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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 03/11/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn.
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 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,627,965 to Zweig (“Zweig”).
Regarding claim 1, Zweig teaches a device (abstract), comprising: a body (Fig. 4, ref. 32 and 34, col. 2, lines 10-50) having a first end forming a nozzle (Fig. 4, ref. 54 and 56, 60, col. 5, lines 22-35) and a second end (Fig. 4, ref. 34 ) configured to couple (note, e.g., Fig. 2, ref. 2, coupling with ref. 104, 106, 142, 144 and 146, and Fig. 4, coupling to ref. 142 and 146, col. 4, lines 43-58, col. 4, line 68 – col. 5, line 8), wherein the nozzle is partitioned into a plurality of sections; a channel (Fig. 4, channel incl. ref. 150, 154 and 158, col. 5, lines 22-35) extending through the body from the nozzle to the second end; a first section of the nozzle coupled to the channel (Fig. 4, ref. 150 to ref. 158, and note, e.g., where ref. 60 meets ref. 158); a second section of the nozzle coupled to a first mechanism (Fig. 4, ref. 142 coupling); a third section of the nozzle coupled to a second mechanism (Fig. 4, ref. 146 coupling); and an interface (Fig. 1, ref. 18 and 22, col. 2, line 73 – col. 3, line 9).
Zweig does not explicitly teach that the second end is coupled to a particle density counter, that the channel is a vacuum channel, wherein the first channel is configured to gather particles from a cleaning surface via suction, that the second section is coupled to a first dispenser of a plurality of dispensers, wherein the second section is configured to remove or dislodge contaminants from a cleaning surface in a manner associated with the first dispenser, that the third section is coupled to a second dispenser of the plurality of dispensers, wherein the third section is configured to remove or dislodge contaminants from a cleaning surface in a manner associated with the second dispenser, and a an interface configured to selectively enable at least one of the plurality of dispensers. Initially, it is noted that the recited particle density counter, vacuum, and dispensers are not affirmatively claimed and are not interpreted to be required structural features of the claimed device. The Zweig device appears to be fully capable of being operated in a manner wherein the second end is coupled to a particle density counter, wherein the channel is subjected to a vacuum, or is a vacuum channel, wherein the second section is coupled to a first dispenser of a plurality of dispensers, and wherein the third section is coupled to a second dispenser of the plurality of dispensers, since the Zweig device includes the claimed structural features. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Zweig device wherein it includes an interface configured to selectively enable at least one of the plurality of dispensers, with a reasonable expectation of success, in view of the disclosure of an interface and in order to enhance process control. Note that duplication of parts is prima facie obvious, as is rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and (C)).
Since the Zweig device as modified includes all the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited, i.e., wherein the first channel gathers particles from a cleaning surface via suction, the second section removes or dislodges contaminants from a cleaning surface in a manner associated with the first dispenser, and the third section removes or dislodges contaminants from a cleaning surface in a manner associated with the second dispenser.
Regarding claim 2, Zweig does not explicitly teach the device being operated in a manner wherein the first dispenser and the second dispenser are each selected from a group comprising: a carbon dioxide (CO2) snow dispenser, an ionizer, an ultrasonic gas dispenser, and a heated gas dispenser. However, the Zweig device appears to be operated in the manner recited since it includes the claimed structural features.
Regarding claim 3, Zweig discloses a device wherein the nozzle further comprises one or more sensors each configured to measure one of an electrostatic charge, a moisture, or a temperature of a cleaning surface (Fig. 2, ref. 43, col. 3, lines 10-50).
Regarding claim 6, Zweig discloses a device wherein the body comprises an elongated portion (Fig. 4, portion to the right of callout sign for ref. 148) between the first and second ends to extend a reach of the device, and wherein the first end forms a nozzle at a non-parallel angle to the elongated portion of the body.
Regarding claim 7, Zweig discloses a device wherein the device is a hand-held device, and wherein the body comprises a handle (Fig. 4, ref. 34, col. 3, lines 10-50).
Regarding claim 8, Zweig discloses a device wherein the first section of the nozzle encompasses the second and third sections of the nozzle (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Zweig does not explicitly teach the device further comprising a fourth section of the nozzle coupled to a third dispenser of the plurality of dispensers. Initially, it is noted that he recited third dispenser is not positively claimed and is not interpreted to be required structural feature of the claimed device. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Zweig device wherein it includes a fourth section with coupling, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to broaden the range of operations available and allow for backup sources. Note the duplication of parts of prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). The Zweig device as further modified appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited, i.e. wherein the fourth section of the nozzle is coupled to a third dispenser of the plurality of dispensers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art reference is US 3,627,965 to Zweig. The prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of wherein the one or more sensors comprise a first sensor to measure a temperature of the cleaning surface and a second sensor to measure one of the electrostatic charge or the moisture of the cleaning surface (as in claim 4), or wherein the nozzle comprises a fourth section configured to emit ultraviolet (UV) light onto a cleaning surface (as in claim 5), in combination with the other structural elements as instantly recited. Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the applied art does not teach or suggest the device being operated in a manner wherein the first section gathers particles from a cleaning surface via suction since, it is alleged, Zweig discloses operating the device wherein positive pressure is used (remarks, page 7, para beginning “In contrast”), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the applied art does not teach or suggest the device being operated in a manner wherein the nozzle sections remove or dislodge contaminants from a cleaning surface in a manner associated with the respective dispensers since, it alleged, Zweig discloses operating the device wherein gas inlets deliver ionizing gas for plasma generation and powder from spray coating (remarks, page 8, first para), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights