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 with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 07/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the apparatus of Invention I cannot be used for a materially different process such as transferring tools or cleaning glass since, it is alleged, the apparatus is adapted to clean the outer surface of a moving element of a coating installation. This is not found persuasive. The totality of possible uses of an apparatus is not necessarily limited to that contemplated by an applicant. Here, the claimed apparatus comprises a robotic arm comprising a holding organ, such that it appears fully capable of being to, e.g., transfer tools, and further comprises a cleaning device, such that it appears fully capable of being used to, e.g., clean glass.
Applicant further alleges that the apparatus and method inventions are the same technical concepts and do not require materially different searches. Initially, it is noted that “same technical concepts” is not a key factor in US restriction practice. Further, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because the respective subject matter searches of the different inventions are in two different class/subclasses. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the search for method claims requires the identification of processing steps, while the search for apparatus claims requires the identification of structural elements.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the holding organ (ref. 32) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following:
The specification refers to holding organ (ref. 32), at page 1, lines 32-33, page 5, lines 12-13, page 9, line 23, and page 10, line 22, which is not shown in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: cleaning device in claim 1; and analyzing unit in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on a review of the specification, a cleaning device is interpreted to include a cleaning pad, or equivalents thereof; and an analyzing unit is interpreted to include a component of the command unit.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer surface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “the cleaning device is provided with an interface unit” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because the recited interface unit is not positively claimed and it is not clear whether or not it is a required structural feature of the claimed system. It appears the intended meaning may be that it is a required structural feature, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the area characteristics" in line 4 and “the area to be cleaned” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the localization" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / § 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 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.
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, 4, 5, 7-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2020022886 to Flexoclean Services BV (“Flexoclean”).
Regarding claim 1, Flexoclean teaches a cleaning system (abstract, Fig. 1, note ref. 1, page 1, line 4, page 12, line 5 – page 13, line 12, page 17, line 3 – page 19, line 28) adapted to be useful to clean the outer surface of a moving element (note ref. 4) of a coating installation (note ref. 2), the coating installation comprising a coating machine (note ref. 2), the cleaning system comprising: a robotic arm (ref. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9?, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) comprising a holding organ (ref. 14); a cleaning device (ref. 3) held on the holding organ, the cleaning device being adapted to clean the outer surface of the moving element (page 1, line 4); and a command unit (processing means, page 12, line 5 – page 13, line 5) adapted to command the robotic arm and the cleaning device to carry out a cleaning task of a part of the outer surface of the moving element, wherein the command unit is further adapted to receive at least one defect property and to trigger a cleaning task in accordance with each received defect property, a defect property being a property of at least one defect of the layer.
Flexoclean does not explicitly teach the cleaning system being operated in a manner wherein the coating machine is adapted to coat and/or print and/or shape a layer on a web. Initially, it is noted that the recited moving element, coating installation and coating machine are not positively claimed and are not interpreted to be required structural features of the claimed cleaning system. However, since the Flexoclean cleaning system includes the claimed structural features, is disclosed as being useful to clean a moving element of a coating installation comprising a coating machine, and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed cleaning system, the Flexoclean cleaning system appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 can be made when the prior art product seems to be identical except that the prior art is silent as to an inherent characteristic. MPEP 2112(III)(A).
Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. MPEP 2112(V).
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 2, Flexoclean discloses an analyzing unit (page 19, lines 21-28, note ref. 23) adapted to receive data coming from a sensor, the data being images of the layer coated and/or printed by the coating machine, and analyze said data to detect at least one defect property of at least one defect of the layer (Flexoclean discloses a cleaning device with an analyzing unit configured for detecting a degree of fouling of a roll (page 12, lines 5-18), and is thus configured for detecting the presence of a defect). It is noted that the recited sensor is not positively claimed and is not interpreted to be a required structural feature of the claimed system.
Regarding claim 4, Flexoclean discloses an analyzing unit wherein at least one defect property detected by the analyzing unit is the presence or lack of a defect (Flexoclean discloses a cleaning device with an analyzing unit configured for detecting a degree of fouling of a roll (page 12, lines 5-18), and is thus configured for detecting the presence of a defect).
Regarding claim 5, the Flexoclean system appears to be fully capable of being operated in a manner recited, i.e. wherein each defect is associated with a degree of defect, and wherein each degree of defect is one of the at least one defect property.
Regarding claim 7, the Flexoclean system appears to be fully capable of being operated in a manner recited, i.e. wherein: each defect of the layer belongs to a respective predefined group of defects, one defect property being the group of defects to which the defect belongs; and the area characteristics of the area to be cleaned by the cleaning device being chosen in accordance with said defect property.
Regarding claim 8, the Flexoclean system appears to be fully capable of being operated in a manner recited, i.e. wherein one area characteristic is the surface of the area to be cleaned.
Regarding claim 9, the Flexoclean system appears to be fully capable of being operated in a manner recited, i.e. wherein another area characteristic is the localization of the center of the area to be cleaned.
Regarding claim 10, the Flexoclean system appears to be fully capable of being operated in a manner recited, i.e. wherein the localization of the center of the area to be cleaned is chosen among three zones: a left lateral portion of the moving element; a central portion of the moving element; and a right lateral portion of the moving element.
Regarding claim 11, Flexoclean discloses a system wherein: the cleaning task is characterized by cleaning parameters; and the command unit is adapted to calculate each cleaning parameter in function of the defect properties (page 12, line 20 – page 13, line 5).
Regarding claim 15, Flexoclean discloses a system wherein the moving element of the coating installation is a roller (note ref. 4). It is noted that the recited moving element is not positively claimed and are not interpreted to be required structural features of the claimed cleaning system.
Regarding claim 16, Flexoclean teaches a coating machine (ref. 2) comprising the cleaning system of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis).
Regarding claim 17, Flexoclean teaches a coating installation (ref. 2) comprising the cleaning system of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020022886 to Flexoclean Services BV (“Flexoclean”).
Regarding claim 6, Flexoclean does not explicitly teach the system wherein the command unit is further adapted to trigger a cleaning task when the defect degree of the detected defect exceeds a predefined defect degree. However, cleanliness in an objective of the Flexoclean disclosure (see, e.g., the title and abstract), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Flexoclean system wherein the command unit is further adapted to trigger a cleaning task when the defect degree of the detected defect exceeds a predefined defect degree, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to inhibit the risk of exceeding uncleanness and to enhance automation. Note MPEP 2144.04(III).
Claims 3, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020022886 to Flexoclean Services BV (“Flexoclean”) in view of EP 0755782 to Komori Corp. (“Komori”).
Regarding claim 3, Flexoclean discloses a cleaning device with an analyzing unit configured for detecting a degree of fouling of a roll (page 12, lines 5-18), and is thus configured for detecting the presence of a defect, but does not explicitly teach the system wherein: the cleaning device is provided with an interface unit, the interface unit being adapted to receive from a user pieces of information concerning at least one defect of the layer; and the command unit is adapted to command the robotic arm and the cleaning device in accordance with the pieces of information concerning at least one defect of the layer. Komori teaches a cylinder cleaning apparatus (abstract, Figs. 1A, 1B, and 4, col. 1, lines 5-10, col. 4, line 20 – col. 6, line 9, col. 7, lines 8-48) including an interface unit (buttons, note Fig. 4, ref. 3 and 4) for providing a control with information for commanding a cleaning device to perform a cleaning task (col. 7, lines 8-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Flexoclean system in view of Komori wherein the cleaning device includes the cleaning device is provided with an interface unit, the interface unit being adapted to receive from a user pieces of information concerning at least one defect of the layer; and the command unit is adapted to command the robotic arm and the cleaning device in accordance with the pieces of information concerning at least one defect of the layer, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance operator process control and inhibit fouling defects.
Regarding claim 12, Flexoclean does not explicitly teach the system wherein the cleaning device comprises a cleaning pad adapted to be in contact with the part of the outer surface of the moving element. Komori teaches a cylinder cleaning apparatus (abstract, Figs. 1A, 1B, and 4, col. 1, lines 5-10, col. 4, line 20 – col. 6, line 9, col. 7, lines 8-48) including a cleaning pad, which is disclosed as advantageously enhancing cleaning (Figs. 1A and 1B, ref. 36 and note ref. 56, col. 4, lines 37 – col. 4, line 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Flexoclean system in view of Komori wherein the cleaning device comprises a cleaning pad adapted to be in contact with the part of the outer surface of the moving element, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance cleaning. Note that duplication of parts and changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(IV)A and (B) and (VI)(B).
Regarding claim 14, Flexoclean does not explicitly teach the system wherein the cleaning device comprises a cleaning pad, a solvent reservoir, and a pressure unit adapted to send the solvent from the solvent reservoir to the cleaning pad. Komori teaches a cylinder cleaning apparatus (abstract, Figs. 1A, 1B, and 4, col. 1, lines 5-10, col. 4, line 20 – col. 6, line 9, col. 7, lines 8-48) including a cleaning pad, which is disclosed as advantageously enhancing cleaning, the cleaning pad being supplied with cleaning liquid from a nozzle (Figs. 1A and 1B, ref. 36 and note ref. 56, col. 4, lines 37 – col. 4, line 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Flexoclean system in view of Komori wherein the cleaning device comprises a cleaning pad adapted to be in contact with the part of the outer surface of the moving element, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance cleaning. Note that duplication of parts and changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(IV)A and (B) and (VI)(B).
Further, the examiner takes Official notice that fluid reservoirs and pressure units are known in the art as effective for inhibiting the risk of insufficient supply and enhancing flow, respectively, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Flexoclean/Komori system as was known wherein the cleaning device includes a solvent reservoir and a pressure unit adapted to send the solvent from the solvent reservoir to the cleaning pad, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to inhibit the risk of insufficient supply and enhance flow.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020022886 to Flexoclean Services BV (“Flexoclean”) in view of EP 0755782 to Komori Corp. (“Komori”) and in further view of US 2014/0020199 to Cho (“Cho”).
Regarding claim 13, Flexoclean/Komori does not explicitly teach the system wherein the cleaning pad has an outer surface with a melamine foam. However, melamine foam was known in the art as effective for cleaning (see, e.g., Cho at, inter alia, para [0005]), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Flexoclean/Komori system as was known wherein the cleaning pad has an outer surface with a melamine foam, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it was known as effective for cleaning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2025/0249474 to Zabel et al. teaches a coating system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 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, 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights