DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Hutchinson discloses nozzles configured to generate an atomized or semi-atomized fluid spray, and does not disclose nozzles configured to spray fluid in a continuous flow and change the continuous flow into droplets. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized as obvious that a nozzle generating an atomized or semi-atomized fluid spray necessarily and inherently changes a continuous flow of sprayed liquid into droplets – a continuous flow of liquid passes through a nozzle and is changed to droplets, in particular atomized droplets, as the continuous flow of liquid is sprayed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190202126 by Hutchinson et al.
As to claim 1, Hutchinson discloses a cleaning apparatus comprising nozzles 25 to spray liquid in a continuous flow and change the flow into droplets (fig. 1, para. 67) and a pump 33 to supply the liquid to the nozzle wherein the cleaning apparatus is configured to remove a support material from a 3D molded object in a cleaning target by causing the liquid to collide with the target in a droplet form (para. 40).
As to claim 2, Hutchinson discloses a spray pressure adjustment section configured to adjust a spray pressure of the liquid in accordance with a type of support material (para. 41).
As to claim 3, Hutchison discloses a memory section to store a correspondence relationship between the type of the support material and the spray pressure of the liquid (paras. 41, 78, 79).
As to claim 5, Hutchinson discloses a heater 96 to heat the liquid (fig. 1).
As to claim 6, Hutchinson discloses a temperature controller to control the heater in accordance with a type of the support material (para. 41).
As to claim 7, Hutchinson discloses a main body to which the nozzle 25 is connected and which includes a flow path through which the liquid flows (fig. 1).
As to claim 8, Hutchinson discloses a holder capable of holding an apparatus different from the nozzle for removing the support material (any of the structures within the cleaning apparatus, such as track 42, can hold an apparatus different from the nozzle, fig. 1).
As to claim 9, Hutchinson discloses a housing inside which the nozzle is used (fig. 1).
As to claim 10, Hutchinson discloses that the housing includes a reservoir 31 that accumulates the liquid that was sprayed from the nozzle (fig. 1).
As to claim 11, Hutchinson discloses a circulation mechanism (e.g. pipe 50) for spraying the liquid accumulated in the reservoir from the nozzle again (fig. 1).
As to claim 12, Hutchinson discloses that the housing includes a temperature adjustment section configured to adjust a temperature in the housing (para. 70).
As to claim 13, Hutchinson discloses a cleaning apparatus comprising nozzles 25 to spray liquid in a continuous flow and change the flow into droplets (fig. 1, para. 67) and a pump 33 to supply the liquid to the nozzle wherein the cleaning apparatus is configured to remove an adhering substance from a cleaning target by causing the liquid to collide with the target in a droplet form (para. 40).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190202126 by Hutchinson et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220371060 by Brown.
As to claim 4, Hutchinson teaches that its nozzles may have different diameters to result in different fluid velocities (para. 47), that varying sizes of nozzles allows for variations in levels of agitation (para. 53), and that nozzle diameters may be selected to achieve different support material goals (para. 56), but does not teach that any particular nozzle is configured to change its diameter. However, it was recognized that cleaning nozzles may be configured such that their diameter may be changed so that a user may increase or decrease liquid ejection pressure from particular nozzles (see Brown, para. 19). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the apparatus taught by Hutchinson so that its nozzles are configured to change their respective diameters so that a user may provide individual adjustment as needed, as suggested by Brown, in order to allow for varying the sizes of the nozzles without changing the nozzles themselves and to allow for customization of liquid spray parameters to accomplish the purposes set forth by Hutchinson. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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, 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711