The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a plurality of through holes” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It is important to point out that the identified “through holes” are not through holes per the common knowledge definition. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section for additional details.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, and therefore dependent Claims 2-12, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of through holes”. The common knowledge definition of a “through hole” is “a hole that penetrates entirely through a workpiece, creating a channel from one side to the other. It is open at both ends, unlike a blind hole, which has a closed bottom and does not go all the way through. Through holes are commonly used for bolts, screws, pins, or as conduits for fluids and wires. On engineering drawings, through holes are often indicated with the notation “THRU” along with the hole diameter and tolerance.” The Applicant does not disclose a “through hole” in his figures. Instead, he identifies in Figures 1a and 1b, what would be considered by one with ordinary skill to be, grooves or slots with closed bottoms which do not go all the way through the roller body. Therefore, the scope of the claim which includes “a plurality of through holes” is indefinite since a plurality of through holes is not present in the Applicant’s device. The Applicant does not provide a unique definition in the specification of a “through hole” that positively defines a unique interpretation of the claim language. For the purpose of examination, and consistent with the common knowledge definition, the Examiner will interpret a plurality of through holes as a plurality of open pores exposed on Kawaguchi et al. top outer surface 5a that fluidically extend radially inward through a cellular channel through the roller body and into the inner diameter passageway of the roller. Therefore, the Examiner cited “though holes”, generally have a depth equal to the depth of the pore which continues radially inward though fluidic cellular channels in the foam roller.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okubo et al. US 2023/0276931 (hereafter Okubo et al.) in view of Kawaguchi et al. US 2011/0265279 (hereafter Kawaguchi et al.).
The cited references are from the same assignee and are both cleaning sponge rollers with similar cleaning structure as shown in the figures. Reference Okubo et al. improves upon the Kawaguchi et al. device by adding a sintered core inside the roller body. Therefore, the sponge roller of Kawaguchi et al. is modified to be an assembly of a roller body and a sintered core as taught by Okubo et al. The Okubo et al. disclosure focuses on details of the sintered core and unfortunately does not provide significant details for the roller body structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rely upon the Kawaguchi et al. reference to provide those missing details for the roller body structure. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the roller body details from Kawaguchi et al. with the Okubo et al. details with the motivation to fully define the existing Okubo et al. device. The following rejections are based on the Okubo et al. device modified to include the roller body structure as detailed by Kawaguchi et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Okubo et al. teaches:
1. A brush roller structure (sponge roller 1) comprising:
a foam body (Okubo et al. - porous sintered core 2 and sponge body 3) comprising a plurality of flow channels (Okubo et al. - continuous pores of sintered core 2 – Paragraph [0050] – “The cleaning liquid is introduced into the inner diameter portion of the core 2 from the cleaning liquid supply channel, supplied from the inner diameter portion through the continuous pores of the sintered compact to the inner circumferential surface of the sponge body 3, and flows out onto the outer surface of the sponge body 3 through the continuous pores of the sponge body 3.”) formed by a plurality of pores (Okubo et al. - pores of sintered core 2) interlaced with each other, and the pores have an average pore diameter ranging from 300 μm to 500 μm (Okubo et al. - sintered core 2 has an average pore diameter of 5 μm to 800 μm, Claim 4);
a central channel (Okubo et al. - inner diameter portion inside the core 2) disposed in the foam body and fluidly-communicable with the flow channels (Okubo et al. - Paragraph [0050] – “The cleaning liquid is introduced into the inner diameter portion of the core 2 from the cleaning liquid supply channel, supplied from the inner diameter portion through the continuous pores of the sintered compact to the inner circumferential surface of the sponge body 3, and flows out onto the outer surface of the sponge body 3 through the continuous pores of the sponge body 3.”);
a microporous area (Kawaguchi et al. – arbitrarily selected area of outer skin layer 4, Paragraph [0051]) disposed on a surface layer of the foam body, wherein the microporous area has a plurality of micropores (Kawaguchi et al. – pores inside outer skin layer 4, Paragraph [0051]), and the micropores have an average pore diameter smaller than the average pore diameter of the pores of the foam body (Kawaguchi et al. - The outer skin layer 4 has a lower porosity and smaller average air hole diameter than in the internal structure of the sponge roller 1); and
a plurality of through holes (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) discussion)(Kawaguchi et al. – outer skin layer 4 is cut through to expose a circular surface top outer surface 5a as shown in Figure 3. This top outer surface creates a plurality of holes (pores) that are fluidically connected through the roller body 3 and sintered core 2 in the combined device, Okubo et al. - Paragraph [0050]) disposed on an outer surface (Kawaguchi et al. – outer skin layer 4) of the foam body (Kawaguchi et al. – Figure 3),
wherein the through holes have a depth ranging from 50 μm to 300 μm (Kawaguchi et al. – depth consistent with the exposed pore diameters of 50 μm to 200 μm, Paragraph [0057], that create a fluid passage through the porous sintered core 2 and sponge body 3 of the combined device), and a total area of the through holes occupies 10% to 90% of the outer surface of the foam body (Kawaguchi et al. – a porosity of the internal structure of 80% or greater and 95% or less).
Regarding Claim 2, Okubo et al. teaches:
2. The brush roller structure of claim 1, wherein the micropores (Kawaguchi et al. – pores inside outer skin layer 4, Paragraph [0051]) in the microporous area (Kawaguchi et al. – arbitrarily selected area of outer skin layer 4, Paragraph [0051]) have an average pore diameter ranging from 1 μm to 100 μm (see discussion below).
Kawaguchi et al. discloses an average air hole diameter of 50 μm or greater and 200 μm or less, Paragraph [0057]. However, in Paragraph [0051], Kawaguchi et al. discloses the outer skin layer 4 has a lower porosity and smaller average air hole diameter than in the internal structure of the sponge roller 1. Although neither reference discloses the exact values for a range for the average pore diameters that, as disclosed, are smaller than 50-200 μm, however, as long as the “smaller” ranges between 1/2 and 1/50 of the original size, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the average pore diameter of the micropores fall between 1 μm to 100 μm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 3, Okubo et al. teaches:
3. The brush roller structure of claim 1, wherein the microporous area (Kawaguchi et al. – arbitrarily selected area of outer skin layer 4, Paragraph [0051]) has a thickness ranging from 30 μm to 200 μm (see discussion below).
The boundary of the microporous area is not delineated by claimed structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arbitrarily define a thickness to arbitrary between 30 μm and 200 μm as well.
As shown in Kawaguchi et al. Figure 3, the thickness of outer skin layer 4 is roughly ½ of the dimension “h” which is defined as being preferably 0.2mm (200 μm). Therefore, it appears, based on Figure 3, that a reasonably expected thickness would be about 100 μm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a thickness ranging from 30 μm to 200 μm would be reasonably expected based on the Kawaguchi et al. disclosure, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 4, Okubo et al. teaches:
4. The brush roller structure of claim 1, wherein the depth (Kawaguchi et al. – depth consistent with the exposed pore diameters of 50 μm to 200 μm, Paragraph [0057]) of the through holes (Kawaguchi et al. – outer skin layer 4 is cut through to expose a circular surface top outer surface 5a as shown in Figure 3. This top outer surface creates a plurality of holes (pores) that are fluidically connected through the roller body 3 and sintered core 2 in the combined device) is greater than a thickness (see discussion below) of the microporous area (Kawaguchi et al. – arbitrarily selected area of outer skin layer 4, Paragraph [0051]).
The boundary of the microporous area is not delineated by claimed structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arbitrarily define a thickness to arbitrary between 30 μm and 200 μm as well.
Kawaguchi et al. discloses exposed pore diameters of 50 μm to 200 μm in the top outer surface 5a. As shown in Kawaguchi et al. Figure 3, the thickness of outer skin layer 4 is roughly ½ of the dimension “h” which is defined as being preferably 0.2mm (200 μm). Therefore, it appears, based on Figure 3, that a reasonably expected thickness would be about 100 μm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the 50 μm to 200 μm depth of the pores teaches scenarios were the depth is larger than the thickness of the outer skin layer 4 based on Kawaguchi et al. Figure 3, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 5, Okubo et al. teaches:
5. The brush roller structure of claim 1, wherein the through holes (Kawaguchi et al. – outer skin layer 4 is cut through to expose a circular surface top outer surface 5a as shown in Figure 3. This top outer surface creates a plurality of holes (pores) that are fluidically connected through the roller body 3 and sintered core 2 in the combined device, Okubo et al. - Paragraph [0050]) are continuous or discontinuous circles (Kawaguchi et al. – circles as shown in Figure 4), ovals, strips or combinations thereof, or areas formed by combinations thereof, and the through holes are evenly distributed on the outer surface of the foam body (Kawaguchi et al. – shown in Figure 2) or gathered into areas on the outer surface of the foam body.
Regarding Claim 6, Okubo et al. teaches:
6. The brush roller structure of claim 1, wherein the total area of the through holes (Kawaguchi et al. – outer skin layer 4 is cut through to expose a circular surface top outer surface 5a as shown in Figure 3. This top outer surface creates a plurality of holes (pores) that are fluidically connected through the roller body 3 and sintered core 2 in the combined device, Okubo et al. - Paragraph [0050]) occupies 20% to 70% (see discussion below) of the outer surface of the foam body (Okubo et al. - porous sintered core 2 and sponge body 3).
Kawaguchi et al. discloses in Paragraph [0045] that the open area ratio of the surface of the outer skin layer 4 is lower than that of the top outer surface 5a of the protrusion 5, for example 20% or less. In other words, for the disclosed 20%, the surface area of the outer skin layer 4 is 40% and the surface area of the top outer surface 5a is 60%. Therefore, Kawaguchi et al. discloses an example where the top outer surface 5a, representing through hole fluid paths to the center of the roller, occupies 60% of the outer surface of the foam body as shown in Figure 2.
Regarding Claim 7, Okubo et al. teaches:
7. The brush roller structure of claim 1, wherein the foam body (Okubo et al. - porous sintered core 2 and sponge body 3) has a porosity ranging from 70% to 95% (Kawaguchi et al. – porosity 80%-95%, Paragraph [0057]).
Regarding Claim 8, Okubo et al. teaches:
8. The brush roller structure of claim 1, wherein the central channel (Okubo et al. - inner diameter portion inside the core 2) has a width ranging from 9 mm to 30 mm (Okubo et al. – 18mm, example disclosed in Paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claim 9, Okubo et al. teaches:
9. The brush roller structure of claim 1, wherein the outer surface (Kawaguchi et al. – outer skin layer 4) of the foam body (Okubo et al. - porous sintered core 2 and sponge body 3) further includes at least one bump (Okubo et al. – nodules 5, Figure 1, Kawaguchi et al. – protrusions 5, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Okubo et al. teaches:
10. The brush roller structure of claim 9, wherein the bump (Okubo et al. – nodules 5, Figure 1, Kawaguchi et al. – protrusions 5, Figure 2) has a bottom width ranging from 7 mm to 13 mm and a top width ranging from 6 mm to 11 mm (see discussion below).
Kawaguchi et al. discloses in Figure 3 a top and bottom width being distance D. Kawaguchi et al. does not disclose a dimensional value for distance D. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to scale the size of the combined Okubo et al./Kawaguchi et al. device to result in a distance D to be measured between 7mm and 11mm, where both the top and bottom widths are the same, and fall within the claimed range, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 11, Okubo et al. teaches:
11. The brush roller structure of claim 9, wherein the bump (Okubo et al. – nodules 5, Figure 1, Kawaguchi et al. – protrusions 5, Figure 2) has a height ranging from 4 mm to 6 mm (see discussion below).
Kawaguchi et al. discloses in Figure 3 a height being distance H. Kawaguchi et al. does not disclose a dimensional value for distance H. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to scale the size of the combined Okubo et al./Kawaguchi et al. device to result in a distance H to be measured between 4mm and 6mm, where both the top and bottom widths are the same, and fall within the claimed range, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 12, Okubo et al. teaches:
12. The brush roller structure of claim 1, wherein the foam body (Okubo et al. - porous sintered core 2 and sponge body 3) is made from polyvinyl alcohol cross-linked compound (Okubo et al., Paragraph [0044] - The sponge body 3 formed of the PVAt-based porous material may be obtained by, for example, forming an aqueous solution by mixing one or more types of polyvinyl alcohols (raw materials) having an average degree of polymerization of 500 to 3000 and a degree of saponification of 80% or more; adding aldehydes as a cross-linking agent, mineral acids as a catalyst, starch as a pore-forming agent, and the like to the above aqueous solution, Kawaguchi et al., Paragraph [0048] – The sponge roller 1 made of a PVAt porous material is produced by making an aqueous solution from one type or mixture of polyvinyl alcohol (raw material) having an average degree of polymerization of 500 to 3000 and a saponification degree of 80% or greater).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of cleaning rollers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights