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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of that claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Applicant's arguments filed 23 March have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sawada, Field et al, Kolding, and Chang, Applicant argued that Sawada in view of Field et al and Kolding do not teach or fairly suggest a combiner as claimed.
In response, while an explicit structure of a combiner is not taught by Kolding, the device of Kolding included structure that inherently met the structural limitations of a combiner. See fig. 4 and/or paragraphs [0033]-[0034]. The rejection grounds have been clarified with respect to how the structure taught by Kolding meets the structural features of a splitter and combiner.
Note that due to the removal of the claim limitation reciting a magnet in the cleaning system, the teachings of Chang are removed from the rejection grounds since Chang was relied upon solely for teaching the addition of a magnet for conditioning of water.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
474
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada (US 2004/00964406) in view of Field et al (US 2007/0187261) and Kolding (US 2009/0272446).
Sawada shows (see fig. 1 (reproduced herein), and paragraphs [0012], [0031]-[0039] and [0043]) a system comprising an electrolytic cell that comprises an anode compartment (3) comprising an anode (5), a cathode compartment (4) comprising a cathode (6, annotation added in reproduction, see also fig. 3 of Sawada), and an anolyte solution recirculation loop (16) that was configured to recirculate the anolyte through the anode chamber. The solutions produced by the electrolytic cell (see abstract) have excellent washing and sterilizing effects, and thus the system of Sawada is considered to be a “cleaning system” as claimed.
Sawada fails to teach the cleaning system being for cleaning a carpet, fabric or hard surface.
Field et al teach (see abstract, figs. 7 and 10A) a cleaning system which comprised a vehicle (“mobile hard floor surface cleaner” 100) and an electrolytic cell for generating anolyte and catholyte solutions to be applied by the vehicular cleaning system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted the electrolytic cell system of Sawada for use in the vehicular cleaning system of Field et al to clean a hard surface to achieve the benefits of the washing and sterilizing effects of Sawada in a mobile cleaning system as taught by Field et al.
Sawada and Field et al fail to teach a fluid conditioning system that is configured to separate a fluid in the cleaning system into two streams, to run the two streams next to each other, and to then mix the two streams together to produce a conditioned cleaning solution.
Sawada (see fig. 1) and Field et al show (see paragraph [0147] and figs. 10A and 11) that the vehicular cleaning system included a conduit (e.g.-10 in Sawada or 160 in Field et al).
Sawada and Field et al do not show the conduit being configured to split the fluid into two streams (i.e. including a splitter), running the two streams next to each other, and then mixing the two streams (i.e. including a combiner) as claimed.
Kolding teaches (see abstract, figs. 1a-1c, paragraphs [0008]-[0009]) a fluid (water) conditioning system that was configured to separate a fluid into two streams, to run the two streams next to each other, and to then mix the two streams together to produce a conditioned fluid (water) that “improve[s] the quality of the liquid, e.g. in terms of taste, reduced algae growth, availability of naturally present nutrients or minerals, etc.”. Kolding additionally teach (see paragraphs [0015]-[0016]) that the fluid conditioning system was effective for both reducing deposition of minerals from the water onto pipe walls as well as to reduce growth of bacteria and algae in the pipes. Kolding shows (see figs. 1a and 1b) that the two streams were in the form of a double helix.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added the fluid conditioning system to at least one conduit in the cleaning system of Sawada as modified by Field et al because Kolding teaches that the double helix split-flow fluid conditioning system reduced mineral deposits from the water on pipe walls and also reduced bacteria growth within the water, both of which had an enhancing effect on the cleaning system of Sawada as modified by Field et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
209
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note that the structure suggested by Kolding inherently possessed a splitter and a combiner at opposing ends of the double helix to divide the single flow of water into the two streams and to recombine the two streams into a single stream for use. For example, Kolding et al teach (see paragraphs [0033]-[0034]) the structure including a “common inlet opening” and a “common outlet opening” which divides an incoming stream into the separate pipe segments and recombines the streams into a single outlet, respectively. Additionally, the device in figs. 4A-4C of Kolding included structure that meets the structural limitations of a splitter as claimed at the lower inlet of the device that divided a single flow into multiple streams and a structure that meets the structural limitations of a combiner as claimed at the upper outlet of the device that recombined the multiple streams into a single outflow. See annotated version of fig. 4C of Kolding et al included at herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights