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 .
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 1-13 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 1 is construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the same time” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Since claims 2-13 depend upon on an indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite based on dependency. Claim 2 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the power supply system” lacks a positive antecedent basis.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cordes (US 3,703,456). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Cordes, as teaching:
a dry cleaning apparatus (see title and abstract) comprising:
a cleaning chamber 10;
at least two dry cleaning modules 21 stacked in the cleaning chamber and configured to separately dry clean at least two substrates at the same time (column 6 lines 50-71,especially line 50) ; and
a power supply that supplies power individually to the at least two dry cleaning modules to generate a plasma for dry cleaning each of the at least two substrates (column 3 lines 23-40, especially line 31). Cordes also discloses the claim 12 feature wherein the cleaning chamber comprises: a substrate entrance for passing the at least two substrates into and out of the cleaning chamber; a gas port that provides an inert gas to the at least two dry cleaning modules; and an exhaust port that exhaust byproducts from the cleaning chamber (figure 1), and the claim 13 feature of a lifter 22 configured to elevate the at least two dry cleaning modules to position one of the at least two dry cleaning modules at the substrate entrance.
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.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordes. Cordes discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the recited two modules. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite plural modules since the teachings of Cordes would perform the invention as claimed, regardless of the number of modules and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of that feature as being necessary for patentability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 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.
Claims 14-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references cited with this application may teach one or more claim features, but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting such that a rejection would not be reasonable or proper under current Office practice and procedure. References A, B, C, N, cited with this application, are patent publications from the same inventive entity. References D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, cited with this application, teach drying apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
Wednesday, September 23, 2026
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights