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 1-7 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.
AS to all claims.
The claims are indefinite because it is not clear what shape of holes is referenced as “bottom-shaped holes” in claims 1 and 7.
The claims could not be understood in view of the specification.
The used term does not appear to be the term of the art.
The specification does not provide any definition or description of what is referenced by the used term. The specification merely states:
“[0017] In the metal lamination-printed article 20 of the present embodiment, a plurality of bottom-shaped holes 21 are formed. The holes 21 are formed to be recessed from a surface of the metal lamination-printed article 20.”
No explanation or definition is provided by the specification regarding the used term.
The claims could not be understood in view of the drawings because the drawings fail to illustrate the shape of the “bottom-shaped holes”.
Further the claims are indefinite because it appears that some text is missing in the wherein clauses of claims 1 and 7:
“wherein a plurality of bottom-shaped holes are formed in the metal lamination-printed article” between “holes” and “are”.
As to claims 1-6:
The claims are further indefinite because it is not clear from claim 1 whether or not the recited mixed solvent is a part of the claimed device.
The claims are further indefinite because it is not clear from claim 1 whether or not the recited the metal lamination-printed article is a part of the claimed device.
The claims are further indefinite because the term “the other organic solvent” in claim 1 lacks proper antecedent basis.
The claims are further indefinite because it is not clear from claim 1 what structure is required by the recitation of the intended functioning of the device/article recited by the “wherein” clause.
Claim 3 is further indefinite because it is not clear what structure is recited by the recitation of the intended functioning of the “ultrasonic wave transmitting unit” recited by the “wherein” clause.
Claim 4 is further indefinite because it is not clear what structure is recited by the recitation of the intended functioning of the “ultrasonic wave transmitting unit” recited by the “wherein” clause.
Claim 5 is further indefinite because it is not clear what structure is required by the recited functioning of the vibrating unit.
Claim 6 is further indefinite because it is not clear what structure is required by the recited functioning of the pressure reducing unit.
Claim 7 is further indefinite because the term “the other organic solvent” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (WO 2021/193339, US 2023/0036748, citation by the US documents).
As to claim 7:
Miyazaki et al teach a method for cleaning a metal lamination article.
The method comprises immersing the metal laminated printed article in an organic solvent in a container (at least [0223-233]).
Miyazaki et al also teach application of the ultrasonics to the immersed article (at least [0236]).
Miyazaki et al teach the use of the mixture of the different organic solvents (at least [0102]). Miyazaki et al teaches the use of different solvents (at least [0087-103]).
Miyazaki et al also teach that the article is formed by laser sintering (at least [0210], [0215]).
Miyazaki et al also teach the use of metal powder material (at least [0154-157], [0160]).
As to claims 1 and 2:
Miyazaki et al teach immersing in the container with the organic solvents (at least [0223-233]), teach the use of different solvents (at least [0087-103]) and application of the ultrasonics (at least [0236]).
Since, Miyazaki et al teach application of ultrasonics, the presence of the ultrasonic wave transmitting unit is inherent in the apparatus used by Miyazaki et al.
As to all claims:
The limitation requiring “a first organic solvent having higher vapor pressure than vapor pressure of other organic solvents and a second organic solvent having higher acoustic impedance than acoustic impedance of the other organic solvent” is inherently met by a mixture of the multiple organic solvents recited by Miyazaki et al.
Since Miyazaki et al teach the use of multiple solvents (at least [0102]), it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use a mixture of solvents recited by Miyazaki et al at [0087-103] with any number recited solvents.
AS to the limitation of “wherein a plurality of bottom-shaped holes are formed in the metal lamination-printed article”:
This limitation could not be properly understood.
Since, Miyazaki et al teach the article, which include complicated surface indentations or flow channels (at least [0225]), it is reasonably believed that the referenced limitation is either met by or obvious over the disclosure of Miyazaki et al.
AS to claim 2:
The limitation requiring “a third organic solvent having lower viscosity than viscosity of the other organic solvent” is obviously met by a mixture of the multiple organic solvents recited by Miyazaki et al.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (WO 2021/193339, US 2023/0036748, citation by the US documents) in view of JP 2019-145672.
Miyazaki et al do not specifically teach the details of the apparatus.
Miyazaki et al fails to specifically recite the ultrasonic wave transmitting unit that transmits plurality of waves having different frequencies.
However, the apparatuses with such units were known in the art as evidenced by JP 2019-145672. See at least Figures 1-2 and Description at [0010-15].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use an ultrasonic wave transmitting unit of JP 2019-145672 in the apparatus of Miyazaki et al in order to use the known device for its known purpose.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (WO 2021/193339, US 2023/0036748, citation by the US documents) in view of JP 2022-025524.
Miyazaki et al do not specifically teach the details of the apparatus.
Miyazaki et al fails to specifically recite the ultrasonic wave transmitting unit that changes the frequencies at a predetermined cycle.
However, the apparatuses with such transmitting units were known in the art as evidenced by JP 2022-025524. See at least Figure 6 and [0031].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use an ultrasonic wave transmitting unit of JP 2022-025524 in the apparatus of Miyazaki et al in order to use the known device for its known purpose.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (WO 2021/193339, US 2023/0036748, citation by the US documents) in view of JP 08-267029.
Miyazaki et al do not specifically teach the details of the apparatus.
Miyazaki et al fails to specifically recite the vibrating unit that vibrates the article in an up-down direction.
However, the apparatuses with such vibration units were known in the art as evidenced by JP 08-267029. See at least Figures 1-3 and the related description.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use a vibration unit of JP 08-267029 in the apparatus of Miyazaki et al in order to use the known device for its known purpose.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (WO 2021/193339, US 2023/0036748, citation by the US documents) in view of JP 07-185484.
Miyazaki et al do not specifically teach the details of the apparatus.
Miyazaki et al fails to specifically recite the pressure reducing unit.
However, the apparatuses with such pressure units were known in the art as evidenced by JP 07-185484. See at least Figure 2 and the related description.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use a pressure reducing unit of JP 07-185484 in the apparatus of Miyazaki et al in order to use the known device for its known purpose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to devices and methods for cleaning articles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711