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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 11-12, 14-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guazzone (EP0295325A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 18, Guazzone teaches a vessel 1 and a retractable cleaning apparatus attached to the vessel 1 and capable of spray cleaning an interior surface of the vessel 1 with cleaning liquid (see abstract, figure 1, pages 3-4 of the translation) (reads on claim 18), the retractable cleaning apparatus comprising: a rotatable spray head 7 capable of spraying the interior of the pipes or vessels with a cleaning liquid (see abstract, page 4 of the translation, figure 1), wherein the rotatable spray head 7 being linearly movable between a retracted position (see position of 7 as shown in figure 2) and a cleaning position (see position of 7 as shown in figure 1) along a longitudinal axis (see vertical axis) of the rotatable spray head 7 (see page 4 of the translation, figures 1-2), wherein the rotatable spray head 7 being rotatable (reads on claim 2, since the spray head is capable of being rotation at 0.1-1.3 rad/s) about the longitudinal axis of the rotatable spray head 7 independent of a flow of the cleaning liquid, and wherein the rotatable spray head 7 being rotatable with an angular velocity that is independent of the flow of the cleaning liquid (see page 4 of the translation, the rotation of the spray head 7 is actuated by the rotary device 21 independently of the cleaning fluid flow).
Regarding claim 3, Guazzone teaches the limitations of claim 1. Guazzone also teaches the rotatable spray head 7 being rotatable about the longitudinal axis of the rotatable spray head 7 independent of the rotatable spray head 7 being linearly movable between the retracted position (see position of 7 as shown in figure 2) and the cleaning position (see position of 7 as shown in figure 1) along the longitudinal axis of the rotatable spray head 7 (see page 4 of the translation, the rotation of the spray head 7 may involve a separately driven motor than the axial linear movement of the spray head 7).
Regarding claims 11-12, Guazzone teaches the limitations of claim 1. Guazzone also teaches a pneumatically driven linearly movable second piston (see piston associated with chamber 16; see also rod 13 that would read on the second piston) configured to linearly move the rotatable spray head 7 between the retracted position and the cleaning position (see page 4 of the translation, figures 1-2) (reads on claim 11); the pneumatically driven unit (piston and cylinder 16 associated therewith) and the pneumatically driven linearly movable second piston may be provided in a common actuator (see figures 1-2, page 4 of the translation, the actuator comprising the piston chamber 16, associated piston, rod 13 and rotary device 21, together with associated parts reads on the common actuator) (reads on claim 12).
Regarding claims 14-16, Guazzone teaches the limitations of claim 1. Guazzone also teaches the rotatable spray head 7 includes a plurality of nozzle channels 8 (see figure 2, showing 11 nozzle channels 8, reads on claim 16) each terminating in a nozzle orifice, wherein a majority of the nozzle channels 8 extend in a radial direction of the rotatable spray head 7 (see figures 1-2, page 4 of the translation) (reads on claim 14); wherein at least two of the nozzle channels 8 extend at different angles with respect to the longitudinal axis of the rotatable spray head 7 (see figures 1-2) (reads on claim 15).
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.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guazzone (EP0295325A1) as applied to claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, Guazzone teaches the limitations of claim 14. Guazzone teaches in page 4 of the translation and figures 1-2 that the nozzle channels 8 lead to the nozzle orifices and direct fluid therethrough towards the areas to be cleaned. Guazzone does not explicitly teach that the nozzle orifices have a diameter within a range of 0.5 - 5 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the size of the nozzle orifices may be chosen based on the desired cleaning liquid flow rate so as to optimize the cleaning effect of the spray for the desired application. Furthermore, it has been determined that changes in size constitute an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 2, 4-10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guazzone (EP0295325A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Jinback et al. (WO2020088733A1).
Regarding claim 2, Guazzone teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jinback et al. does not explicitly teach that the spray head is rotatable with an angular velocity within a range of 0.1 - 1.3 radians per second. Jinback et al. teaches a spray cleaning system and that the rotational speed of the nozzle is a process parameter that may be chosen based on the desired cleaning pattern so as to optimize the cleaning effect (page 8, line 21- page 9, line 3). Since both Guazzone and Jinback et al. teach spray cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the speed of the nozzle may be chosen so as to optimize the cleaning effect for the desired application, as shown to be known and conventional by Jinback et al. Furthermore, it has been determined 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 4-6, 13, Guazzone teaches the limitations of claim 1. Guazzone does not teach that the spray head is configured for reciprocating rotation about the longitudinal axis of the rotatable spray head. Jinback et al. teaches that the spray head 7 may be configured for reciprocating rotation about the longitudinal axis a1 of the rotatable spray head 7, wherein each rotational movement is less than 8 radians (reads on claim 13), allowing for the direction of supply to desired areas of the receptacle to be cleaned and an improved cleaning effect (see page 15, lines 15-19, page 8, lines 10-20, figure 2). Since both Guazzone and Jinback et al. teach spray cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that spray head may be configured for reciprocating rotation about the longitudinal axis thereof so as to allow for an improved cleaning effect, as shown to be known and conventional by Jinback et al. (reads on claim 4). Guazzone also teaches a pneumatically driven unit (see piston and cylinder 16 associated therewith), wherein the pneumatically driven unit (see piston and cylinder 16 associated therewith) includes a linearly movable first piston and is coupled to a rotatable member 21 and configured to convert a reciprocatingly translational drive movement (see reciprocating translational motion of piston in cylinder) to a rotational movement of the rotatable member 21 and the rotatable spray head 7 (see page 4 of the translation, figures 1-2). Hence, in the modified system involving reciprocating rotation, it is readily apparent that the reciprocatingly translational drive movement may be converted to reciprocatingly rotational movement of the rotatable member and the spray head (reads on claims 5 and 6).
Regarding claims 7-8, Guazzone and Jinback et al. together teach the limitations of claim 6. Guazzone also teaches the linearly movable first piston is arranged in a piston chamber 16, the piston chamber 16 including a first fluid port (see connection of 16 to compressed air line 20) configured to pass a fluid into the piston chamber 16 on a first side (see side of piston closest to the first fluid port connected to the compressed air line 20) of the linearly movable first piston, a second fluid port (see port of 16 through which rod 13 is inserted) capable of passing fluid into or out of the piston chamber 16 on a second side of the linearly movable first piston, such that the linearly movable first piston is linearly moved in the piston chamber 16 in response to passing fluid into the piston chamber 16 through the first fluid port and out of the piston chamber 16 through the second fluid port (see page 4 of the translation, figures 1-2).
Regarding claims 9-10, Guazzone and Jinback et al. together teach the limitations of claim 6. Guazzone also teaches in page 4 of the translation that the rotatable member 21 may be mechanically coupled (via rod 13) to the linearly movable first piston (reads on claim 9) by means of a cam arrangement (see helical engagement devices connected to rod 13) (reads on claim 10).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guazzone (EP0295325A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Caimi et al. (US5706842A).
Regarding claim 4, Guazzone teaches the limitations of claim 1. Guazzone does not teach that the spray head is configured for reciprocating rotation about the longitudinal axis of the rotatable spray head. Caimi et al. teaches a spray cleaning apparatus (see abstract) and that the spray head 14 may be configured for reciprocating rotation about the longitudinal axis thereof, allowing for thorough cleaning (see column 3, lines 33-41 and column 5, lines 3-21). Since both Guazzone and Caimi et al. teach spray cleaning apparatuses it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the spray head in the system by Guazzone may be configured for reciprocating rotation about its longitudinal axis so as to allow for thorough cleaning, as shown to be known and conventional by Caimi et al.
Regarding claim 5, Guazzone and Caimi et al. together teach the limitations of claim 4. Guazzone also teaches a pneumatically driven unit (see piston and cylinder 16 associated therewith), wherein the pneumatically driven unit (see piston and cylinder 16 associated therewith) is configured to convert a reciprocatingly translational drive movement (see translational motion of piston in cylinder) to a rotational movement of the rotatable spray head 7 (see page 4 of the translation, figures 1-2). Hence, in the modified system involving reciprocating rotation, it is readily apparent that the reciprocatingly translational drive movement may be converted to reciprocatingly rotational movement of the spray head.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-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, MICHAEL BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711