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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the at least one first hose" and “the at least one second hose” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Thus, the claim will read on depending upon claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the removal axis” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Thus, it will read as “a removal axis”.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "such as for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Due to their dependency from claim 1, claims 2, 4, 6-8, and 12 are also rejected under 112 paragraph b.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hukuyama (WO 2018/097164 A1; See English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hukuyama teaches a device for cleaning a press device (abstract and fig 1A), wherein the cleaning device has a movable cleaning head (11) which has, inside a housing (12), being a suction enclosure, at least one brush (17) as well as at least one nozzle (14) for dispensing a fluid and at least one suction device (abstract and page 6, para 4).
The recitation of “a powder press device, in particular a metal powder and/or ceramic powder press device” has not been given significant patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02. Therefore, Hukuyama meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Hukuyama teaches wherein the cleaning device has at least one first hose (191) for supplying the at least one nozzle with fluid, as well as at least one second hose (19) for applying negative pressure to the at least one suction device and for disposing of material that has been sucked off (page 8, para 3).
Regarding claim 4, Hukuyama teaches wherein the cleaning device further has at least one ultrasonic emitter (28) (page 17, para 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Hukuyama teaches wherein the at least one first hose and the at least one second hose are guided in a collecting hose, in a hose package (19) (page 8, para 3).
Regarding claim 7, Hukuyama teaches wherein the ultrasonic emitter (28) is integrated into a brush head and is suitable for exciting the at least one brush (page 17, para 1-2).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hukuyama (WO 2018/097164 A1; See English Machine Translation) and further in view of Motowaki (PG Pub U.S 2019/0151929).
Regarding claim 3, Hukuyama fails to teach at least one compressed air hose for introducing compressed air into the cleaning head, to at least one compressed air nozzle. However, Motowaki also teaches a press cleaning device wherein it is known to have at least one compressed air hose for introducing compressed air into the cleaning head (para 0021) in order to remove particles from the head. 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 Hukuyama such that it includes at least one compressed air hose for introducing compressed air into the cleaning head as taught by Motowaki in order to remove particles from the head.
Claims 6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hukuyama (WO 2018/097164 A1; See English Machine Translation) and further in view of Coscia (U.S Patent 3,801,251).
Regarding claim 6, Hukuyama fails to teach wherein the at least one brush can be set in rotation by means of a rotary drive and a respective drive shaft. However, Coscia also teaches a press cleaning device wherein it is known for the at least one brush to be set in rotation by means of a rotary drive and a respective drive shaft (abstract, claim 1, and col 2 lines 5-35) in order to move the brush in a synchronized manner with the pressing device. 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 Hukuyama such that the at least one brush can be set in rotation by means of a rotary drive and a respective drive shaft as taught by Coscia in order to move the brush in synchronized manner with the pressing device.
Regarding claim 10, Hukuyama teaches the press cleaning device as detailed in claim 1 above. Hukuyama fails to teach a combination of wherein the powder press device having a gripping device with which pressed moulded parts can be removed from a press of the powder press device and the cleaning device is stored, close to the powder press device, in a parking station accessible for the removal axis of the gripping device until a cleaning process. However, Coscia also teaches a combination of a powder press device and cleaning device (abstract) wherein the powder press device has a gripping device with which pressed moulded parts can be removed from a press of the powder press device and the cleaning device is stored close to the powder press device, in a parking station accessible for the removal axis of the gripping device until a cleaning process (col 2 lines 5-30 and claim 1; opening and closing of mould part by gripping device to allow cleaning device to clean mould) in order to effectively and easily clean the moulded part. 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 Hukuyama such that it is a combination of wherein the powder press device having a gripping device with which pressed moulded parts can be removed from a press of the powder press device and the cleaning device is stored, close to the powder press device, in a parking station accessible for the removal axis of the gripping device until a cleaning process as taught by Coscia in order to effectively and easily clean the moulded part.
Regarding claim 11, Hukuyama teaches device of claim 1 and corresponding method including tool parts of the press device are cleaned by means of at least one brush (abstract and page 6, para 4), wherein a fluid, being a cleaning fluid, as a solvent-containing cleaning fluid, that is supplied to the brush (page 7, para 5); and a suction of detached dirt particles and, possibly, of introduced fluid is carried out (abstract and page 6, para 4), but fails to teach a movable cleaning head of the cleaning device is removed, by means of a gripping device of the powder press device, from a parking station close to the powder press device and within reach of the gripping device to initiate a cleaning process, and is introduced into a pressing chamber of the powder press device by means of the gripping device. Coscia also teaches a combination of a powder press device and cleaning device (abstract) wherein a movable cleaning head of the cleaning device is removed, by means of a gripping device of the powder press device, from a parking station close to the powder press device and within reach of the gripping device to initiate a cleaning process, and is introduced into a pressing chamber of the powder press device by means of the gripping device (col 2 lines 5-30 and claim 1; opening and closing of mould part by gripping device to allow cleaning device to clean mould) in order to effectively and easily clean the moulded part. 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 Hukuyama wherein a movable cleaning head of the cleaning device is removed, by means of a gripping device of the powder press device, from a parking station close to the powder press device and within reach of the gripping device to initiate a cleaning process, and is introduced into a pressing chamber of the powder press device by means of the gripping device as suggested by Coscia in order to effectively and easily clean the moulded part.
Regarding claim 12, the present combination of Hukuyama, and Coscia teaches wherein a cleaning process with the aid of fluid is supported by means of ultrasound (para 0052 of Hukuyama).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hukuyama (WO 2018/097164 A1; See English Machine Translation) and further in view of Premananda (PG Pub U.S 2020/0128948).
Regarding claim 8, Hukuyama fails to teach wherein the ultrasonic emitter is supplied with energy by means of an induction coil. However, Premananda also teaches a cleaning device wherein it is known that ultrasonic emitter is supplied with energy by means of an induction coil (para 0052) in order to enhance the cleaning efficiency. 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 Hukuyama such that the ultrasonic emitter is supplied with energy by means of an induction coil as taught by Premananda in order to enhance the cleaning efficiency.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hukuyama (WO 2018/097164 A1; See English Machine Translation) and further in view of Tsuda et al. (PG Pub U.S 2019/0157117).
Regarding claim 9, Hukuyama fails to teach wherein respective cleaning units, being brushes and nozzles are controllable individually that is pivotable. However, Tsuda teaches a cleaning system wherein it is known for a controller to individually move/pivot cleaning units of the brush and nozzle (para 0018) in order to increase cleaning coverage. 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 Hukuyama such that respective cleaning units, the brush and nozzles are controllable individually to move/pivot by a controller in order to increase cleaning coverage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADHUMAN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm 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 on 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.
/P.P/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights