) with respect to the workpiece (English translation [0056]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714