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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 8 recites “there through”, which is a misspelling of “therethrough”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4 recites “there through”, which is a misspelling of “therethrough”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 recites “there through”, which is a misspelling of “therethrough”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the angle, theta, in Fig. 14C has an arrow pointing to the wrong feature. 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.
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, 4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luyckx (US 10,512,383) in view of Morgan (US 2006/0150364).
As to claim 1, Luyckx includes a fluid recovery tank (22) for use in a cleaning device (10), comprising:
a container (64) having a bottom wall (122) and a sidewall (124) defining an inner chamber therein, a top of the container being open (Fig. 4 shows 64 with an open top) [column 6, lines 25-32], the bottom wall including a fluid inlet (The bottom opening of pipe 66; column 6, lines 16-19) therein;
a separator (96) fixedly and immovably disposed within the chamber (The separator is attached to the chamber), the separator separating the chamber into an upper portion (The portion above 100) and a lower portion (The portion below 100) [Fig. 4, 7, 8], and the separator being configured to retain solid debris within the upper portion while allowing liquid to flow therethrough into the bottom portion (Drain holes 106 retain debris larger than 3-4 mm, while fluid passes through; column 7, lines 45-51);
a removable lid (72) disposed within the open top (72 is inside of 64); and
a hollow standpipe (66) extending from the fluid inlet in the bottom wall toward the lid and through an opening (102) in the separator for delivering fluid and debris to the upper portion of the chamber (column 6, lines 16-19).
Luyckx does not include the container with sidewalls (more than one sidewall).
Morgan includes a rectangular container (53; Fig. 25) having a bottom wall (The wall of 601; Fig. 4) and a sidewalls (The four walls, including 602, forming a rectangular shape; para 124, and Fig. 4 and 25) defining an inner chamber (The space within 53) therein.
It would have been obvious to modify the container of Luyckx to be rectangular, providing the container with sidewalls, as taught by Morgan, which providing greater strength and stability to the container.
As to claim 4, wherein the separator includes a lower surface (The bottom surface of 100) that is spaced from the lid and from the bottom wall of the container (Fig. 7-8), the lower surface of the separator having an opening (Drain holes 106) formed therein to allow fluid to pass there through while substantially preventing solid debris from passing therethrough (Drain holes 106 retain debris larger than 3-4 mm, while fluid passes through; column 7, lines 45-51).
As to claim 8, wherein the lid includes a removable filter (Filter assembly 86; Fig. 4) disposed therein and configured to allow a suction force to be applied therethrough (86 filters the air).
As to claim 9, further comprising a spring-biased latch (92) movably mounted on an exterior surface of the container (column 7, lines 4-11). Lid 72 is understood to not include 92.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luyckx (US 10,512,383) in view of Morgan (US 2006/0150364), and further in view of Petersen (US 4,041,569).
As to claim 2, Luyckx does not include the bottom wall with a removable portion.
Petersen includes a fluid recovery tank (22) for use in a cleaning device, having a bottom wall (29, 24) with a removable portion (29) [Fig. 2 and column 2, lines 53-57]. 29 is removable by detaching bolts 24.
It would have been obvious to modify the bottom wall to be removable by detaching bolts, providing the bottom wall with a removable portion, as taught by Petersen, allowing the inlet to be repaired/replaced.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luyckx (US 10,512,383) in view of Morgan (US 2006/0150364) and Petersen (US 4,041,569), and further in view of Toya (US 4,894,882).
As to claim 3, Petersen provides the hollow standpipe fixed to the removable portion, as discussed in claim 2 above, because the hollow standpipe and removable portion are linked together. Luyckx does not include wherein the hollow standpipe is removable with the removable portion.
Toya includes an inlet pipe (17) that is removable (column 3, lines 33-35).
It would have been obvious to modify the base, which has a hollow standpipe, to be removable, providing the hollow standpipe removable with the removable portion, as taught by Toya, allowing the base to be repaired/replaced.
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luyckx (US 10,512,383) in view of Morgan (US 2006/0150364), and further in view of Krebs (US 2008/0216278).
As to claim 10, Luyckx does not include wherein the container is transparent.
Krebs includes a transparent fluid recovery tank (186, 188; para 66 and Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to modify the container to be transparent, as taught by Krebs, allowing people to know when the container must be emptied.
Claims 11, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luyckx (US 10,512,383) in view of Toya (US 4,894,882).
As to claim 11, Luyckx includes a fluid recovery tank (22), comprising:
a container (64) having a bottom wall (122) with a fluid inlet (The bottom opening of pipe 66; column 6, lines 16-19) therein, at least one sidewall (124) extending from the bottom wall and together with the bottom wall defining an inner chamber (Fig. 4), and a separator (96) fixed to the at least one sidewall (Element 98 of the separator is fixed to wall 124; Fig. 7) and extending across the inner chamber such that the separator divides the inner chamber into an upper portion (The portion above 100) and a lower portion (The portion below 100) [Fig. 4, 7, 8];
a lid (72) removably disposed within an open top (72 is inside of 64) of the container; and
a base (66) disposed within the bottom wall and having a hollow standpipe (66) extending upward there through, the hollow standpipe extending through an opening (102) in the separator when the base is disposed within the bottom wall (column 6, lines 16-19).
Luyckx does not include the base removably disposed within the bottom wall.
Toya includes an inlet pipe (17) that is removable (column 3, lines 33-35).
It would have been obvious to modify the base to be removable, providing the base removably disposed within the bottom wall, as taught by Toya, allowing the base to be repaired/replaced.
As to claim 13, wherein the separator includes a lower surface (The bottom surface of 100) that is spaced from the lid and from the bottom wall of the container (Fig. 7-8), the lower surface of the separator having an opening (Drain holes 106) formed therein to allow fluid to pass there through while substantially preventing solid debris from passing there through (Drain holes 106 retain debris larger than 3-4 mm, while fluid passes through; column 7, lines 45-51).
As to claim 17, wherein the lid includes a removable filter (Filter assembly 86; Fig. 4) disposed therein and configured to allow a suction force to be applied there through (86 filters the air).
As to claim 18, further comprising a spring-biased latch (92) movably mounted on an exterior surface of the container (column 7, lines 4-11). Lid 72 is understood to not include 92.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luyckx (US 10,512,383) in view of Toya (US 4,894,882), and further in view of Krebs (US 2008/0216278).
As to claim 19, Luyckx does not include wherein the container is transparent.
Krebs includes a transparent fluid recovery tank (186, 188; para 66 and Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to modify the container to be transparent, as taught by Krebs, allowing people to know when the container must be emptied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 12 and 14-16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW A. HORTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/ANDREW A HORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723