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 § 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 6-7 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the state" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the through hole" in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although a through hole has been recited previously, such a through hole formed in a cap has not been previously recited. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as though a limitation has been described earlier which indicates that the through hole is formed on the cap.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ringler (US 20220024420 A1).
As to claim 1, Ringler discloses a cleaner for cleaning an object to be cleaned with a cleaning fluid (abstract), the cleaner comprising: a cylindrical cylinder (Fig.1 ref 2) configured to allow the cleaning fluid to be supplied from an outside (see Fig.1 ref 10 & [0034, 0059]); a cylindrical piston (Fig.1 ref 3) accommodated in the cylinder and extendably and contractibly attached to the cylinder (see Fig.1); a nozzle having an ejection port (Fig.1 ref 5) for ejecting the cleaning fluid supplied from the cylinder to the piston, wherein the nozzle is configured as a component separate from the piston and detachably attached to a distal end of the piston (see [0063] stating nozzle may be provided separately, instead of integrally, and for connection thereby indicating being detachable in nature).
As to claim 2, Ringler teaches the cleaner of claim 1, wherein the nozzle includes a cylindrical portion in which the ejection portion is formed (best seen by Fig.1), and a diameter of the cylindrical portion is smaller than a diameter of the cylinder (see Fig.1).
As to claim 3, Ringler teaches the cleaner of claim 1, wherein the entirety of the limitation is merely intended use. A separately provided nozzle that can be attached to the piston would be understood to be capable of being removed and replaced with another nozzle. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the nozzle can be replaced with another nozzle that is different in at least one of a shape, position, and orientation of the ejection port according to at least one of a shape and a position of the object to be cleaned.
As to claims 4-5, Ringler teaches the cleaner of claim 1, wherein the nozzle includes a cylindrical portion in which the ejection portion is formed (best seen by Fig.1), and a distal end of the cylindrical portion functions as a design portion (Fig.1 ref 18) having a shape adapted to an exterior component of an article on which the cleaner is mounted [0034 & 0064]. Further, as seen by Fig.1, the design portion has a diameter larger than a diameter of the cylindrical portion and is flush with an exterior component in a state in which the piston is contracted with respect to the cylinder (see [0034 & 0064] stating concealment of the opening in the contracted state; since an opening would not be concealed if the cover was not flush with the body panel or attachment part, it is understood that cover is provided in a flush manner. Further the limitation of being flush with exterior component is not a limitation of a cleaner, but rather a limitation of a cleaner and exterior component assembly. Thus, such a limitation is not required by the cleaner alone.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringler (US 20220024420 A1) in view of Kimura (JP2002347584A).
As to claims 6-7, Ringler teaches the cleaner of claim 1, wherein the nozzle includes a cylindrical portion in which the ejection portion is formed (best seen by Fig.1). Ringler does not disclose: a flange protruding from the cylindrical portion toward an outer periphery at a position closer to a piston side than the ejection port of the cylindrical portion; the flange closes a through hole formed in the cylinder and through which the piston passes in the state in which the piston is contracted with respect to the cylinder; the cylinder having a main body and a cap attached to a distal end of the cylinder main body an covering a part of an opening of the cylinder main body; and a diameter of the flange portion being larger than a diameter of the through hole formed in the cap. However, such features are known in the art, as seen by Kimura.
Kimura discloses an art related cleaning device (abstract) utilizing a cylinder main body (ref 3) and piston (refs 10/13) arrangement, wherein a cap (ref 59) is attached to a distal end of the cylinder and cover part of an opening of the cylinder main body (see Figs.1 & 8, also [0041]). Kimura further indicates that a flange (ref 39) of a nozzle portion (ref 28) extends outwardly toward an outer periphery at a position closer to a piston than a nozzle (see Figs.1 & 8) and closes a through hole formed in the cylinder through which the piston passes. The flange has a diameter larger of an opening formed by the cap (see Figs.1 & 8). The configuration of Kimura prevents dust from entering the cylinder [0044] and prevents rattling [0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Ringler to provide the cylinder with a main body and cap for the top of the cylinder as well as a flange portion for the nozzle, as taught by Kimura, in order to prevent dust from entering the cylinder and prevent rattling (Kimura [0044-0045]).
The following alternative rejections are provided assuming arguendo that Fig.1 of Ringler showcases the embodiment in which the nozzle is provided as an integral part, and a determination of the shape of nozzle in the embodiment in which the nozzle is provided separately cannot be made based on Fig.1 alone, the following alternative rejection is provided.
Claim(s) 2 & 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringler (US 20220024420 A1) in view of Trebouet (US 20170021810 A1).
As to claims 2 & 4-5, Ringler teaches the cleaner of claim 1, wherein and a diameter of the nozzle is smaller than a diameter of the cylinder (see Fig.1) and a distal end of the nozzle functions as a design portion (Fig.1 ref 18) having a shape adapted to an exterior component of an article on which the cleaner is mounted [0034 & 0064]. Further, as seen by Fig.1, the design portion has a diameter larger than a diameter of the nozzle and is flush with an exterior component in a state in which the piston is contracted with respect to the cylinder (see [0034 & 0064] stating concealment of the opening in the contracted state; since an opening would not be concealed if the cover was not flush with the body panel or attachment part, it is understood that cover is provided in a flush manner. Further the limitation of being flush with exterior component is not a limitation of a cleaner, but rather a limitation of a cleaner and exterior component assembly. Thus, such a limitation is not required by the cleaner alone.
However, assuming arguendo that Fig.1 of Ringler showcases the embodiment in which the nozzle is provided as an integral part, and a determination of the shape of nozzle in the embodiment in which the nozzle is provided separately cannot be made based on Fig.1 alone, the following alternative rejection is provided. Although Fig.1 of Ringler does not explicitly showcase the structure of the nozzle in the embodiment in which the nozzle is provided separately, such separate cylindrical nozzles are known in the art, as seen by Trebouet.
Trebouet discloses an art related cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is shown that a nozzle (Fig.1 ref 4) is provided as a separate element from a piston (Fig.1 ref 2) with a diameter less than that of a cylinder (Fig.1 ref 1) in which the piston is provided. See also [0029 & 0034] which indicate that the piston receives the nozzle, thereby indicating the elements are separate and are attached to one another. Trebouet further indicates that the nozzle may have a cylindrical shape (see Figs.3 & 5, also [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Ringler to provide the separate nozzle in a cylindrical shape, as such a shape is known in the art (Trebouet Figs.3 & 5, also [0034]).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringler (US 20220024420 A1) in view of Trebouet (US 20170021810 A1) and Kimura (JP2002347584A).
As to claims 6-7, Ringler teaches the cleaner of claim 1, and assuming arguendo that Fig.1 of Ringler showcases the embodiment in which the nozzle is provided as an integral part, and a determination of the shape of nozzle in the embodiment in which the nozzle is provided separately cannot be made based on Fig.1 alone, the following alternative rejection is provided. Although Fig.1 of Ringler does not explicitly showcase the structure of the nozzle in the embodiment in which the nozzle is provided separately, such separate cylindrical nozzles are known in the art, as seen by Trebouet. Ringler also does not disclose: a flange protruding from the cylindrical portion toward an outer periphery at a position closer to a piston side than the ejection port of the cylindrical portion; the flange closes a through hole formed in the cylinder and through which the piston passes in the state in which the piston is contracted with respect to the cylinder; the cylinder having a main body and a cap attached to a distal end of the cylinder main body an covering a part of an opening of the cylinder main body; and a diameter of the flange portion being larger than a diameter of the through hole formed in the cap. However, such features are known in the art, as seen by Kimura.
Trebouet discloses an art related cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is shown that a nozzle (Fig.1 ref 4) is provided as a separate element from a piston (Fig.1 ref 2) with a diameter less than that of a cylinder (Fig.1 ref 1) in which the piston is provided. See also [0029 & 0034] which indicate that the piston receives the nozzle, thereby indicating the elements are separate and are attached to one another. Trebouet further indicates that the nozzle may have a cylindrical shape (see Figs.3 & 5, also [0034]).
Kimura discloses an art related cleaning device (abstract) utilizing a cylinder main body (ref 3) and piston (refs 10/13) arrangement, wherein a cap (ref 59) is attached to a distal end of the cylinder and cover part of an opening of the cylinder main body (see Figs.1 & 8, also [0041]). Kimura further indicates that a flange (ref 39) of a nozzle portion (ref 28) extends outwardly toward an outer periphery at a position closer to a piston than a nozzle (see Figs.1 & 8) and closes a through hole formed in the cylinder through which the piston passes. The flange has a diameter larger of an opening formed by the cap (see Figs.1 & 8). The configuration of Kimura prevents dust from entering the cylinder [0044] and prevents rattling [0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Ringler to provide the separate nozzle in a cylindrical shape, as such a shape is known in the art (Trebouet Figs.3 & 5, also [0034]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known shape for a separate nozzle provided at the end of a piston when one is not explicitly shown, with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to further modify Ringler to provide the cylinder with a main body and cap for the top of the cylinder as well as a flange portion for the nozzle, as taught by Kimura, in order to prevent dust from entering the cylinder and prevent rattling (Kimura [0044-0045]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711