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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on May 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 May 29, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1-4, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0039101 to Bourdat.
As to claim 1, Bourdat discloses a system capable of removing a polymeric coating from a substrate, comprising: a wet processing tank configured to contain a chemical in liquid form, wherein the wet processing tank is capable of receiving at least one substrate having a surface with a polymeric coating such that at least a portion of the polymeric coating can be immersed in the chemical (see Bourdat Fig. 1, ref.#2; paragraphs [0040]-[0041]); and a plurality of nozzles positioned in the tank and configured to be immersed in the chemical, wherein each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles is configured to direct a fluid stream of the chemical on the surface and capable of removing at least a portion of the polymeric coating from the surface (see Bourdat Fig. 1, ref.#1001, 1003, 10; paragraphs [0063]-[0065]).
As to claim 2, Bourdat discloses that the plurality of nozzles comprise multiple pairs of nozzles spaced apart from each other, and wherein a fluid outlet of each nozzle of a pair of nozzles of the multiple pairs of nozzles face each other (see Bourdat Fig. 1, ref.#1001, 1003 and 10 where the pairs of nozzles of the multiple pairs of nozzles face each other).
As to claim 3, Bourdat discloses that the at least one substrate is configured to be received in a gap between the fluid outlets of the pairs of nozzles (see Bourdat Fig. 1 where substrate 6 is received in the gap between the fluid outlets of the pairs of nozzles 10).
As to claim 4, Bourdat discloses that the gap between the fluid outlets of the pair of nozzles is configured to be changed (see Bourdat paragraph [0025] and claim 13).
As to claim 7, Bourdat discloses that the nozzles can deliver a pressurized fluid and thus are considered as being configured to prevent ingress of the chemical contained in the wet processing tank into the nozzle (see Bourdat paragraphs [0059]-[0063]).
As to claim 10, Bourdat discloses that the plurality of nozzles are positioned in the tank such that the fluid stream that is configured to emanate from ach nozzle impinges on the surface at a substantially perpendicular angle (see Bourdat paragraph [0062]).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0039101 to Bourdat as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP1239512A2 to Weber et al. (see machine translation).
Bourdat is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 5, Bourdat discloses that each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles can direct a two-phase liquid/gas of the chemical on the surface (see Bourdat paragraph [0058]). To the extent that it could be argued that the two-phase liquid is not an aerosol, Weber discloses that it is known in the art to spray an aerosol to help clean a substrate (see Weber paragraph [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to spray an aerosol and the results would have been predictable.
As to claim 6, Bourdat discloses that each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles can direct both a gas and liquid stream of the chemical on the surface (see Bourdat paragraph [0058]). To the extent that it could be argued that the nozzles are not configured to direct a liquid stream, Weber discloses that it is known in the art to spray a liquid to clean a substrate (see Weber paragraph [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to spray a liquid and the results would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0039101 to Bourdat as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR2020-0046562A to Tak (see machine translation) and KR2024-0103420A to Han et al. (see machine translation).
Bourdat is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 8 and 9, Bourdat does not explicitly disclose that the spacing between two adjacent nozzles of the plurality of nozzles is configured to be changed and the spacing between the two adjacent nozzles of the plurality of nozzles is configured to be changed without changing the spacing between other adjacent nozzles of the plurality of nozzles. Han discloses that it is known in the art to have a nozzle assembly that includes nozzle position adjustment means for individually adjusting the position of each nozzle of a plurality of nozzles (see Han paragraph [0052], [0055], [0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include individual nozzle adjustment means as disclosed by Tak in order to better control the cleaning of the system (see also Tak paragraph [0052] where nozzle spacing adjustments are a known results effective parameter).
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0039101 to Bourdat as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0329219 to Lee et al.
Bourdat is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 11-14, Bourdat does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of nozzles are positioned in the tank such that the fluid stream that is configured to emanate from each nozzle impinges on the surface at a non-perpendicular angle, that the plurality of nozzles are positioned in the tank such that the fluid stream that is configured to emanate from a first nozzle of the plurality of nozzles impinges on the surface at a first angle and the fluid stream that is configured to emanate from a second nozzle of the plurality of nozzles impinges on the surface at a second angle different from the first angle, that the angle of inclination of each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles with the surface is configured to be changed simultaneously, and an angle of inclination of a first nozzle of the plurality of nozzles with the surface is configured to be changed without changing the angle of inclination of a second nozzle of the plurality of nozzles with the surface. Lee discloses a similar system wherein the nozzle bars are individually rotatable and can be positioned to impinge on the surface at different angles including at a non-perpendicular angle and can be changed simultaneously (see Lee Fig. 4 disclosing rotatable nozzle bars 210a and 210b with nozzles 212a and 212b and rotating mechanism 202a and 202b; paragraph [0121]-[0122]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bourdat to include rotatable nozzle bars as disclosed by Lee in order to be able to optimize the cleaning process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
