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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/14/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 contains characters that are not in English. 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 § 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 1-3 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta (US 6,410,883), and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0009781).
Regarding Claim 1: Furuta teaches a sealing tool cleaning device for cleaning a pair of sealing tools, comprising:
a laser generation part (Fig. 1, element 3) configured for generating a carbon dioxide laser (Fig. 5);
a cleaning head part (element 2) configured to enter a separation space between the pair of sealing tools (elements 1 and 1’), and including a head case (element 2), and a head mirror part (element 7) rotatably installed within the head case (pg. 4, ll. 43-47) and configured to reflect the carbon dioxide laser toward the pair of sealing tools; and
a laser transmission part (element 1) configured to transmit the carbon dioxide laser generated by the laser generation part to the cleaning head part.
Furuta does not expressly disclose the case having first and second openings opened toward the pair of sealing tools, respectively. However, Lee teaches a laser cleaning device comprising a head case having first and second openings (elements 261, 262) for transmitting irradiation from the laser to the surface to be cleaned [0037]. 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 device of Furuta with openings toward the pair of sealing tools in order to allow transmission of the laser beam to the surface to be cleaned, as suggested by Lee.
Though Furuta does not expressly disclose the sealing tool is for sealing a pouch case, this limitation is considered intended use of the device as it does not limit the structure of the device (see MPEP 2111.02 (i) and (II)).
Regarding Claim 2: Furuta and Lee teach the elements of claim 1 as discussed above. Furuta further teaches that the cleaning head part is connected to the laser transmission part (see Fig. 1). Furuta does not expressly disclose a lens for transmitting the laser from the laser transmission to the head mirror part, and a lens position adjusting part to adjust the position of the lens. However, Furuta further teaches the device may comprise other optical devices such as lenses (col. 5, ll. 55-64). Lee further teaches a high-speed Galvano laser scanner with a focusing lens, to focus the scanned laser beam onto the surface [0024] and a transfer unit to adjust the position of the irradiation location [0022]. 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 device of Furuta with a lens and adjusting part in order to position the cleaning where desired, as suggested by Lee.
Regarding Claim 3: Furuta and Lee teach the elements of Claim 2 as discussed above. Lee further teaches the first and second openings facing the sealing tools but does not expressly disclose extending along the longitudinal direction of the facing sealing tools. However, such design choice would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in order to allow irradiation across the surface of the facing sealing tools.
Lee further teaches the lens adjusting part is configured to move the lens along a longitudinal direction of the sealing tools [0006].
Regarding Claims 7 and 8: Furuta and Lee teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Furuta does not expressly disclose a head position adjusting part but teaches that the cleaning head is inserted into the separation space (col. 4, ll. 48-52). Lee teaches a head adjusting part (element 421) for inserting the cleaning device into the space. Lee teaches a controller (element 102) 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 device of Furuta with the head position adjusting part and controller to insert the cleaning head into the space for cleaning in a cleaning mode, as taught by Lee.
Regarding Claims 9-12: Furuta and Lee teach the elements of Claim 8 as discussed above. Furuta further teaches when the head case is positioned in the separation space, adjusting the reflection direction of the head mirror part to reflect the laser to the first opening or second opening for cleaning an upper and lower sealing tools (col. 5, ll. 33-41), respectively. Lee is cited for teaching moving the lens along the longitudinal direction of the upper sealing tool within the head case for cleaning the upper sealing tool and along the longitudinal direction of the lower sealing tool for cleaning the lower sealing tool [0022]. Lee is also cited for teaching a controller (element 102) to control the system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Furuta by providing a controller to move the lens and position the head case as claimed in order to reach the surfaces in need of cleaning.
Regarding Claim 13: Furuta and Lee teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Furuta teaches the head mirror part comprises a head mirror (element 7) and a head mirror driving part rotating the head mirror at a predetermined angle to adjust the reflection of the head mirror (col. 4, ll. 39-47).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta (US 6,410,883) and Lee et al. (US 2023/0009781) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Jin et al. (CN 112643941, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claims 4-6: Furuta and Lee teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above, but do not expressly disclose the transmission pipe part as claimed. However, Jin teaches a laser cleaning device having a laser transmission part comprising a transmission pipe part through which the laser is transmitted, and one or more transmission mirror parts for adjusting the transmission direction of the carbon dioxide laser within the transmission pipe part, wherein the transmission pipe part comprises a plurality of transmission pipes disposed sequentially along a traveling direction of the laser; and at least one connection pipe part connecting two adjacent ones of the plurality of transmission pipes, and having the transmission mirror part disposed therein (see Fig. 4, pg. 6, third full paragraph). Jin teaches that this configuration allows cleaning in various directions. 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 device of Furuta and Lee with the transmission part in order to allow cleaning in various directions, as suggested by Jin.
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
