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 02/05/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 13-16 are withdrawn. Claim 17 is new.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: conveyance mechanism in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on a review of the specification, a conveyance mechanism is interpreted to include a pair or rollers, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 and 17 are 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 claim 1, the phrase “air outlets are consistent with each other” in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is not exactly clear what is meant by “consistent” here. Consistent in what way?
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “air outlets are consistent with each other” in lines 5-6 renders the claim indefinite because it is not exactly clear what is meant by “consistent” here. Consistent in what way?
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, 2 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 201234955 to Shanghai Kennuo Wood Co. Ltd. (“Shanghai”, and note the attached translation) in view of CN 211036446 to Shenyang Yida Textile Co. Ltd. (“Shenyang”, and note the attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Shanghai teaches an air-blowing roller (Fig. 1, translation, abstract), comprising: a roller body (Fig. 1, ref. 3, translation, para bridging pages 2-3), wherein a plurality of air outlets are disposed on an outer peripheral surface of the roller body, the plurality of air outlets are arranged along an axial direction of the roller body, and air exhaust directions of the plurality of air outlets are consistent with each other (Fig. 1).
Shanghai does not explicitly teach the roller wherein an air exhaust direction of the air outlets is tangent to the outer peripheral surface of the roller body. However, it was known to rearrange air outlets such that air exhaust directions vary (see, e.g., Shenyang at, inter alia, Fig. 1, note ref. 6) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rearrange the air outlets, including wherein air exhaust direction of the air outlets is tangent to the outer peripheral surface of the roller body, in order to enhance cleaning. Note that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Shanghai/Shenyang do not explicitly teach the roller being operated in a manner wherein it blows air to a surface of a workpiece-to-be-cleaned, and the air exhaust directions of the plurality of air outlets are parallel to the surface of the workpiece-to-be cleaned during rotation of the air-blowing roller. However, since Shanghai/Shenyang disclose the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited. It is noted that the recited workpiece-to-be-cleaned is not affirmatively claimed and is not interpreted to be a required structural feature of the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Shanghai/Shenyang disclose a roller wherein the air exhaust directions of the plurality of air outlets are inclined to a central axis of the roller body (Shenyang, Fig. 1, note ref. 6). Note that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding claim 10, Shanghai/Shenyang disclose an apparatus, comprising: a conveyance mechanism (Shanghai, Fig. 1, ref. 1 and 2, translation, page 2, last para); and the air-blowing roller according to claim 1, disposed downstream of the conveyance mechanism (Shanghai, Fig. 1).
Shanghai/Shenyang does not explicitly teach the apparatus being operated in a manner wherein it conveys a workpiece-to-be-cleaned. However, since Shanghai/Shenyang disclose the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited. It is noted that the recited workpiece-to-be-cleaned is not affirmatively claimed and is not interpreted to be a required structural feature of the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 11, Shanghai/Shenyang does note explicitly teach the apparatus wherein a pair of air-blowing rollers are disposed, and a gap available for the workpiece-to-be-cleaned to pass through exists between the air-blowing rollers in the pair. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Shanghai/Shenyang apparatus wherein it includes a duplicate air-blowing roller, or wherein a pair of air-blowing rollers are disposed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance cleaning and save time. Note that duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Further, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Shanghai/Shenyang apparatus wherein a gap available for the workpiece-to-be-cleaned to pass through exists between the air-blowing rollers in the pair, with a reasonable expectation of success, in view of the disclosure of gaps between rollers (note Shanghai, Fig. 1). Note that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding claim 12, Shanghai/Shenyang disclose rollers and a suction port (Shanghai, translation, abstract), but does not explicitly teach an air intake roller, located downstream of the air-blowing roller along a conveyance direction of the workpiece-to-be-cleaned. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Shanghai/Shenyang apparatus wherein it includes a suction port on a roller, or an air intake roller, with a reasonable expectation of success, in view of the disclosure of a suction port and rollers. Note that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
The recited workpiece-to-be-cleaned is not affirmatively claimed and is not interpreted to be a required structural feature of the claimed apparatus. Since Shanghai/Shenyang disclose the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited, i.e. wherein the air intake roller is downstream of the air-blowing roller along a conveyance direction of the workpiece-to-be-cleaned.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is rejected as indefinite, but would be allowable if properly amended to cure the indefiniteness issue.
Claims 3-9 are rejected as indefinite and 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 amended to properly cure the indefiniteness issue.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art references are: CN 201234955 to Shanghai Kennuo Wood Co. Ltd. and CN 211036446 to Shenyang Yida Textile Co. Ltd. The prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of a plurality of ducts, wherein the ducts extend spirally around the central axis of the roller body, one end of each duct is an air inlet and another end of each duct is an air outlet, and the plurality of ducts are arranged in parallel, 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 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “conveyance mechanism” should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) since, it is alleged, term read in light of the specification connotes sufficient structure (remarks, page 8, section heading beginning “Claim Interpretation”), it is initially noted that the term does not result in an enablement or lack of written description rejection. The Office is not aware that the term has a recognized structural meaning in the art, though applicant may wish to submit an affidavit demonstrating such a recognition. Further, if the referred to structure were recited in the associated claims, and not just taught in the specification, the term might not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) at all.
Regarding applicant’s assertion that amending the phrase “are consistent” with “are consistent with each other” cures the indefiniteness rejection (remarks, page 8, section heading beginning “Rejection of claims 1-12”), it is not clear how this amendment cures the indefiniteness. Possible dictionary definitions of “consistent” include “not self-contradictory”, “in agreement”, and “steady”. What does it mean for air outlets to be consistent with each other in any of these ways? Does applicant mean something else by “consistent”? If this is the case, a review of the specification did not reveal applicant’s intended definition.
In response to applicant's argument that the applied art does not teach or suggest the apparatus being operate in a manner wherein the air exhaust directions are parallel to the surface of the workpiece-to-be-cleaned during rotation of the air-blowing roller (remarks, page 10, 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
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 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