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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on July 9, 2025. Claims 9 and 14-15 have been canceled. Claims 1 10, 16 and 18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to pages 7-8 of the applicant’s remarks, applicant argues that claim 1 requires a gutter in a reservoir with an inlet pipe drawing fluid from the gutter. The rejection relies on the teaching of Rohrbacher as to the gutter but the interpretation of the Rohrbacher structure is inaccurate. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites “the sprayer comprising: … a gutter being formed in a lowermost portion of the bottom wall for facilitating the fluid pooling in the gutter.” Nowhere in claim 1 defines the gutter is formed in the reservoir, instead the claim defines the gutter is formed at the bottom wall of the pressure washer apparatus. Hence, applicant’s argument is incorrect. In order to overcome the rejection, claim 1 must be amended to define the bottom wall is part of the reservoir and the gutter in the reservoir to support the argument.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rushin et al. (US 2009/0199871 A1) in view Rohrbacher (US 5,601,659).
With regard to claim 1, Rushin discloses a pressure washer apparatus comprising: a vehicle (10) for driving on a paved surface to be cleaned, the vehicle including a body and a plurality of wheels (16/18), each wheel being positioned below the body (Fig. 1), the vehicle including a drive motor (12) being operatively coupled to at least one of the plurality of wheels for driving the vehicle (Para. [0025]); a sprayer (24) being coupled to an underside of the body of the vehicle (Fig. 1); and a reservoir (22) for containing the fluid being mounted to the body of the vehicle, the reservoir being in fluid communication with the pump (41/61), the pump drawing the fluid from the reservoir and delivering the fluid to the sprayer when activated (Fig. 5).
However, Rushin does not disclose that the sprayer comprising: a hub being rotationally coupled to the underside; a pair of spray pipes, each spray pipe being coupled to and extending outwardly from the hub, each spray pipe being in fluid communication with the hub; and a pair of nozzles, each nozzle being coupled to a distal end of one of the pair of pipes relative to the hub, each nozzle being in fluid communication with an associated one of the pair of spray pipes, each nozzle having an aperture being oriented such that a fluid flowing outwardly therefrom propels the sprayer to rotate, each nozzle being angled downwardly; and a pump being mounted to the body of the vehicle, the pump being in fluid communication with the sprayer, the pump being activatable to urge the fluid through the sprayer and out of each nozzle to forcibly spray the paved surface and with sufficient force to propel the sprayer to rotate.
Rohrbacher teaches a pressure washer apparatus comprising a sprayer (10), the sprayer comprising: a hub being rotationally coupled to the underside (Fig. 3); a pair of spray pipes (54), each spray pipe being coupled to and extending outwardly from the hub (Fig. 3), each spray pipe being in fluid communication with the hub; and a pair of nozzles (55), each nozzle being coupled to a distal end of one of the pair of pipes relative to the hub, each nozzle (55) being in fluid communication with an associated one of the pair of spray pipes (54), each nozzle having an aperture being oriented such that a fluid flowing outwardly therefrom propels the sprayer to rotate, each nozzle being angled downwardly (Col. 5 lines 1-21); and a pump (30) being mounted to the body of the vehicle (Fig. 1), the pump being in fluid communication with the sprayer, the pump being activatable to urge the fluid through the sprayer and out of each nozzle to forcibly spray the paved surface and with sufficient force to propel the sprayer to rotate (Col. 5 lines 1-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rushin, by replacing the sprayer of Rushin with the rotatable sprayer and the hub as taught by Rohrbacher, for the benefit of providing a mobile cyclonic power wash system for spraying water at high rotating speeds to clean the surfaces (Col. 1 lines 19-30).
Rushin does not disclose that the pressure washer apparatus comprising an inlet pipe fluidly coupling the reservoir to the pump, wherein a gutter being formed in a lowermost portion of the bottom wall for facilitating the fluid pooling in the gutter, the inlet pipe having a suction end positioned within the gutter.
Rohrbacher further teaches that the pressure washer apparatus comprising an inlet pipe (61) fluidly coupling the reservoir to the pump (Fig. 7), wherein a gutter (62/63) being formed in a lowermost portion of the bottom wall for facilitating the fluid pooling in the gutter, the inlet pipe (61) having a suction end positioned within the gutter (Col. 5 lines 36-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure washer apparatus of Rushin, by incorporating the inlet pipe with the gutter as taught by Rohrbacher, for the benefit of recycling the filtered water back into the water storage means so that it may be further used for cleaning by the power wash system (Col. 3 lines 22-25).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Rushin as modified by Rohrbacher discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Rushin further discloses the vehicle is capable of driving in zero-radius turns (Para. [0023]).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Rushin as modified by Rohrbacher discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Rushin further discloses that the vehicle (10) has a seat for supporting a user, the seat being mounted to the body and being positioned above a rear pair of wheels of the plurality of wheels (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 5, the device of Rushin as modified by Rohrbacher discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Rohrbacher further discloses that a rotational axis of the hub is vertically oriented (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 6, the device of Rushin as modified by Rohrbacher discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Rohrbacher further discloses that the pump(30) is positioned adjacent to a top rear corner of the body (Fig. 1 shows pump 30 is positioned near to the top rear corner of the body 10).
With regard to claim 7, the device of Rushin as modified by Rohrbacher discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Rushin further discloses that a shroud (Fig. 1) being coupled to the underside of the body for limiting splatter of the fluid onto and around the vehicle, the shroud having a top wall and a perimeter wall extending downwardly therefrom, the top wall and the perimeter wall bounding a cavity, the sprayer being positioned within the cavity (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 8, the device of Rushin as modified by Rohrbacher discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 7 above. Rushin further discloses that the perimeter wall is cylindrical and is positioned adjacent to each nozzle (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 12, the device of Rushin as modified by Rohrbacher discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Rushin further discloses that the reservoir (22) has an opening extending therein for filling the reservoir (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 16, the device of Rushin as modified by Rohrbacher discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Rohrbacher does not disclose that the gutter is positioned adjacent to a front side of the reservoir and extending laterally with respect to the reservoir.
It is noted by the Examiner that the Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any criticality to support the claimed position of the gutter. 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 the reservoir of Rushin, by forming the gutter taught by Rohrbacher adjacent to the front side of the reservoir, since shifting the position of the gutter would not have modified the operation of the device.
With regard to claim 17, the device of Rushin as modified by Rohrbacher discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 12 above. Rushin further discloses that a fill cap being releasably coupled to the reservoir for selectively covering the opening (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 4, 10, 11, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rushin in view of Rohrbacher as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Storms (US 8,061,373 B1).
With regard to claim 4, the device of Rushin as modified by Rohrbacher discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Rushin does not disclose that the hub of the sprayer is positioned between a rear pair of wheels and a front pair of wheels of the plurality of wheels.
Storms teaches a hub of the sprayer is positioned between a rear pair of wheels and a front pair of wheels of the plurality of wheels (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rushin, by rearranging the hub of the sprayer is positioned between a rear pair of wheels and a front pair of wheels of the plurality of wheels as taught by Storms, since shifting the position of the hub of the sprayer would not have modified the operation of the device.
With regard to claim 10, the device of Rushin as modified by Rohrbacher discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Rushin further discloses that the reservoir having a bottom wall, an upper wall, and a sidewall extending between the bottom wall and the upper wall, except that the reservoir is positioned rearwardly of the body.
Storms teaches a reservoir is positioned rearwardly of the body, the reservoir having a bottom wall, an upper wall, and a sidewall extending between the bottom wall and the upper wall (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rushin, by rearranging the reservoir in the position rearward of the body as taught by Storms, since shifting the position of the reservoir would not have modified the operation of the device.
With regard to claim 11, the device of Rushin as modified by Rohrbacher and Storms discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 10 above, except the sidewall has a rear wall extending rearwardly from the upper wall to the bottom wall, an outer surface of the rear wall being concavely shaped.
It is noted by the Examiner that the Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any criticality to support the claimed shape of the reservoir. 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 the reservoir of Rushin, by forming the outer surface of the rear wall being concavely shaped, since the court held that the configuration of the claimed reservoir was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
With regard to claim 13, the device of Rushin as modified by Rohrbacher and Storms discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 10 above, Rushin further discloses that the reservoir has an opening extending therein for filling the reservoir, the opening extending through a top wall of the reservoir and being positioned adjacent to the rear wall (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 18, the device of Rushin as modified by Rohrbacher and Storms discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752