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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in KR on 2024-02-27. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2024-0028248 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1/20/2026.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites that the particle collection platform has a circular plate shape. However, the claim depends on claim 1 which previously recites that the platform has a rectangular prism shape. Therefore, the additional recitation does not further limit the claim limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 6 and 7 recite the limitation "the coil". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claims introduce the limitation as “at least one coil”. For purposes of examination, the limitations will be read as “the at least one coil”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 2, 7, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0281347) and further in view of Vago (US 5,178,134) and Decain et al. (US 5,974,868).
Regarding Claim 1: Park teaches a brush processing apparatus comprising:
a platform (Fig. 3, element 30, 31) having a rectangular prism shape;
a spray nozzle (element 51) configured to spray fluid to clean a brush; and
a sensor (element 60a) configured to analyze particles within the apparatus.
Park teaches that the platform is a vibration device. Park does not expressly disclose at least one coil inside the platform and configured to generate a magnetic field. However, Vago teaches a vibration plate assembly (Fig. 7, element 110) comprising at least one coil (elements 132, 134 ) configured to generate a magnetic field for a cleaning method. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Park with at least one coil within the platform in order to provide the magnetic field for the vibration, as taught by Vago.
Park does not expressly disclose the platform is used as a particle collection platform. However, this limitation is interpreted as the intended use of the platform. It is noted that the platform is disposed underneath a brush during cleaning of the brush; therefore, it is fully capable of collecting particles from the cleaning.
Park teaches that the sensor measures residual debris after cleaning [0112], but does not expressly disclose the sensor is configured to measure debris on the platform. However, Decain teaches a monitor for brush cleaners wherein a sensor is configured to analyze particles collected on a platform in order to determine the contamination of the brush in real time (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Park with a sensor configured to analyze collected particles on the platform to determine the degree of contamination of the brush in real time, as suggested by Decain.
Regarding Claim 2: The cited prior art teaches the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Vago further teaches wherein the at least one coil include a plurality of coils (elements 132, 134).
Regarding Claim 7: Park, Vago, and Decain teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Park further teaches a controller to supply power to the vibration device [0107].
Regarding Claim 9: The cited prior art teaches the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Park further teaches that the sensor includes a light measurement sensor [0112].
Regarding Claim 11: The cited prior art teaches the elements of Claim 12 as discussed above. Although Park does not expressly disclose the platform includes aluminum, Park does disclose it as metal. Aluminum is a common metal known for its versality and machinability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus with an aluminum platform as claimed.
Regarding Claim 12: Park teaches a brush processing apparatus comprising:
a platform (Fig. 3, element 30, 31) having a rectangular prism shape or a plate shape;
a spray nozzle (element 51) configured to spray fluid toward the platform; and
a sensor (element 60a) configured to analyze particles within the apparatus.
Park teaches that the platform is a vibration device. Park does not expressly disclose a plurality of coils inside the platform and configured to generate a magnetic field. However, Vago teaches a vibration plate assembly (Fig. 7, element 110) comprising a plurality of coils (elements 132, 134 ) configured to generate a magnetic field for a cleaning method. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Park with coils within the platform in order to provide the magnetic field for the vibration, as taught by Vago.
Park does not expressly disclose the platform is used as a particle collection platform. However, this limitation is interpreted as the intended use of the platform. It is noted that the platform is disposed underneath a brush during cleaning of the brush; therefore, it is fully capable of collecting particles from the cleaning.
Park teaches that the sensor measures residual debris after cleaning [0112], but does not expressly disclose the sensor is configured to measure debris on the platform. However, Decain teaches a monitor for brush cleaners wherein a sensor is configured to analyze particles collected on a platform in order to determine the contamination of the brush in real time (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Park with a sensor configured to analyze collected particles on the platform to determine the degree of contamination of the brush in real time, as suggested by Decain.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0281347), Vago (US 5,178,134) and Decain et al. (US 5,974,868), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei et al. (US 10,170,343).
Regarding Claim 8: The cited prior art teaches the elements of Claim 1, as discussed above. Park further teaches that the nozzle (element 51) is spaced upward from the platform (element 30), but does not expressly disclose a nozzle driving unit configured to move the spray nozzle. However, Wei teaches a brush cleaner comprising a nozzle driving unit to move the spray nozzle during cleaning to increase the spray coverage (col. 3, ll. 50-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Park by providing a drive unit to move the spray nozzle in order to increase the spray area, as suggested by Wei.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 10, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 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: the reviewed prior art does not anticipate or fairly suggest the features set forth in the aforementioned claims. The closest prior art of record is that of Park, as discussed above. Park does not teach or fairly suggest the recessed space in the platform, as required by claims 3-5 and 13. Park does not teach or fairly suggest the plurality of coils increasing toward a center of the platform, as required by claim 6. Park does not teach the light source being inside the platform, as re quired by claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714