DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 2 is canceled. Claims 1 and 3-15 are pending. Claim 15 is withdrawn. Claims 1 and 3-14 are examined on the merits.
Response to Amendments
The claim objections and the 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 6/11/2026 arguments (“Remarks”) have been fully considered.
Applicant contends that the prior art of record fails to teach certain limitations (e.g., spinning about a second axis). Because those limitations are newly introduced through amendment, they are addressed in the updated 35 USC § 103 rejections below.
Applicant also contends that:
…neither CONVERSE nor Derambure discloses or fairly suggests a cleaning process in which components are rotated about a first axis and also spun about a second axis at the same time while gas bubbles are introduced into the cleaning agent. (Remarks at 8)
This argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim language, which does not recite rotating/spinning the components “at the same time while gas bubbles are introduced into the cleaning agent.” The claim language does not require any specific timing for the rotating step and for the spinning step. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “monitoring the step of rotating the at least one holder inside the container around the first axis by at least one accelerometer and/or at least one microphone.” It’s unclear how the rotating step can be monitored by a microphone. Clarification is requested. The specification discloses that the microphone is used to monitor the bubbles (see Spec. at pg. 8 lines 24-29), not for monitoring rotation.
As a suggestion, (1) the “and/or at least one microphone” language should be deleted; (2) the claim should recite a separate step of monitoring the bubbles by using a microphone.
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.
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, 3-7, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEENAKSHISUNDARAM et al. (US PGPUB 20230137027), in view of DERAMBURE et al. (French Publication FR3082775A1, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 1, MEENAKSHISUNDARAM teaches a method to clean additively manufactured components (see abstract, ¶¶ 0054-55, the various embodiments are directed to removing excess material from additively manufactured objects).
MEENAKSHISUNDARAM teaches that the excess material may be removed from the additively manufactured components using a wide variety of cleaning techniques (see ¶ 0072) —techniques such as spraying fluid, immersing in fluid, blowing gas, applying vacuum, applying other types of mechanical forces (e.g., vibration, agitation, tumbling, brushing), and so on—wherein multiple cleaning techniques may be combined together (see ¶ 0072).
MEENAKSHISUNDARAM teaches that, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 11A, the cleaning method comprises the following steps:
attaching at least one additively manufactured component to at least one holder (see Fig. 11A, ¶ 0155, components 404 attached to holders 410);
submerging the at least one additively manufactured component (components 404) into a cleaning agent contained in a container (see Fig. 11A, ¶ 0155);
rotating the at least one holder (holders 410) inside the container around a first axis (see Fig. 11A, ¶ 0155; for example, a Z-axis, see annotated Fig. 11A below);
removing spare material from the at least one additively manufactured component by the cleaning agent (see ¶ 0155, excess material removed from components 404).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MEENAKSHISUNDARAM does not explicitly teach that, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 11A, the cleaning method comprises:
“providing a gas to at least one bubble generator placed in the container below the at least one holder”;
“inserting bubbles made of the gas from the at least one bubble generator into the cleaning agent”;
“spinning the at least one holder around a second axis”;
wherein the spare material is removed by “the bubbles.”
But MEENAKSHISUNDARAM does teach that, in the embodiments shown in Figs. 18-19, the cleaning method comprises both a step of rotating the at least one holder (holders 1804) inside the container around a first axis (for example, a Z-axis, see annotated Fig. 19 below; see also Figs. 18-19, ¶¶ 0179-80), and a step of spinning the at least one holder (holders 1804) around a second axis (for example, an X-axis or a Y-axis, see Figs. 18-19, ¶¶ 0179-80).
PNG
media_image2.png
478
1011
media_image2.png
Greyscale
MEENAKSHISUNDARAM explicitly teaches that:
(1) various embodiments may be combined together (see ¶¶ 0107, 0490) and
(2) various cleaning techniques may be combined together (see ¶ 0072).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the embodiment of Fig. 11A to incorporate a step of spinning the at least one holder around a second axis, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the additively manufactured components. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM explicitly teaches that the various embodiments may be combined together and the various cleaning techniques may be combined together. In one embodiment, the cleaning method comprises submerging the at least one additively manufactured component into a cleaning agent contained in a container, and rotating the at least one holder inside the container around a first axis. In another embodiment, the cleaning method comprises rotating the at least one holder inside the container around a first axis and spinning the at least one holder around a second axis. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A. Combining those embodiments and cleaning techniques would’ve yielded the predictable result of removing excess material from the additively manufactured components.
In the resulting modification of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM, the cleaning method would comprise: a submerging step of submerging the at least one additively manufactured component into a cleaning agent contained in a container; a rotating step of rotating the at least one holder inside the container around a first axis; and a spinning step of spinning the at least one holder around a second axis.
MEENAKSHISUNDARAM as modified does not explicitly teach:
“providing a gas to at least one bubble generator placed in the container below the at least one holder”;
“inserting bubbles made of the gas from the at least one bubble generator into the cleaning agent”;
wherein the spare material is removed by “the bubbles.”
But these features are already known in the cleaning arts. For example, DERAMBURE teaches a method of cleaning an additively manufacture component (cleaning a part P, see Figs. 1-5, ¶ 0019), the method comprising: submerging the additively manufactured component into a cleaning agent contained in a container (see Figs. 3-4, ¶¶ 0019, 0046, part P is immersed in a solvent in tank 2); providing a gas to a bubble generator (providing air to pipe 4, see Figs. 3-4, ¶¶ 0019, 0039, 0047) placed in the container below the holder (see Fig. 3); inserting bubbles made of the gas from the bubble generator into the cleaning agent (see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0019, 0047, air bubbles are supplied from pipe 4 into the solvent); the spare material is removed from the component by the bubbles (see ¶ 0019). DERAMBURE teaches that the bubble generator is a pipe with perforations (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0032 0039, 0051).
DERAMBURE teaches that the gas bubbles provide various benefits such as the following: (1) the bubbles can mechanically detach spare material from the component (see ¶¶ 0019, 0047), thereby reducing cleaning time and improving production efficiency (see ¶ 0018); and (2) by producing gas bubbles of different fineness or size, it’s possible to ensure a progressive adjustment of the cleaning process (see ¶¶ 0021, 0051).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify MEENAKSHISUNDARAM to incorporate the generation and use of bubbles—i.e., “providing a gas to a bubble generator placed in the container below the holder,” “inserting bubbles made of the gas from the bubble generator into the cleaning agent,” and removing spare material from the component “by the bubbles”—with reasonable expectation of enhancing the cleaning effect.
First, the gas bubbles provide various benefits such as: reducing cleaning time; improving production efficiency; and allowing for progressive adjustment of the cleaning process (see DERAMBURE at ¶¶ 0018, 0021, 0051). Given these benefits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate gas bubbles into MEENAKSHISUNDARAM’s method by, e.g., providing a gas to a bubble generator placed in the container below the holder, inserting bubbles made of the gas from the bubble generator into the cleaning agent, and removing spare material from the component by the bubbles.
Second, MEENAKSHISUNDARAM already teaches combining different forms of mechanical forces (see ¶ 0072), wherein both spinning and gas bubbles are forms of mechanical forces already known in the prior art. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Here, the gas bubbles as incorporated into MEENAKSHISUNDARAM would still serve the same function as before (e.g., agitating the components to remove spare material therefrom), thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE: a bubble generator—a pipe with perforations (see DERAMBURE at Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0032 0039, 0051)—would be placed in MEENAKSHISUNDARAM’s container below the holders (see Fig. 11A of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM), and the cleaning method comprises: a step of providing a gas to the bubble generator; a step of inserting bubbles made of the gas from the bubble generator into the cleaning agent; wherein the spare material is removed by the bubbles.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE teaches the method of claim 1. The combination also teaches: placing at least one spacer between at least two holders (see MEENAKSHISUNDARAM at Fig. 11A, ¶ 0099, spacers 406 are placed between holders 410); and submerging the at least two holders in the container (see id. at Fig. 11A, ¶¶ 0155).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE teaches the method of claim 1. The combination also teaches: filling fresh cleaning agent into the container (see MEENAKSHISUNDARAM at Fig. 11A, ¶ 0155, cleaning agent enters container via inlet 1102); and/or removing used cleaning agent from the container (see id. at Fig. 11A, ¶ 0156, cleaning agent leaves container via outlet 1108).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE teaches the method of claim 1. The combination also teaches: purifying the cleaning agent (see MEENAKSHISUNDARAM at ¶ 0166, separating the wash fluid from the excess material).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE teaches the method of claim 1. The combination also teaches: heating or cooling the cleaning agent (see MEENAKSHISUNDARAM at ¶¶ 0152, 0154, 0160, 0162) to facilitate the removal of spare material (see id. at ¶¶ 0133, 0162, heating can lower the viscosity of the spare material to facilitate removal; see id. at ¶¶ 0133, 0299, cooling can increase the component’s stiffness, i.e., its ability to withstand rotation).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE teaches the method of claim 1. The combination also teaches: adjusting a bubble size (see DERAMBURE at ¶¶ 0021, 0030, 0032-33, 0051).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches: identifying the at least one additively manufactured component by an identification element (see ¶ 0206 of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches:
manufacturing the at least one additively manufactured component by additive manufacturing prior to the other steps of the method to clean additively manufactured components (see MEENAKSHISUNDARAM at abstract, ¶¶ 0003, 0054, 0060, Fig. 1), and/or
curing the at least one additively manufactured component after the other steps of the method to clean additively manufactured components (see id. at ¶ 0073, Fig. 1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE (as applied to Claim 1), in further view of LIU et al. (Chinese Publication CN110076128A, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “moving the at least one bubble generator.”
But this feature is already known in the cleaning arts. LIU teaches using bubbles for cleaning (see ¶¶ 0018, 0037), wherein a bubble generator 3 is moved during cleaning (see ¶ 0037). By moving the bubble generator during cleaning, it’s possible to make the agitation distribution more uniform and achieve better cleaning effect (see id.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE to incorporate moving the bubble generator, with reasonable expectation of improving cleaning effect. First, by moving the bubble generator, it’s possible to make the agitation distribution more uniform and achieve better cleaning effect; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to move the bubble generator. Second, it’s already known in the prior art to move the bubble generator (see LIU). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of WOOD (US Patent 3419426).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “positively charging the at least one additively manufactured component and/or guiding the bubbles by a magnetic field and/or negative charge.”
But these features are already known in the cleaning arts. WOOD teaches guiding bubbles by a magnetic field (see col. 1 lines 20-25, col. 1 lines 42-51). By using a magnetic field to guide the bubbles, the bubbles can be propelled through a fluid at high speeds, thereby effectively removing dirt/material from objects (see id.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE to incorporate guiding the bubbles by a magnetic field, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the component. First, by using a magnetic field to guide the bubbles, the bubbles can be propelled through a fluid at high speeds, thereby effectively removing dirt/material from objects; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate guiding the bubbles by a magnetic field. Second, it’s already known in the prior art to guide bubbles by a magnetic field (see WOOD). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE (as applied to Claim 1), in further view of CONVERSE et al. (US PGPUB 20200078831).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach “applying a sonication to support the removal of spare material.”
But this feature is already known in the cleaning arts. CONVERSE teaches a cleaning method (see abstract, ¶¶ 0005-08, 0081-97, claims 1-14) of cleaning additively manufactured components (see ¶¶ 0002, 0008, 0024), the method comprises applying a sonication to support the removal of spare material (see ¶¶ 0005-06, 0078, 0085, 0094).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE to incorporate applying a sonication to support the removal of spare material, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the components. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM already teaches that multiple cleaning techniques (e.g., multiple forms of mechanical forces) may be combined (see ¶ 0072). Sonication is a cleaning technique and a form of mechanical force already known in the prior art. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE teaches the method of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches a submerging step of submerging the at least one additively manufactured component into the cleaning agent contained in the container. The combination also teaches recovering the spare material (see MEENAKSHISUNDARAM at ¶ 0156).
The combination does not explicitly teach “dry spinning the at least one additively manufactured component before” said submerging step.
But this feature is already known in the cleaning arts. CONVERSE teaches submerging the at least one additively manufactured component into a cleaning agent (see ¶¶ 0005-06, 0084, 0093) contained in a container (see Figs. 4-5), and dry spinning the additively manufactured component (see Figs. 3A-3B, ¶¶ 0006, 0096). CONVERSE teaches that the submerging step and the dry spinning step are repeated (see ¶ 0097), which means the dry spinning is performed before cleaning (i.e., before a subsequent submerging step).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE to incorporate a step of dry spinning the at least one additively manufactured component, wherein the submerging step and the drying spinning step are repeated, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the components. First, the dry spinning step helps remove some of the residual washing fluid (see CONVERSE at ¶¶ 0006, 0096), and by repeating the submerging step and the dry spinning step, additional spare material may be removed from the components (see id. at ¶¶ 0006, 0097). Given these benefits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate the dry spinning step, and repeat the submerging step and the dry spinning step. Second, it’s already known in the prior art that, when cleaning additively manufactured components, the submerging step and the dry spinning step may be repeated (see CONVERSE). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM, DERAMBURE, and CONVERSE: the submerging step and the dry spinning step would be repeated, which means the dry spinning step would be performed before a subsequent submerging step.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of GERLACH et al. (US PGPUB 20220111424).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE teaches the method of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches rotating the at least one holder inside the container around the first axis.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “monitoring” said rotating step “by at least one accelerometer and/or at least one microphone.”
But these features are already known in the cleaning arts. For example, GERLACH teaches an additively manufactured component (workpiece 100, see ¶ 0056) attached to a holder (receptable 8, see Fig. 1, ¶ 0061), wherein the holder is rotated around a first axis (see id.). GERLACH teaches that, when the holder is rotated, such rotating step may be monitored by an accelerometer (see ¶ 067, acceleration sensor 18), which makes it possible to detect imbalance when rotating the holder (see id.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM and DERAMBURE to incorporate monitoring the rotating step by an accelerometer, with reasonable expectation of detecting imbalance. First, given the benefit of detecting imbalance when rotating the holder, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate using an accelerometer to monitor the step of rotating the at least one holder inside the container around the first axis. Second, it’s already known in the prior art to rotate a holder attached with an additively manufactured component (see MEENAKSHISUNDARAM; see GERLACH), and to use an accelerometer to monitor the rotation of the holder (see GERLACH). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art references—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rotating the holder around a first axis and a second axis
MURILLO et al. (US PGPUB 20210086450) teaches cleaning an additively manufactured component 11 mounted on a holder 10 (see Figs. 1-6), wherein the holder is rotated around a first axis and a second axis (see Fig. 6, ¶¶ 0012, 0052, planetary spinning).
Rotating the holder when cleaning an additively manufactured component:
MORGANSON et al. (US PGPUB 20200376786) teaches a method of cleaning an additively manufactured component (see, e.g., block 206 in Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0054-55, treating the component with detergents, DI water, and/or alcohol; see also ¶¶ 0037, 0041, 0047-48, removing spare material from the component), wherein the method comprises: attaching an additively manufactured component 102 to a holder 110 (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0041); rotating the holder 110 inside a container 106 around a first axis (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0047-48).
CHEN et al. (US PGPUB 20160059270) teaches a method of cleaning an additively manufactured component (see Figs. 2-3, ¶¶ 0026-28; see ¶ 0004, the component is additively manufactured), wherein the method comprises: attaching an additively manufactured component 200 to a holder 100 (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0019); rotating the holder 100 inside a container 10 around a first axis (see Fig. 2-3, ¶¶ 0026-28).
Using microphone to monitor the cleaning process
HODNETT et al. (US PGPUB 20210346859) teaches using a hydrophone (a type of microphone) to monitor cavitation of bubbles (see ¶ 0055).
BAXTER et al. (US PGPUB 20180238646) teaches using a hydrophone (a type of microphone) to monitor cavitation of bubbles (see ¶¶ 0016, 0035).
It’s well known in the cleaning arts that bubbles will generally enhance cleaning effect
MEI (US PGPUB 20230046198) at ¶ 0004 (bubbles enhance cleaning).
ISHIBASHI (US PGPUB 20210242015) at ¶ 0068 (bubbles enhance cleaning).
IAI (US PGPUB 20200354656) at ¶ 0004 (bubbles enhance cleaning).
IAI (US PGPUB 20200164413) at ¶¶ 0039-40 (bubbles enhance cleaning).
DOONG et al. (US PGPUB 20200168483) at ¶ 0048 (bubbles enhance cleaning).
DENG et al. (US PGPUB 20180236499) at ¶ 0046 (bubbles enhance cleaning).
HU et al. (US PGPUB 20160254170) at ¶ 0054 (bubbles enhance cleaning).
HAIBARA et al. (US PGPUB 20130160791) at ¶ 0029 (bubbles enhance cleaning).
YAMASAKI et al. (US PGPUB 20080264843) at ¶ 0159 (bubbles enhance cleaning).
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 RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights