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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 1/29/2024. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are pending for consideration on the merits in this Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/29/2024 and 8/04/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first sentence “A tool for cleaning electrically energized equipment” repeats information given in the title. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
§ 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, 2 and 12, the term “generally circular” and generally rectangular” are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, it is unclear if generally circular and generally rectangular would both include an ellipse or an oval.
Thus, as used to qualify the angle of a handle, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
For examination purposes, generally circular and generally rectangular are interpreted to both include an ellipse and an oval.
Regarding Claim 6, the term “approximately” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the angle of a handle, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
For examination purpose the recitation “approximately 90⁰…” has been interpreted as - - 90⁰ - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 9, the term “low self-capacitance” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Thus, as used to qualify the self-capacitance of a coupling member material, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
For examination purpose the recitation “a material with a low self-capacitance to help prevent a capacitive and static discharge during use of the tool” has been interpreted as - - a material with a self-capacitance configured to help prevent a capacitive and static discharge during use of the tool - - for clarity.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wada (JP6512502B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wada teaches a tool [dry ice injection device 1, Figure 1] for cleaning electrically energized equipment [where a dry ice jetting apparatus cleans the surface of a target; 0001], the tool comprising:
an elongate tubular body [main body 2, Figure 1] having a cleaning fluid input at a first end [confluence space at first end, annotated Figure 1] and a nozzle adapter at a second end [detachable member 28, Figure 1], the tubular body having a longitudinal bore extending from the first end to the second end [see annotated Figure 1], each of the cleaning fluid input and the nozzle adapter having a longitudinal bore aligned with the longitudinal bore of the tubular body [from confluence space 11 through injection path 18 to the inlet of nozzle 20 at detachable member 28, Figure 1] when the fluid input and the nozzle adapter are secured to the tubular body [forming injection path 18, visible in Figure 1],
a nozzle [nozzle 20, Figure 1] having a first end securable to the nozzle adapter [at detachable member 28, Figure 1], the nozzle having a longitudinal bore that aligns with the longitudinal bore of the nozzle adapter when the nozzle is secured to the nozzle adapter [where injection path 18 continues into nozzle 20, visible in Figure 1], the longitudinal bore through the nozzle terminating at a fluid output at a second end of the nozzle [injection port 30, Figure 1],
wherein the longitudinal bores through the tubular body, the fluid input, and the nozzle adapter each have a generally circular cross-section [where body introduction path 23 is circular leading into nozzle 20, Figure 3;0032],
wherein the fluid input has a fluid input transition [see annotated Figure 1] to reduce the cross-sectional diameter of the longitudinal bore therethrough in a direction toward the tubular body [where the cross section of the main body injection path reduces, see annotated Figure 1],
wherein the longitudinal bore [body introduction path 23, Figure 3] through the nozzle has a first nozzle transition [first transition portion 24, Figure 3; 0032] to alter the cross-sectional shape of the longitudinal bore therethrough from generally circular at the first end of the nozzle [where body introduction path 23 is circular, Figure 4] to generally rectangular at the fluid output [where throat portion 26 may be a rectangle, Figure 4; 0033], such that pressurized cleaning fluid delivered to the fluid input passes through the fluid output in a stream having a generally rectangular cross-section [where the spray body is injected from injection port 30 at a wide angle, Figure 12; 0038].
PNG
media_image1.png
1106
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Wada teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the longitudinal bore [body introduction 23 of nozzle 20, Figure 2] through the nozzle has a second nozzle transition [second transition portion 27, Figure 2; 0034] to alter its cross-sectional shape from a first generally rectangular cross-section [where throat portion 26 may be rectangular, Figure 2; 0033] to a second generally rectangular cross-section [where injection port 30 may be rectangular; 0035], the second generally rectangular cross-section having a width greater than that of the first generally rectangular cross-section [where the injection port 30 is wider in the longitudinal direction, Figure 3; 0036].
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 3, 4, 7, 12, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Preising (US20030104764A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 and does not teach where the tubular body is comprised of one or more thermally insulative elongate tubular portions.
However, Preising teaches a cleaning method and a cleaning device for installation component parts that carry an electrical high-voltage [0001] where the tubular body [jet guiding tube SFR, Figure 3] is comprised of one or more thermally insulative elongate tubular portions [where the jet guiding tube is made of an electrically isolating material, preferably made of a synthetic material such as polycarbonate, where polycarbonate is known in the art to have thermally insulative properties; 0040, refer to pertinent art], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., improving the safety of a user by insulating the distance between the user and a high voltage [Preising, Abstract].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Wada to where the tubular body is comprised of one or more thermally insulative elongate tubular portions in view of the teachings of Preising where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., improving the safety of a user by insulating the distance between the user and a high voltage component with polycarbonate [Preising, Abstract]
Regarding Claim 4, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 and does not teach where the tubular body and the nozzle are comprised of electrically insulative materials.
However, Preising teaches a cleaning method and a cleaning device for installation component parts that carry an electrical high-voltage [0001] where the tubular body [jet guiding tube SFR, Figure 3] is comprised of one or more thermally insulative elongate tubular portions [where the jet guiding tube is made of an electrically isolating material, preferably made of a synthetic material such as polycarbonate; 0040], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., improving the safety of a user by insulating the distance between the user and a high voltage [Preising, Abstract].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Wada to where the tubular body is comprised of one or more thermally insulative elongate tubular portions in view of the teachings of Preising where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., improving the safety of a user by insulating the distance between the user and a high voltage component with polycarbonate [Preising, Abstract].
Regarding Claim 7, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 and further teaches where the cleaning fluid is a mixture of dry ice crystals and air [where carrier gas is dry air and mixes with dry ice particles; 0018;0028], wherein the movement of the cleaning fluid through the first transition accelerates the velocity of the cleaning fluid [where an injection path 18 is formed in the joining member 8 and the ice particles are accelerated by the flow of the carrier gas and injected from the injection port 30; 0026], wherein the cleaning fluid exits the fluid output [injection port 30, Figure 1] at an accelerated velocity [where the injection body accelerates at the inside of transition portion 24, Figure 4].
The claim language “wherein the movement of the cleaning fluid through the first transition accelerates the velocity of the cleaning fluid wherein the cleaning fluid exits the fluid output at an accelerated velocity” does not require additional structure beyond claim 4. Therefore, the claimed flow properties are presumed to be inherent. MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 12 Wada teaches a method of cleaning equipment [where a dry ice spraying device that sprays dry ice particles toward an object to clean the surface of the object.; 0001], the method comprising:
directing a stream of pressurized cleaning fluid [where dry ice particles and carrier gas are confluence and form an injection path 18 within the merging member 8 the confluence space 11 to the injection port 30 at the tip of the nozzle 20; 0026] through a cleaning fluid input at a first end [see annotated Figure 1 of Wada] of an elongate tubular body [main body 2, Figure 1] having a second end [see annotated Figure 1 of Wada] with a nozzle attached thereto [nozzle 20 attached with detachable member 28, Figure 1], passing the stream of pressurized cleaning fluid through a longitudinal bore of the fluid input [where injection path 18 continues into nozzle 20, visible in Figure 1], wherein the longitudinal bore has a fluid input transition that reduces the cross-sectional area of the longitudinal bore through the fluid input [where the cross section of the main body injection path reduces, see annotated Figure 1], subsequently passing the cleaning fluid through a longitudinal bore of the tubular body and into a longitudinal bore within the nozzle [where the fluid injection path 18 reaches body introduction path 23 at the inlet of nozzle 20, Figure 3], passing the stream of cleaning fluid through a first nozzle transition [first transition portion 24, Figure 3; 0032] within the nozzle to transition the stream of cleaning fluid from a generally circular cross-section [where body introduction path 23 is circular, Figure 4] to a generally rectangular cross-section [where throat portion 26 may be a rectangle, Figure 4; 0033], and directing the cleaning fluid through a fluid output [where the spray body is injected from injection port 30 at a wide angle, Figure 12; 0038] to a surface of an component to be cleaned [where the invention can be applied to a nozzle of a dry ice spraying device that sprays dry ice particles toward an object to clean the surface of the object; 0048].
Wada does not teach the equipment is specifically an electrically energized equipment where cleaning fluid is directed to a surface of an electrical component to be cleaned.
However, Preising teaches a cleaning method and a cleaning device [0001] for electrically energized equipment [installation component parts that carry an electrical high-voltage, 0001] where cleaning fluid is directed to a surface of an electrical component to be cleaned [where component parts such as the surface of a ceramic isolator must be cleaned; 0003] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing a cleaning method to important electrified components without leaving residue or surface damage [Preising, 0009;0010]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where the equipment is specifically an electrically energized equipment where cleaning fluid is directed to a surface of an electrical component to be cleaned in view of the teachings of Preising where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing a cleaning method to important electrified components without leaving residue or surface damage [Preising, 0009;0010]
Regarding Claim 14, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 12 and further teaches where the cleaning fluid [carrier gas and dry ice particles in confluence space 11; 0026] exits the fluid output [see annotated Figure 5 of Wada] at an accelerated velocity [where the dry ice particles that merge with the carrier gas in the confluence space 11 are accelerated by the flow of the carrier gas and are injected from the injection port 30, Figure 1; 0026]
Regarding Claim 16, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 14 and further teaches where the cleaning fluid comprises a mixture of dry ice crystals and air [where dry ice particles merge with carrier gas in confluence space 11 and where the confluence gas is dry air; 0018], the method comprising directing the stream of cleaning fluid onto the surface of the equipment to be cleaned and depositing dry ice crystals onto the surface [where the present invention can be applied to a nozzle of a dry ice spraying device that sprays dry ice particles toward an object to clean the surface of the object; 0048].
Wada does not teach the equipment is electrical.
However, Preising teaches a cleaning method and a cleaning device [0001] for electrically energized equipment [installation component parts that carry an electrical high-voltage, 0001] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing a cleaning method to important electrified components without leaving residue or surface damage [Preising, 0009;0010]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where the equipment is specifically an electrical equipment in view of the teachings of Preising where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing a cleaning method to important electrified components without leaving residue or surface damage [Preising, 0009;0010]
Regarding Claim 17, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 16 and further teaches passing the stream of cleaning fluid through a second nozzle transition [second transition portion 27, Figure 2; 0034] within the longitudinal bore of the nozzle [body introduction 23 of nozzle 20, Figure 2], and positioned downstream of the first nozzle transition [first transition portion 24, Figure 2; 0032], to alter the rectangular cross-sectional shape of the stream of cleaning fluid from a first rectangular shape [where throat portion 26 may be a rectangle, Figure 4; 0033] to a second rectangular shape [where injection port 30 may be rectangular; 0035], wherein the second rectangular shape has a width greater than that of the first rectangular shape [where the injection port 30 is wider in the longitudinal direction, Figure 3; 0036].
Regarding Claim 18, Wada, as modified, teaches the method of claim 17 and does not teach where the fluid output of the nozzle is electrically isolated from the tubular body.
However, Preising teaches a cleaning method and a cleaning device for installation component parts that carry an electrical high-voltage [0001] comprising electrically isolating [where the jet guiding tube is made of an electrically isolating material, preferably made of a synthetic material such as polycarbonate; 0040] the fluid output of the nozzle [jet emitting opening SA, Figure 3] from the tubular body [jet guiding tube SFR, Figure 3] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., i.e., improving safety to users by minimizing risk of exposure to high-voltage flashover when cleaning installations that are powered on [Preising, 0011].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings have where the fluid output of the nozzle is electrically isolated from the tubular body in view of the teachings of Preising where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., improving safety to users by minimizing risk of exposure to high-voltage flashover when cleaning installations that are powered on [Preising, 0011].
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Preising (US20030104764A1) and in further view of Leon (US5795214).
Regarding Claim 5, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 and does not teach where a flow adapter releasably securable to the fluid output, the flow adapter having an internal longitudinal bore of a configuration corresponding to that of the fluid output and aligned with the fluid output when the flow adapter is secured thereto, the flow adapter altering the trajectory of fluid exiting the nozzle from a path parallel to the longitudinal bore of the nozzle to a path that is at an angle to the longitudinal bore of the nozzle.
However, Leon teaches a device for changing the direction of a fluid flow containing carbon dioxide pellets [col. 2, lines 24-37] where a flow adapter [turn base 6, Figure 1] releasably securable to the fluid output [where nozzle 36 is a separate part appropriately attachable to turn base 6; col. 5, lines 55-59], the flow adapter having an internal longitudinal bore [where inlet leads to a first passage 14, Figure 2] of a configuration corresponding to that of the fluid output and aligned with the fluid output when the flow adapter is secured thereto [where the turn base 6 is provided with an inlet opening 12 to receive the forward end of the nozzle assembly; col. 4, line 58-64; where passage may have the cross sectional radius of inlet 12; col. 5, line 60 – col. 6, line 3], the flow adapter altering the trajectory of fluid exiting the nozzle from a path parallel to the longitudinal bore of the nozzle to a path that is at an angle to the longitudinal bore of the nozzle [where inlet leads to a first passage 14 and then terminates in a turning flow path portion 15, col. 4, lines 58-64; col.6 lines 47-51] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., improving usability of the device in tight spaces where access restricted [Leon, col. 1, lines 37-47].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where a flow adapter releasably securable to the fluid output, the flow adapter having an internal longitudinal bore of a configuration corresponding to that of the fluid output and aligned with the fluid output when the flow adapter is secured thereto, the flow adapter altering the trajectory of fluid exiting the nozzle from a path parallel to the longitudinal bore of the nozzle to a path that is at an angle to the longitudinal bore of the nozzle in view of the teachings of Leon where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., improving usability of the device in tight spaces where access restricted [Leon, col. 1, lines 37-47].
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Preising (US20030104764A1) and Leon (US5795214) and in further view of Mesher (US5681206A).
Regarding Claim 6, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 5 where the tubular body includes a handle extending outwardly from the tubular body at 90 degrees to the longitudinal bore of the tubular body.
However, Meshner teaches a method of accelerating and pressurizing a fluidized stream of a particulate matter [col. 1, lines 14-18] where the tubular body [body 62, Figure 5] includes a handle [handle 64, Figure 5; col. 8, lines 26-29] extending outwardly from the tubular body at 90 degrees to the longitudinal bore [flow passage portion 84, Figure 5] of the tubular body [visible in annotated Figure 5 below] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing a user friendly place to hold the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to where the tubular body includes a handle extending outwardly from the tubular body at 90 degrees to the longitudinal bore of the tubular body in view of the teachings of Meshner where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing a user-friendly place to hold the device.
Claims 8-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Preising (US20030104764A1) and in further view of Leon (US5795214) and Najm (US5139288A).
Regarding Claim 8, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 7 and does not teach where the tubular body is comprised of two or more elongate tubular portions secured together in an end-to-end configuration by a coupling member.
However, Leon teaches a device for changing the direction of a fluid flow containing carbon dioxide pellets [col. 2, lines 24-37] where the tubular body [modular tube element 5, Figure 1] is comprised of two or more elongate tubular portions secured together in an end-to-end configuration [where the length of the nozzle assembly may be adjusted by the use of modular tube elements 5; col. 4 lines 37-43] by a coupling member [rotary union 2, Figure 1] where the courts have held making components adjustable would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., providing adjustability to the length of the assembly where greater length may be needed to clean hard to access areas such as tanks [Leon, col. 4 lines 37-43].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the tubular body is comprised of two or more elongate tubular portions secured together in an end-to-end configuration by a coupling member in view of the teachings of Leon where making components adjustable would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing adjustability to the length of the assembly where greater length may be needed to clean hard to access areas such as tanks [Leon, col. 4 lines 37-43].
Wada, as modified, further does not teach the coupling member having a longitudinal bore extending therethrough and aligned with the longitudinal bores of the respective elongate tubular portions, the coupling member formed from a plastic material that electrically isolates the respective elongate tubular portions
However, Najm teaches a coupling device providing electrical and thermal insulation under high-pressure cryogenic conditions [col. 1, lines 9-13] where a coupling member [coupling device 10, Figure 1] having a longitudinal bore extending therethrough [chamber 84, Figure 2] and aligned with the longitudinal bores of the respective elongate tubular portions [where elongated bore 48 of conduit member 18 connects to chamber 84 and connect to elongated bore 36 of conduit member 16, Figure 2], the coupling member formed from a plastic material that electrically isolates the respective elongate tubular portions [where the collar member 20 and 22 are made of an insulating material such as a synthetic resin like PLEXIGLASS; col. 3, lines 33-49 ] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing electrical and thermal insulation while providing adequate sealing under cold, high-pressure conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the coupling member having a longitudinal bore extending therethrough and aligned with the longitudinal bores of the respective elongate tubular portions, the coupling member formed from a plastic material that electrically isolates the respective elongate tubular portions in view of the teachings of Najm where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing electrical and thermal insulation while providing adequate sealing under cold, high-pressure conditions.
Regarding Claim 9, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 8 and does not teach wherein the coupling member is formed from a material with a low self-capacitance to help prevent a capacitive and static discharge during use of the tool.
However, Najm teaches a coupling device providing electrical and thermal insulation under high-pressure cryogenic conditions [col. 1, lines 9-13] where a coupling member [coupling device 10, Figure 1] is formed from a material with a self-capacitance configured to help prevent a capacitive and static discharge during use of the tool [where the collar member 20 and 22 are made of an insulating material such as a synthetic resin like PLEXIGLASS; col. 3, lines 33-49] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing electrical and thermal insulation while providing adequate sealing under cold, high-pressure conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the coupling member is formed from a material with a low self-capacitance where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing electrical and thermal insulation while providing adequate sealing under cold, high-pressure conditions.
Regarding Claim 10, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and does not teach where the tubular body is hydrophobic to minimize the electrical conductivity of water vapour that condenses on an exterior surface of the tubular body.
However, Preising teaches a cleaning method and a cleaning device for installation component parts that carry an electrical high-voltage [0001] where the tubular body [jet guiding tube SFR, Figure 3] where the tubular body is hydrophobic [where the jet guiding tube is polycarbonate, and where hygroscopic synthetic materials are less suitable; 0040; where polycarbonate is known in the art to be hydrophobic; refer to pertinent art], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., improving the safety of a user by insulating the distance between the user and a high voltage [Preising, Abstract].
Claim 10 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “… to minimize the electrical conductivity of water vapour that condenses on an exterior surface of the tubular body.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Wada to where the tubular body is hydrophobic to minimize the electrical conductivity of water vapour that condenses on an exterior surface of the tubular body in view of the teachings of Preising where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., improving the safety of a user by insulating the distance between the user and a high voltage component with polycarbonate [Preising, Abstract]
Regarding Claim 11, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 8 and does not teach where electrically insulating washers are positioned between adjacent tubular portions.
However, Najm teaches a coupling device providing electrical and thermal insulation under high-pressure cryogenic conditions [col. 1, lines 9-13] where electrically insulating washers [where sealing member 24 and sealing member 26 may be TEFLON, Figure 2; col. 5, lines 24-41, where it is known in the art TEFLON is electrically insulative; refer to pertinent art.] are positioned between adjacent tubular portions [conduit member 16 and conduit member 18, Figure 2] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., preventing damage to the coupling and tubing during compressive engagement with pliant washers [Najm, col. 4, line 65 - col. 5, line 7].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to where electrically insulating washers are positioned between adjacent tubular portions. in view of the teachings of Najm where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., preventing damage to the coupling and tubing during compressive engagement with pliant washers [Najm, col. 4, line 65 - col. 5, line 7].
Regarding Claim 19, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 18 and does not teach where the tubular body is formed from two or more elongate tubular portions secured together in an end-to-end configuration by a coupling member.
However, Leon teaches a device for changing the direction of a fluid flow containing carbon dioxide pellets [col. 2, lines 24-37] where the tubular body [modular tube element 5, Figure 1] is formed from two or more elongate tubular portions secured together in an end-to-end configuration [where the length of the nozzle assembly may be adjusted by the use of modular tube elements 5; col. 4 lines 37-43] by a coupling member [rotary union 2, Figure 1] where the courts have held making components adjustable would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., providing adjustability to the length of the assembly where greater length may be needed to clean hard to access areas such as tanks [Leon, col. 4 lines 37-43].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where the tubular body is comprised of two or more elongate tubular portions secured together in an end-to-end configuration by a coupling member in view of the teachings of Leon where making components adjustable would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., providing adjustability to the length of the assembly where greater length may be needed to clean hard to access areas such as tanks [Leon, col. 4 lines 37-43].
Wada, as modified, further does not teach the coupling member is formed from a material that electrically isolates the respective elongate tubular portions.
However, Najm teaches a coupling device providing electrical and thermal insulation under high-pressure cryogenic conditions [col. 1, lines 9-13] where a coupling member [coupling device 10, Figure 1] is formed from a material that electrically isolates the respective elongate tubular portions [where the collar member 20 and 22 are made of an insulating material such as a synthetic resin like PLEXIGLASS; col. 3, lines 33-49 ] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing electrical and thermal insulation while providing adequate sealing under cold, high-pressure conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where the coupling member is formed from a material that electrically isolates the respective elongate tubular portions in view of the teachings of Najm where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing electrical and thermal insulation while providing adequate sealing under cold, high-pressure conditions.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Preising (US20030104764A1) and in further view of Mesher (US5681206A).
Regarding Claim 13, Wada, as modified teaches the method of claim 12 and does not explicitly teach using the fluid input transition to accelerate the speed of the flow of cleaning fluid through the longitudinal bore of the fluid input.
However, Mesher teaches a method of accelerating and pressurizing a fluidized stream of particulate matter [col.1, lines 14-18] using the fluid input transition [converging passage portion 82, Figure 5; col. 8, lines 45-54] to accelerate the speed of the flow of cleaning fluid [where the flow shear front 146, in conjunction with converging passage portion 82 and constriction 83 form a virtual nozzle for accelerating the fluidized stream, Figure 5; col. 10, lines 25-30] through the longitudinal bore of the fluid input [flow passage 84, Figure 5] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., improving blast impact and acceleration leaving the nozzle by such that the fluid leaves the nozzle at supersonic speeds [Mesher, col. 8, lines 40-45]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings have where the fluid input transition is used to accelerate the speed of the flow of cleaning fluid through the longitudinal bore of the fluid input in view of the teachings of Mesher where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., improving blast impact and acceleration leaving the nozzle by such that the fluid leaves the nozzle at supersonic speeds [Mesher, col. 8, lines 40-45]
Regarding Claim 15, Wada, as modified teaches the invention of claim 14 and does not teach where the velocity is supersonic.
However, Mesher teaches a method of accelerating and pressurizing a fluidized stream of particulate matter [col.1, lines 14-18] where the velocity is supersonic [where blast nozzle 70 has an end portion for accelerating to supersonic speed a blast medium supplied to nozzle 70 through supply tube 80, Figure 5; col. 8, lines 40-45] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., improving blast impact and acceleration leaving the nozzle by such that the fluid leaves the nozzle at supersonic speeds [Mesher, col. 8, lines 40-45]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings have where the velocity is supersonic in view of the teachings of Mesher where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., improving blast impact and acceleration leaving the nozzle by such that the fluid leaves the nozzle at supersonic speeds [Mesher, col. 8, lines 40-45]
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Preising (US20030104764A1) and in further view of Okamura (US20110261112A1)
Regarding Claim 20, Wada, as modified, teaches the method of claim 18 and does not teach coating an exterior surface of the tool with a hydrophobic material to reduce electrical conductance along the outer surface of the tool through condensation of water vapor thereon.
However, Okamura teaches a fluid ejector [0002] where an exterior surface of the tool [fluid ejector 100 with nozzle 128, Figure 1A] is coated with a hydrophobic material [non-wetting coating 150, Figure 1B], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., reducing the accumulation of fluid on the exterior surface of the tool, thereby improving reliability of the fluid flow ejected [Okamura, 0016].
The claim language “…to reduce electrical conductance along the outer surface of the tool through condensation of water vapor thereon” does not require the prior art to perform an additional method step nor does it require additional structure beyond “coating an exterior surface of the tool with a hydrophobic material”. Therefore, the claimed properties of a hydrophobic material are presumed to be inherent. MPEP § 2112.01.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to where the tubular body is hydrophobic to minimize the electrical conductivity of water vapour that condenses on an exterior surface of the tubular body in view of the teachings of Okamura where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., reducing the accumulation of fluid on the exterior surface of the tool, thereby improving reliability of the fluid flow ejected [Okamura, 0016].
PNG
media_image2.png
408
813
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McKeen, L., et al., Flourinated Ethylene Propylene, 2017, Film Properties of Plastics and Elastomers, 4th Edition, Elsevier [retrieved on 23 Sept 2025]. Retrieved from Knovel. McKeen teaches fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), also known by trade name TEFLON, are suited for applications requiring superior electrical properties such as cable insulation.
Bronzino, J., et al., Polymers Used as Biomaterials, 2015, Biomedical Engineering Fundamentals, 4th edition, [retrieved on 23 Sept 2025]. Retrieved from Knovel. Bronzino teaches how polycarbonate has excellent hydrophobicity and thermal properties with applications such as heart assist devices and food packaging.
Jackson et al. (EP2318749B1) teaches an insulated high-temperature transport conduit where thermoplastic such as polycarbonate is used as a layer of thermal insulation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763