DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 5/27/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-9 were amended. Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III in the reply filed on 5/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/27/2026.
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the cleaning composition". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As for claim 8, the limitation “the cleaning composition according to claim” renders the claim indefinite as no claim is named.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the current thermodynamic equipment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the reagents LR1, LR2, LR3, and/or GR1". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the roll of the clothing". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the word "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the word are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the word "possibly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the word are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the opening". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the base". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the outlet opening". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the final fluid mixture". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the word "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the word are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims dependent on the above rejected claims are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yabe et al. U.S. Publication 2006/0054205 (henceforth referred to as Yabe).
Yabe teaches a continuous hydrodynamic system (Fig. 5), covering: the cleaning composition according to claim; equipment capable of producing formulations containing nanobubbles; hydrodynamic equipment capable of replacing the current thermodynamic equipment, such as a thermal injection pump or a heat exchanger; fluid mixing chamber; and showers with spraying nozzles (paragraphs [0038]-[0063]).
Examiner regards the operation of the claimed continuous hydrodynamic system as intended use of the apparatus’ structure. The continuous hydrodynamic system would be capable of cleaning of clothing used in industrial machines, wherein the continuous hydrodynamic system is used for cleaning felts and screens of the clothing of the industrial cleaning process of machines in the pulp and paper, packaging paper, tissue, tanning, textile, tile production, and similar and related industries; a cleaning process for clothing used in industrial machines. The fluid mixing chamber would be capable of boosting the contact between the liquid and gas phases, thus promoting some homogenization between previously generated nanobubbles (GR2), combined with the reagents LR1, LR2, LR3, and/or GR1. The showers with spraying nozzles would be capable of spraying the reagents onto the roll of the clothing at pressures from 1 to 30 bar depending on the type of industrial operation and process. The continuous hydrodynamic system would be capable of the cleaning process uses the cleaning composition, but with a possibility that oxidizing elements, surfactants, and nanobubbles may be inserted at the same time or at different times of the industrial cleaning process on machines in different segments such as pulp and paper, packaging paper, tissue, and printing/writing, as well as in similar and related industries such as tanning, textile, and tile production, on top of including the following stages: obtaining and preparing the reagents: mixing the reagents (LR and GR) in a hydrodynamic chamber: boosting the contact between liquid and gas phases, thus promoting better homogenization between nanobubbles and the oxidizing species and surfactant solutions: spraying the separate products or the compositions through injection nozzles onto the felt or screen, preferably in the roll direction, with pressure possibly varying from 1 to 30 bar, depending on the type of industrial operation and process (paragraphs [0022]-[0030]). Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. An apparatus claim may be unobvious even if it operates in the same way as the prior art, as long as there are structural differences. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 15 USPQ 2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Yabe et al. U.S. Publication 2006/0054205, the closest prior art, differs from the instant claims in failing to teach the claimed operating conditions. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the continuous hydrodynamic system taught by Yabe as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEVON J SHAHINIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/LEVON J SHAHINIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights