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 .
Election
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant has amended Claim 1 to add a step of “rotating the at least one holder inside the container around a first axis.”
Applicant’s traversal is on the ground that the technical feature recited in amended claim 1 is now a “special” technical feature, as it overcomes the DERAMBURE reference. This is not persuasive because the technical feature of amended claim 1 still does not make a contribution of the prior art, as explained in the prior art rejections below.
The Examiner notes that it’s well known in the art to rotate the holder inside the container when cleaning an additively manufactured component. See references (e.g., CONVERSE, MEENAKSHISUNDARAM) cited in the prior art rejections; see also references (e.g., MURILLO, MORGANSON, CHEN) cited in the “Relevant Prior Art” section.
The Examiner also notes that it’s well known in the art to use bubbles to enhance cleaning effect. See references (e.g., MEI, ISHIBASHI, IAI, DOONG, etc.) cited in the “Relevant Prior Art” section. The DERAMBURE reference is simply one out of many references that teach the advantages of using bubbles for cleaning, and DERAMBURE can be readily replaced by another reference.
Therefore, the restriction requirement between Groups I and II is still proper and the restriction requirement is made FINAL.
Non-elected claim 15 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
In Claim 2 lines 3-4, “a second and optionally a third axes” should be separately recited as “a second axis and optionally a third axis.”
In Claim 3 line 3, the word “the” should be placed in front of “at least two holders.”
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 2, 7-8, and 12-14 are 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 2 recites “optionally spinning and/or tilting the at least one holder around a second and optionally a third axes.” It’s unclear what element (if any) is required by Claim 2, given that “optionally” precedes “spinning” and “tilting.” Clarification is requested.
Claim 2 recites “optionally spinning and/or tilting the at least one holder around a second and optionally a third axes.” It’s unclear what is considered the third axis, which is not described in further details in the specification. In particular, Figure 1 and pg. 11 lines 10-13 of the specification only discuss the first axis (i.e., vertical axis) and the second axis (i.e., horizontal axis), without further explanation on the third axis. Clarification is requested.
PNG
media_image1.png
413
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 recites “optionally spinning and/or tilting the at least one holder around a second and optionally a third axes.” It’s unclear what “tilting” means, especially what is meant by “tilting around” the second axis and “tilting around” the third axis. The specification does not explain what “tilting around” entails. Clarification is requested.
Claim 2 recites “optionally spinning and/or tilting the at least one holder around a second and optionally a third axes.” It’s unclear which axis (i.e., second axis, third axis) goes with which action (i.e., spinning, tilting). Clarification is requested. As explained above, it’s unclear what the “third axis” is; it’s unclear what is meant by “tilting around” the second axis; it’s unclear what is meant by “tilting around” the third axis.
Claim 7 recites “the bubble size” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the number of bubbles” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the distance” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the cleaning” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the cleaning” at line 2. The scope of the term is unclear. For example, it’s unclear whether “cleaning” refers to the entirety of claim 1, which is “a method to clean,” or it refers to a particular step in claim 1. If the latter, then it’s also unclear which step is being referred to. Clarification is requested.
Claim 12 recites “the cleaning process” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the cleaning process” at line 2. The scope of the term is unclear. For example, it’s unclear whether “cleaning process” refers to the entirety of claim 1, which is “a method to clean,” or it refers to a particular step in claim 1. If the latter, then it’s also unclear which step is being referred to. Clarification is requested.
Claim 13 recites “cleaning” at line 2. The scope of the term is unclear. For example, it’s unclear whether “cleaning” refers to the entirety of claim 1, which is “a method to clean,” or it refers to a particular step in claim 1. If the latter, then it’s also unclear which step is being referred to. Clarification is requested.
Claim 14 recites “the cleaning” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “the cleaning” at line 3. The scope of the term is unclear. For example, it’s unclear whether “cleaning” refers to the entirety of claim 1, which is “a method to clean,” or it refers to a particular step in claim 1. If the latter, then it’s also unclear which step is being referred to. Clarification is requested.
Claim 14 recites “the cleaning” at pg. 4 line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “the cleaning” at pg. 4 line 1. The scope of the term is unclear. For example, it’s unclear whether “cleaning” refers to the entirety of claim 1, which is “a method to clean,” or it refers to a particular step in claim 1. If the latter, then it’s also unclear which step is being referred to. Clarification is requested.
Examiner’s Comments
Claim 1 and several dependent claims may be 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). MEENAKSHISUNDARAM teaches a method to clean additively manufactured components (see Fig. 11A, ¶ 0155, cleaning components 404; see Fig. 11B, ¶ 0158, cleaning components 1160), comprising the steps of:
attaching at least one additively manufactured component to at least one holder (see Fig. 11A, ¶ 0155, components 404 attached to holders 410; see Fig. 11B, ¶ 0158, components 1160 attached to holders 1158);
submerging the at least one additively manufactured component into a cleaning agent contained in a container (see Figs. 11A-11B, ¶¶ 0155, 0158);
rotating the at least one holder inside the container around a first axis (see Figs. 11A-11B, ¶¶ 0155, 0161); and
removing spare material from the at least one additively manufactured component by the cleaning agent (see ¶¶ 0155, 0162).
Claim 1 and several dependent claims may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEENAKSHISUNDARAM, in view of WOOD (US Patent 3419426).
Claim 1 and several dependent claims may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CONVERSE et al. (US PGPUB 20200078831), in view of WOOD.
Claim 1 and several dependent claims may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORGANSON et al. (US PGPUB 20200376786), in view of WOOD.
Claim 1 and several dependent claims may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORGANSON, in view of DERAMBURE.
As explained above, it’s well known in the art to use bubbles to enhance cleaning effect—see references cited in the “Relevant Prior Art” section—and DERAMBURE can be readily replaced by another reference, such as WOOD, MEI, ISHIBASHI, etc.
The abovementioned § 103 rejections are not made at this time to avoid overly burdening Applicant. But such § 103 rejections may still be presented in a future office action, depending on the claim amendment and/or Applicant’s reply.
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, 4-5, 7, 10-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CONVERSE et al. (US PGPUB 20200078831), in view of DERAMBURE et al. (French Publication FR3082775A1, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 1, CONVERSE teaches a method to clean additively manufactured components (see abstract, ¶¶ 0005-08, 0081-97, claims 1-14; the component to be cleaned is produced by additive manufacturing, see ¶¶ 0002, 0008, 0024).
PNG
media_image2.png
586
1203
media_image2.png
Greyscale
CONVERSE’s method comprising the steps of:
attaching an additively manufactured component to a holder (see abstract, ¶¶ 0005-06, 0082-83, 0090-91; see also annotated Figs. 4-5 above);
submerging the additively manufactured component into a cleaning agent (see ¶¶ 0005-06, 0084, 0093) contained in a container (in wash vessel, see annotated Figs. 4-5);
rotating the holder (carrier platform) inside the container (wash vessel) around a first axis (see ¶¶ 0005-06, 0085, 0094, rotating the object mounted to the carrier platform; see also ¶ 0102, claim 9, Figs. 4-5, the carrier platform has an axis of rotation); and
removing spare material from the additively manufactured component by the cleaning agent (see abstract, ¶¶ 0005-06, 0085, 0094, washing off residual resin).
CONVERSE teaches that different forms of agitation—e.g., rotation, sonication—may be used together to agitate the component (see ¶ 0078; see also ¶¶ 0005-06, 0085, 0094).
CONVERSE 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”;
the spare material is removed from the component “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 modify CONVERSE’s method 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 CONVERSE’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, CONVERSE already teaches combining different forms of agitation (see ¶¶ 0005-06, 0078, 0085, 0094), and gas bubbles are another form of agitation that’s 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 Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Here, the gas bubbles—as incorporated into CONVERSE’s method—would serve the same function as before (e.g., agitating the component to remove spare material therefrom), thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of CONVERSE and DERAMBURE: a bubble generator—a pipe with perforations (see DERAMBURE at Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0032 0039, 0051)—would be placed in CONVERSE’s container below CONVERSE’s holder (see annotated Figs. 4-5 above).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of CONVERSE and DERAMBURE teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination also teaches:
filling fresh cleaning agent into the container (see CONVERSE at Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0007, 0072, wash liquid is supplied to the wash vessel through a fill line via a fill pump; see id. at Fig. 5, ¶ 0073, wash liquid is supplied to the wash vessel; see id. at ¶ 0108, using a cleaned wash liquid; see id. at ¶ 0112, using a fresh batch of wash liquid); and/or
removing used cleaning agent from the container (see CONVERSE at ¶¶ 0072-73, 0088, 0098, 0101, 0108, draining the wash vessel).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of CONVERSE and DERAMBURE teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination also teaches: purifying the cleaning agent (see CONVERSE at ¶ 0108).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of CONVERSE and DERAMBURE teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination also teaches: adjusting the bubble size (see DERAMBURE at ¶¶ 0021, 0030, 0032-33, 0051).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of CONVERSE and DERAMBURE teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination also teaches: identifying the additively manufactured component and/or the holder by an identification element (see CONVERSE at ¶¶ 0075, 0077, 0101, unique identifier for each manufactured component; see id. at Figs. 4-5, ¶¶ 0008, 0075-77, claims 17-19, 26, each unique identifier is also associated with the carrier platform on which the component is adhered).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of CONVERSE and DERAMBURE teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination also teaches: applying a sonication to support the removal of spare material (see CONVERSE at ¶¶ 0005-06, 0078, 0085, 0094).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of CONVERSE and DERAMBURE teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination also teaches: dry spinning the additively manufactured component (see CONVERSE at Figs. 3A-3B, ¶¶ 0006, 0096). The combination teaches that the step of submerging the component into the cleaning agent—which is considered a cleaning step—and the step of dry spinning are repeated (see CONVERSE at ¶ 0097), which means the dry spinning is performed before cleaning (i.e., before a subsequent cleaning step).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of CONVERSE and DERAMBURE teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination also teaches: manufacturing the additively manufactured component by additive manufacturing prior to the cleaning (see ¶¶ 0002, 0005-06, 0024, component to be cleaned is made by additive manufacturing).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of CONVERSE and DERAMBURE (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of MEENAKSHISUNDARAM et al. (US PGPUB 20230137027).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of CONVERSE and DERAMBURE teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “placing at least one spacer between at least two holders” and “submerging at least two holders in the container.”
PNG
media_image3.png
491
590
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
492
553
media_image4.png
Greyscale
But these features are already known in the cleaning arts. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM teaches a method to clean additively manufactured components (see Figs. 11A-11B, ¶¶ 0155, 0158; see also Fig. 4A, ¶¶ 0098-99). MEENAKSHISUNDARAM teaches: placing at least one spacer between at least two holders (see Figs. 4A, 11A, ¶ 0099, spacers 406 are placed between holders 410; see also Fig. 11B, holders 1158 are separated from each other by spacers); and submerging at least two holders in the container (see Figs. 11A-11B, ¶¶ 0155, 0158, immersed in a wash fluid). A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that: the spacers allow multiple holders to be mounted together to a single rotor (see Figs. 11A-11B), such that multiple holders (and the components thereon) can be submerged and rotated at the same time, thereby cleaning multiple components at the same time (see Figs. 11A-11B, ¶¶ 0155, 0161-62).
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 CONVERSE and DERAMBURE to incorporate additional holders (having components thereon), place at least one spacer between at least two holders, and submerge at least two holders in the container, with reasonable expectation of cleaning multiple components at the same time.
First, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that: the spacers allow multiple holders to be mounted together to a single rotor, such that multiple holders (and the components thereon) can be submerged and rotated at the same time, thereby cleaning multiple components at the same time. Given these benefits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate additional holders (having components thereon), place at least one spacer between at least two holders, and submerge at least two holders in the container.
Second, it’s already known in the prior art to use spacers to mount multiple holders together to a single rotor—wherein the spacers are placed between at least two holders—such that multiple holders (and the components thereon) can be submerged and rotated in a container at the same time (see MEENAKSHISUNDARAM). 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 Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of CONVERSE and DERAMBURE teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “heating or cooling the cleaning agent to facilitate the removal of spare material.”
But these features are already known in the cleaning arts. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM teaches heating or cooling the cleaning agent (see ¶¶ 0152, 0154, 0160, 0162; the wash fluid can also heat or cool the component) to facilitate the removal of spare material (see ¶¶ 0133, 0162, heating can lower the viscosity of the spare material to facilitate removal; see ¶¶ 0133, 0299, cooling can increase the component’s stiffness, i.e., its ability to withstand rotation).
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 CONVERSE and DERAMBURE to incorporate heating or cooling the cleaning agent, with reasonable expectation of removing spare material. First, heating or cooling the cleaning agent—which in turn heats or cools the component—can facilitate the removal of spare material; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate heating or cooling the cleaning agent. Second, it’s already known in the prior art to heat or cool the cleaning agent (see MEENAKSHISUNDARAM). 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of CONVERSE and DERAMBURE (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of LIU et al. (Chinese Publication CN110076128A, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of CONVERSE and DERAMBURE teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “moving the at least one bubble generator during the cleaning.”
But these features are 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 CONVERSE and DERAMBURE to incorporate moving the bubble generator during the cleaning, with reasonable expectation of improving cleaning effect. First, by moving the bubble generator during cleaning, 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 during cleaning. Second, it’s already known in the prior art to move the bubble generator during cleaning (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 CONVERSE and DERAMBURE (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of WOOD (US Patent 3419426).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of CONVERSE and DERAMBURE teaches the method according to 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 CONVERSE 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of CONVERSE and DERAMBURE (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of CHING et al. (US PGPUB 20200205446).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of CONVERSE and DERAMBURE teaches the method according to claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches using bubbles to clean the additively manufactured component.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “monitoring the cleaning process by at least one accelerometer and/or at least one microphone.”
But these features are already known in the cleaning arts. For example, CHING teaches using bubbles to clean objects (see ¶ 0061), wherein the cleaning process can be monitored by a microphone (see ¶ 0081, using hydrophone 21, which is a type of microphone).
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 CONVERSE and DERAMBURE to incorporate monitoring the cleaning process by a hydrophone (which is a type of microphone), with reasonable expectation of cleaning objects. First, the hydrophone allows for the monitoring of bubbles when cleaning objects with bubbles; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate using a hydrophone to monitor the cleaning process. Second, it’s already known in the prior art to use a hydrophone to monitor the cleaning process when cleaning objects with bubbles (see CHING). 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
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