DETAILED ACTION
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 Invention A (Claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 2/26/2026 is acknowledged. Amended Claims 15-18 and 20, cancelled Claims 14 and 19 and new Claims 21-22 have been noted. As a result of the amendments, all pending claims are now a part of elected Invention Group A. Claims 1-13, 15-18 and 20-22 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
2. The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 9, line 1, change “wherein fluid conduit” to -- wherein the fluid conduit ---
In Claim 16, line 1, change “wherein in the fluid” to -- wherein the fluid ---
In Claim 17, line 1, change “wherein in the fluid” to -- wherein the fluid ---
In Claim 20, line 1, change “The crematory tool” to -- The tool ---
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 15-17 each recite the limitation “The tool defined in claim 21 wherein”. In accordance with the MPEP (608.01(n)), “a claim in dependent form shall contain: (i) a reference to a claim previously set forth” and “When examining a dependent claim, the examiner should determine whether the claim complies with 35 U.S.C. 112(d), which requires that dependent claims contain a reference to a previous claim in the same application, specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed, and include all the limitations of the previous claim. If the dependent claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d), the examiner should reject the dependent claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as unpatentable rather than objecting to the claim.” (bolding added for emphasis). In the instant case, Claims 15-17 each depend upon a future claim (i.e. “claim 21”) and accordingly fail to “reference to a claim previously set forth”. Additionally, note that Claim 15 fails to further limit the subject matter on which it depends. Therefore, each of Claims 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form.
Claim 18 is rejected due to its dependency on Claim 17.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “The crematory tool defined in claim 22 further comprising”. Similar to the rejection for Claims 15-17 presented above, Claim 20 depends upon a future claim (i.e. “claim 22”) and accordingly fails to “reference to a claim previously set forth”. Therefore, Claim 20 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tebbens (US 2014/0182638 A1) in view of Vanderlinden (US 2009/0083934 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tebbens teaches of a tool (Fig. 1) comprising:
a. a fluid conduit (fluid conduit comprising elements (101), (102)) having an upstream end portion (the top end portion with respect to Fig. 1), a downstream end portion (the lower end portion with respect to Fig. 1), and an axis extending between the upstream and downstream end portions (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0028] and Figs. 1-3),
b. a fluid distribution unit (fluid distribution unit comprising elements (103) and (305)) attached to the downstream end portion (as is shown in Figs. 1-3), the fluid distribution unit in fluid communication with the fluid conduit (see at least [0028], [0035] and Figs. 1-3), the fluid distribution unit including a nozzle (305) (see at least [0028], [0035] and Figs. 1-3).
Tebbens fails to explicitly teach that the nozzle opens toward the upstream end portion at an acute angle relative to the axis.
Vanderlinden discloses a relatable cleaning tool (20) (see Figs. 1-4) that comprises a sweep member (72), an upstream end portion (the left-hand end portion with respect to Fig. 1) and a downstream end (the right-hand end portion with respect to Fig. 1) extending along an axis (as is shown in Fig. 1) and a fluid distribution unit (fluid distribution unit comprising elements (90) and (96)) attached to the downstream end portion (see at least [0020], [0023]-[0025] and Figs. 1-4). Nozzle element (90) opens toward the upstream end portion at an acute angle relative to the axis (as is shown in Fig. 1) such that compressed air will be directed towards the point of contact of the sweep member (72) and a surface (29) being cleaned to thereby enhance surface cleaning effect (see at least [0023]-[0025] and Figs. 1-4 - “In use, compressed air emanating from the outlet 92 of the air blast nozzle 90 is forcibly blasted against a surface being cleaned 29, preferably at the point of contact of the main sweeping broom 72 with the surface being cleaned 29.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the tool taught by Tebbens by configuring the tool to comprise a sweep member as is taught by Vanderlinden and to have configured the existing nozzle to open toward the existing upstream end portion at an acute angle relative to the axis such that fluid flow exiting the nozzle would be directed towards the point of contact of the sweep member and a surface being cleaned as is also taught by Vanderlinden. Doing so would have enhanced surface cleaning effect. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Tebbens also teaches that the fluid conduit (fluid conduit comprising elements (101), (102)) is rigid tube (since it is disclosed that all components, including the fluid conduit, may be formed out a metal such as “stainless steel”) and that the axis is central to the tube (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 3, Tebbens also teaches of a wheel (104) rotatably attached to the fluid distribution unit (as is shown in Fig. 3) (see at least [0036] and Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 4, Tebbens also teaches that the fluid distribution unit includes a fluid plenum (103) (see at least [0034]-[0035] and Figs. 1-3), and wherein the nozzle comprises a slit (it is disclosed that the nozzle may be in the form of “long narrow slits along manifold 103”) in fluid communication with the plenum (103), the slit extending transverse to the axis (see at least [0035] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Tebbens and Vanderlinden teach the tool defined in Claim 4 (see the rejection for Claim 4) wherein the fluid distribution unit (unit comprising elements (103) and (305)) has a width transverse to the axis (as is shown in Fig. 3) wherein the nozzle (and its slit thereof) extends along said width (as is shown in Figs. 1-3) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 1-3).
Tebbens and Vanderlinden fail to explicitly teach of an embodiment wherein the width is “about 6 inches”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing width to be “about 6 inches” as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
In the instant case, the fluid distribution unit (unit comprising elements (103) and (305)) taught by Tebbens has a width transverse to the axis (as is shown in Fig. 3) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The magnitude of the width is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined apparatus. As is evident from at least [0035] and Figs. 1-3 of Tebbens, a larger fluid distribution unit width will permit a relatively larger area to be cleaned per pass and vice-versa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing width of the fluid distribution unit, depending on the size of the area needing to be cleaned, to be “about 6 inches” as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that such modification would have resulted in the width of the fluid distribution unit being “about 6 inches” and in turn would have necessarily resulted in the nozzle slit, which extends the width of the fluid distribution unit, being “about 6 inches” as well. Thus, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 6, Tebbens also teaches that the fluid distribution unit comprises a fluid plenum (103), the plenum having a fluid entrance port (entrance port at (205) where element (103) connects to element (102) as shown in Figs. 3-4) in fluid communication with the fluid conduit (see at least [0032] and Figs. 3-4) and a fluid exit port (fluid exit port formed by the horizontal portions of element (103) that feed nozzles (305) as shown in Fig. 3) extending transverse to the axis and transverse to the nozzle opening (as shown in Fig. 3) (see at least [0035] and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Tebbens and Vanderlinden teach the tool defined in Claim 2 (see the rejection for Claim 2) and Vanderlinden also teaches of a sweep member (72) with bristles that is adjacent to the fluid distribution unit that would be used in the combined apparatus (see at least [0025], Figs. 1-3 and the rejection for Claim 1 above).
Vanderlinden is silent regarding the material of the sweep member bristles and accordingly fails to explicitly teach that the sweep member has bristles made of “metal”. However, using (at least) metal to fabricate components of tools is well known in the art as is evident from at least [0045] of Tebbens (“All the portions of the extended sweep unit can be constructed a metal alloy such as stainless steel”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used well-known metal as the material for the existing sweep member and cover since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In the instant case, as is demonstrated by Tebbens, “metal” (at least) is a known material that would have been readily available for making a tool of the type claimed. Thus, given the holding of In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, forming the existing sweep member bristles out of a “metal” material as is already taught by Tebbens would have been within the general skill of a worker in the art to select as a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 8, Tebbens and Vanderlinden teach the tool defined in Claim 7 (see the rejection for Claim 7). Tebbens fails to explicitly teach of a cover extending between the fluid distribution unit and the sweep member.
However, Vanderlinden also teaches that the tool may further comprise a cover (60) extending between the fluid distribution unit and the sweep member (as is shown in Figs. 1-4) and teaches that such a cover is advantageous because, inter alia, it contains dislodged debris (see at least [0017]-[0020] and Figs. 1-4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by further configuring the tool to include a cover extending between the existing fluid distribution unit and sweep member as is also taught by Vanderlinden. Doing so would have provided means for containing dislodged debris. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9, Tebbens also teaches that the fluid conduit is in fluid communication with the fluid distribution unit through two secondary fluid conduits (at least the two secondary conduits of conduit (401) and conduit (402) that element (405) is disposed on as shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0029] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Tebbens and Vanderlinden teach the tool defined in Claim 9 (see the rejection for Claim 9) and Tebbens also teaches of a fluid compressor (“source” of “pressurized air” that connects to (201)) that is capable of providing pressurized fluid (“pressurized air”) (see at least [0027]-[0028] and Figs. 1-3).
Tebbens and Vanderlinden fail to explicitly teach that the fluid compressor is “capable of providing fluid at 40-60 psi”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing range of pressurized air already provided by the fluid compressor to be in the range of “40-60 psi” as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
In the instant case, Tebbens also teaches of a fluid compressor (“source” of “pressurized air” that connects to (201)) that is capable of providing pressurized fluid (“pressurized air”) (see at least [0027]-[0028] and Figs. 1-3) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The range of pressurized air pressure is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined apparatus. As is evident from at least [0027]-[0028] and Figs. 1-3 of Tebbens, a higher air pressure range will facilitate more powerful cleaning ability and vice-versa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing range of pressurized air already provided by the fluid compressor in the combined apparatus, depending on the cleaning strength needed, to be in the range of “40-60 psi” as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 12, Tebbens also teaches that the fluid distribution unit includes a fluid plenum (103), and wherein the nozzle comprises a series of ports (series of ports that feed nozzles (305) as shown in Fig. 3) in fluid communication with the plenum (see at least [0035] and Fig. 3), the ports positioned along a line extending transverse to the axis (as is shown in Fig. 3) (see at least [0035] and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Tebbens also teaches that the fluid conduit (fluid conduit comprising elements (101), (102)) may be at least eight feet in length (as is disclosed in [0032]) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 15, Vanderlinden also teaches that the nozzle (90) that would be used in the combined apparatus opens toward the upstream end portion at an acute angle relative to the axis (as is shown in Figs. 1-3) (see at least [0023]-[0025] and Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 16, Tebbens also teaches that the fluid distribution unit (103) includes a port (the open horizontal port that feeds elements (305)) in fluid communication with the fluid conduit (see at least [0035] and Figs. 1-3), the port opening in a direction transverse to the axis and generally parallel to the fluid distribution unit length (see at least [0035] and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Vanderlinden also teaches that the fluid distribution unit (103) includes a plenum (the central plenum of element (103)) in fluid communication with the fluid conduit (see at least [0035] and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 21, Tebbens also teaches that the fluid conduit (fluid conduit comprising elements (101), (102)) is a metal fluid conduit (it is disclosed that all components, including the fluid conduit, may be formed out a metal such as “stainless steel”) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 1-3), and wherein the fluid distribution unit (fluid distribution unit comprising elements (103) and (305)) is a metal fluid distribution unit (since it is disclosed that all components, including the fluid distribution unit, may be formed out a metal such as “stainless steel”), the fluid distribution unit having a length extending at an oblique angle relative to the axis (as is shown in Fig. 3), wherein the nozzle (305) extends generally along the length of the fluid distribution unit (as is shown in Fig. 3), the tool further comprising a metal wheel (wheel (104) which, like other components of the apparatus, may be formed out a metal such as “stainless steel”) (see at least [0036], [0045] and Figs. 1-3) rotatably attached to the fluid distribution unit (see at least [0036] and Figs. 1-3).
Tebbens fails to explicitly teach of a cover extending from the fluid distribution unit toward the upstream end portion.
However, Vanderlinden also teaches that the tool may further comprise a cover (60) extending from the fluid distribution unit toward the upstream end portion (as is shown in Figs. 1-4) and teaches that such a cover is advantageous because, inter alia, it contains dislodged debris (see at least [0017]-[0020] and Figs. 1-4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by further configuring the tool to include a cover extending from the existing fluid distribution unit toward the existing upstream end portion as is also taught by Vanderlinden. Doing so would have provided means for containing dislodged debris.
Vanderlinden is silent regarding the material of the cover and accordingly fails to explicitly teach that the cover of the tool is a “metal cover”. However, using (at least) metal to fabricate components of tools is well known in the art as is evident from at least [0045] of Tebbens (“All the portions of the extended sweep unit can be constructed a metal alloy such as stainless steel”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used well-known metal as the material for the existing cover since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In the instant case, as is demonstrated by Tebbens, “metal” (at least) is a known material that would have been readily available for making a tool of the type claimed. Thus, given the holding of In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, forming the existing tool cover out of a “metal” material as is already taught by Tebbens would have been within the general skill of a worker in the art to select as a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the cover being a “metal cover” and would have accordingly resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 22, Tebbens also teaches that the fluid distribution unit includes a plenum (103) in fluid communication with the fluid conduit (fluid conduit comprising elements (101), (102)) (as is shown in Figs. 1-4), the plenum having a length (as is shown in Fig. 3), the length defining a plenum axis (as is shown in Fig. 3), the plenum axis extending at a substantially right angle relative to the fluid conduit axis (as is shown in Fig. 3), the plenum including a slit defining a nozzle (it is disclosed that the nozzle (305) may be in the form of “long narrow slits along manifold 103”) (see at least [0035] and Fig. 1), the slit extending the length of the fluid distribution unit (as is shown in Fig. 3), the slit opening toward the upstream end portion at an angle relative to the fluid conduit axis (as is taught by Vanderlinden in the combined apparatus - observe the angle of nozzle (90) in Fig. 2 and see the rejection for Claim 1 above and note that the nozzle and slit of the combined apparatus would necessarily have such an angle to achieve the benefits taught by Vanderlinden), the tool further comprising a metal wheel (wheel (104) which, like other components of the apparatus, may be formed out a metal such as “stainless steel”) (see at least [0036], [0045] and Figs. 1-3) rotatably attached to the fluid distribution unit (see at least [0036] and Figs. 1-3) and the wheel having an axis of rotation parallel to the plenum axis (as is shown in Figs. 1-3). Furthermore, Vanderlinden also teaches of a sweep member (72) that would be used in the combined apparatus (see Figs. 1-3 of Vanderlinden and the rejection for Claim 1 above) that would necessarily be attached to the existing fluid conduit (for at least support) between the existing fluid distribution unit and the upstream end portion (as is taught by Vanderlinden in Figs. 1-3) (see Figs. 1-3 of Vanderlinden and the rejection for Claim 1 above).
Tebbens and Vanderlinden fail to explicitly teach that the slit opens toward the upstream end portion at “an angle of about 70-89 degrees” relative to the fluid conduit axis. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing slit opening angle to “an angle of about 70-89 degrees” as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
In the instant case, the combined apparatus already teaches that the slit opens toward the upstream end portion at an angle relative to the fluid conduit axis (as is taught by Vanderlinden in the combined apparatus - observe the angle of nozzle (90) in Fig. 2 and see the rejection for Claim 1 above and note that the nozzle and slit of the combined apparatus would necessarily have such an angle to achieve the benefits taught by Vanderlinden) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The magnitude of the angle is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined apparatus. As is evident from Vanderlinden, the angle of the opening depends on the relative position of the sweep member (see at least [0025] and Figs. 1-3 - “In use, compressed air emanating from the outlet 92 of the air blast nozzle 90 is forcibly blasted against a surface being cleaned 29, preferably at the point of contact of the main sweeping broom 72 with the surface being cleaned 29”). Thus, further nozzle placement from the sweep member will require less of an angle and vice-versa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing slit opening angle in the combined apparatus to “an angle of about 70-89 degrees” as claimed, depending on relative spacing between the sweep member and nozzle desired, to arrive at “an angle of about 70-89 degrees” as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Furthermore, Tebbens fails to explicitly teach of a cover extending from the fluid distribution unit to the sweep member.
However, Vanderlinden also teaches that the tool may further comprise a cover (60) extending from the fluid distribution unit toward the upstream end portion (as is shown in Figs. 1-4) and teaches that such a cover is advantageous because, inter alia, it contains dislodged debris (see at least [0017]-[0020] and Figs. 1-4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by further configuring the tool to include a cover extending from the existing fluid distribution unit toward the existing upstream end portion as is also taught by Vanderlinden. Doing so would have provided means for containing dislodged debris.
Vanderlinden is silent regarding the material of the sweep member and the cover that would be used in the combined apparatus and accordingly fails to explicitly teach that the sweep member is a “metal sweep member” and that the cover is a “metal cover”. However, using (at least) metal to fabricate components of tools is well known in the art as is evident from at least [0045] of Tebbens (“All the portions of the extended sweep unit can be constructed a metal alloy such as stainless steel”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used well-known metal as the material for the existing sweep member and cover since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In the instant case, as is demonstrated by Tebbens, “metal” (at least) is a known material that would have been readily available for making a tool of the type claimed. Thus, given the holding of In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, forming the existing tool sweep member and cover out of a “metal” material as is already taught by Tebbens would have been within the general skill of a worker in the art to select as a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the sweep member being a “metal sweep member” and the cover being a “metal cover” and would have accordingly resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tebbens and Vanderlinden further in view of Sitawan et al. (US 7,131,163 B1) (hereinafter “Sitawan”).
Regarding Claim 11, Tebbens and Vanderlinden teach the tool defined in Claim 10 (see the rejection for Claim 10) but fail to explicitly teach of a valve adjacent the upstream end portion to regulate fluid from the fluid compressor.
Sitawan discloses a relatable cleaning tool (10) (see Fig. 2) with an upstream end portion (the right-hand end portion with respect to Fig. 2 that comprises element (30)) and a downstream end portion (the left-hand end portion with respect to Fig. 2 that comprises nozzle (16)) that utilizes compressed air from an air compressor (60) for cleaning (see at least Col. 3 lines 13-46 and Fig. 2). Sitawan teaches of implementing a valve (34) adjacent the upstream end portion (as is shown in Fig. 2) to regulate fluid from the fluid compressor and that doing so is advantageous because it provides a user with an easy way to “supply a variable air flow control” (see at least Col. 3 lines 13-46 and Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by implementing a valve adjacent the existing upstream end portion to regulate fluid from the fluid compressor as is taught by Sitawan. Doing so would have provided users with an easy way to supply air flow with variable air flow control. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tebbens and Vanderlinden further in view of Boyd et al. (US 2016/0296979 A1) (hereinafter “Boyd”).
Regarding Claim 20, Tebbens and Vanderlinden teach the tool defined in Claim 22 (see the rejection for Claim 22) but fail to explicitly teach of a fastener rotatably attaching the wheel to the fluid distribution unit, the wheel having an axis of rotation, the fastener extending coaxially with the wheel axis of rotation.
Boyd discloses a relatable cleaning tool (100) that comprises a fluid distribution unit (fluid distribution unit comprising element (116) and element (722)) and wheels (708) (see at least [0022], [0035] and Figs. 1, 7). Boyd teaches of a fastener (714) rotatably attaching each wheel (708) to the fluid distribution unit (as is shown in Fig. 7), each wheel having an axis of rotation (as is shown in Fig. 7), the fastener extending coaxially with the wheel axis of rotation (as is shown in Fig. 7) (see at least [0022], [0035] and Figs. 1, 7). Boyd teaches that such a fastener is advantageous because, inter alia, it provides means for easily changing the wheels as desired (see at least [0035] and Fig. 7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by implementing a fastener rotatably attaching each existing wheel to the fluid distribution unit, each wheel having an axis of rotation, wherein each fastener extends coaxially with the respective wheel axis of rotation, as is taught by Boyd. Doing so would have provided means for easily changing the wheels as desired. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Dependent Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding dependent Claim 18: The combination of limitations claimed in Claim 18 is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by any known prior art including that of the prior art combination of Tebbens and Vanderlinden. Claim 18 specifies “a fastener rotatably attaching the wheel to the fluid distribution unit, the wheel having an axis of rotation, the fastener extending coaxially with the wheel axis of rotation, the fastener including a port in fluid communication with the plenum”. In the relied upon prior art combination of Tebbens and Vanderlinden, no such fastener and corresponding port is present. Thus, Claim 18 is not anticipated by any known prior art and no motivation would have existed to have further modified the prior art combination of Tebbens and Vanderlinden (or that of any other known prior art) in a way that would have resulted in the totality of Claim 18 since doing so would have required the ends of the fluid distribution unit to be open to communicate with the “port” of the “fastener” which Tebbens explicitly seeks to avoid; Tebbens teaches of making the ends of the fluid distribution unit “sealed” such that all air will be directed out of the lower nozzles (see at least [0035] and Figs. 3, 5). Thus, there would have been no motivation to have opened the “sealed” ends of the fluid distribution unit to facilitate such modification since Tebbens teaches away from doing the same. Therefore, the subject matter of Claim 18 is considered to be allowable over the known prior art. However, Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) (as is presented above) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Exum (US 2005/0286963 A1)
Winters et al. (US 5,944,911)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 3/14/2026
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762