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 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.
Claims 1-5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebelt (2,563,049) in view of Frost (2008/0182488, previously presented).
Regarding claim 1, Liebelt teaches A cleaning roller central shaft (Fig. 1) comprising:
a shaft body (Ref. 1, Fig. 1) and a hollow inner flow channel (Fig.6, [Col. 2, Lines 50-55] describes "The reservoir formed within the hollow roller maybe filled or replenished…") located in the shaft body ([Col. 2, Lines 50-55])), wherein the shaft body includes an outer wall surface (Fig. 1 and 5, outermost surface of the roller (1)) having a plurality of through holes (Ref. 8, Fig. 1&5, [Col. 2, Lines 21-23]) that are fluidly-communicable with the hollow inner flow channel ([Col. 2, Lines 21-27] describes "…orifices or ports to insure an equalized distribution of the liquid paint from the interior of the roller or reservoir…"); and
a plurality of groove structures (Ref. 6&7, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Lines 17-20]) arranged radially (Fig. 1 show the groove structures arranged radially) and extending around the outer wall surface of the shaft body (Fig. 1 show the groove structures extending around the outer wall surface of the shaft body), wherein each groove structure has protruding end edges (Ref. 11, Fig. 1&4, [Col. 2, Lines 34-41]) protruding from the outer wall surface of the shaft body (Fig. 4), the plurality of groove structures are configured to be adhered by a foam material (Ref. 9, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Lines 25-31] describes "…the web or cover…of porous material…") that is configured to contact a surface of an object to be cleaned ( [Col. 1, Lines 1-9] describes "the hand operated type for applying liquid coatings…to building structures…"), and
an angle (See annotated Fig. 1 below) between a radial extension direction of the groove structures (See annotated Fig. 1 below) and an axial direction of the shaft body (See annotated Fig. 1 below).
Per the instant application’s specifications, “the developed interfacial area ratio (Sdr) indicates the rate of increase in surface area after the groove structure is formed, i.e., the surface area of the outer wall surface of the shaft body is increased due to the groove structure and the protruding end edge.”. Given applicant’s definition of a developed interfacial are ratio (Sdr), Liebelt teaches the outer wall surface of the cylindrical shaft body (Fig. 1) having groove structures (Ref. 6&7, Fig. 1) provides a developed interfacial area ratio (Sdr) (Fig. 4-5). As shown in Figs. 4-5 of the figures, the grooves (6&7, ([Col. 2, Lines 8-16])) increases surface area as, mathematically adding grooves to a cylinder provides more surface area depending on the grooves depth, width and spacing,. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the groove depth, width, and spacing to have the developed interfacial area ratio to be between 300% to 800% since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device would not operate different with the claimed SDR. Further, applicant seems to have placed no criticality on the claimed ranges ([0029 & 0031-0033] describes the interfacial area ratio to be the claimed range but provides no evidence of unexpected results).
Further, the instant application’s specifications recite “…Sa values refer…the arithmetic mean height of the protruding end edge formed by the groove structures relative to the outer wall surface of the shaft body…” ([0031]). Given applicant’s definition of arithmetic mean deviation (Sa), Liebert teaches there is a mean height of the protruding edge (Fig. 4) and the protruding edge (11) is formed “For securely uniting the porous web with the roller the latter is provided with an inner longitudinally extending rib 10 that forms an exterior joint groove…” ([Col. 2, Lines 34-37]). As seen in Figs. 1, 4, & 6-8, the porous web is secured to the protruding edge and as such the arithmetic mean deviation (Sa) is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the Sa changes the security of the porous member to the roller. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Liebelt to have an arithmetic mean deviation within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Liebelt by making the arithmetic mean deviation (Sa) ranging from 70 um to 300 um as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, applicant seems to have placed no criticality on the claimed ranges ([0029 & 0031-0033] describes arithmetic mean deviation to be the claimed range but provides no evidence of unexpected results).
Liebert fails to explicitly teach wherein an angle between a radial extension direction of the groove structures and an axial direction of the shaft body ranges from -80° to 80°. Frost teaches a cleaning roller with a shaft body and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Frost teaches a cleaning roller (Ref. 30, Fig. 1) with a shaft body (Ref. 37S, fig. 2A) having grooves (Ref. 37G, fig. 2C) wherein an angle (Ref. S, Fig. 2B) between a radial extension direction of the groove structures (Ref. 37G, Fig. 2C) and an axial direction of the shaft body (Ref. 34, Fig. 2B) ranges from -80° to 80° ([0045] describes the angle to be between 45 and 89 degrees & Fig. 2C, [0056] describes the grooves to be aligned with the slit (36)). Therefore, given the suggestion of Frost, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the angle, as taught by Liebelt, to be between -80° to 80°, as taught by Frost, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range ([0008&00037] indicating the angle to be the claimed range but provides no evidence of unexpected results).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Liebelt as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Liebelt further teaches wherein the protruding end edges of the groove structures (Ref. 11, fig. 4) have maximum heights (Fig. 4). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the maximum heights of the grooves of Liebelt to have a maximum height between 500 μm to 900 μm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Liebelt would not operate differently with the claimed maximum height of the protruding end edges of the groove structures. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (specification pp. [0030&0036]).
Regarding Claim 3, Liebelt as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Liebelt further teaches wherein the groove structures extend in parallel arrangement or staggered arrangement (Fig. 1 shows a staggered arrangement).
Regarding Claim 4, Liebelt as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and Liebelt teaches an intersection acute angle between two of the groove structure (Fig. 1 annotated above) when the grooves structures extend in a staggered arrangement. Liebelt fails to explicitly teach an intersection acute angle between two of the groove structures ranging from 10 degrees to 45 degrees when the groove structures extend in staggered arrangement. Therefore, depending upon the amount of desired fluid to be applied by the substrate during cleaning, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intersection acute angle between two groove structures of Liebelt to be from 10 degrees to 45 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Liebelt would not operate differently with the intersection groove angle. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the intersection angle is within the claimed range (specification pp. [0037]).
Regarding Claim 5, Liebelt as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Liebelt further teaches wherein the groove structures have cross-sectional shapes of triangles, quadrilaterals or partial arcs (Fig. 5 shows the cross-sectional shape as partial arcs).
Regarding Claim 7, Liebelt as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Liebelt further teaches wherein the groove structures have a depth (Fig. 5). Therefore, depending upon the amount of desired fluid to be applied by the substrate during cleaning, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the groove depth of Liebelt to have a depth of the groove structures ranging from 0.35mm to 1.2mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Liebelt would not operate differently with the claimed groove depth. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter is within the claimed range (specification pp. [0014&0038]).
Regarding Claim 8, Liebelt as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Liebelt further teaches wherein the groove structures are disposed over all the outer wall surface of the shaft body (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Liebelt as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Liebelt further teaches wherein the hollow inner flow channel has an inner diameter (Fig. 6). Therefore, depending upon the amount of desired fluid to be applied by the substrate during cleaning, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the maximum heights of the grooves of Liebelt to have an inner diameter of the hollow inner flow channel be between 9mm to 22 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Liebelt would not operate differently with the claimed inner diameter of the hollow inner flow channel. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the inner diameter is within the claimed range (specification pp. [0016&0041]).
Regarding Claim 10, Liebelt as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Liebelt further teaches wherein the through holes of the shaft body have a diameter (Fig. 4&6). Therefore, depending upon the amount of desired fluid to be applied by the substrate during cleaning, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the maximum heights of the grooves of Liebelt to have a diameter of the through holes to be between 2.5mm to 6mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Liebelt would not operate differently with the claimed diameter of the through holes of the shaft body. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (specification pp. [0016&0041]).
Regarding Claim 11, Liebelt as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Liebelt further teaches wherein the hollow inner flow channel has a closed end (Ref. 2, Fig. 3, [Col. 2, Lines 11] describes "a closed end 2") and an inlet end (Ref. 3, Fig. 2, [Col. 2, lines 50-55] describes "the reservoir…may be filled or replenished… through a filling hole 14 in the head 3 of the roller…") arranged oppositely (Fig. 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebelt as modified as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Karuppiah (2011/0079245).
Regarding Claim 6, Liebelt as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and Liebelt as modified teaches wherein the groove structures have an opening width (Fig. 4 shows gaps between grooves). Karuppiah teaches a cleaning roller with groove structures and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Karuppiah teaches a roller (Ref. 300.sub.2, Fig. 3A) with groove structures (Ref. 360, Fig. 3B) having an opening width ranging from 0.023 inches (0.584mm) to 0.029 inches (0.737mm) ([0029] describes the groove opening to be 0.023 inches (0.584mm) to 0.029 inches (0.737mm)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the groove structures, as taught by Liebelt as modified, with grooves having an opening width ranging from 0.1 mm to 0.9 mm, as taught by Karuppiah, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of moving fluid and debris and cleaning a substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 have been considered but are moot because amendments to the claim necessitated a new ground of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite “the plurality of groove structures are configured to be adhered by a foam material that is configured to contact a surface of an object to be cleaned” changing the scope of the claims, thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection. Examiner has applied Liebelt in view of Frost as applied to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Examiner has replaced the Withers reference with Liebelt and the arguments presented are moot.
Conclusion
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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights