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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/30/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the first Office Action on 10/01/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 1/02/2026, supplemental response filed 1/08/2026 and supplemental response filed 6/02/2026. The objections to the specification have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Claims 3,4,7, 12-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-32 are new. Accordingly, claims 1-2,5-6,8-11,21-32 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
.
Specification
The amendment filed 01/02/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “rubber” to paragraphs 0004, 0038 and 0050.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Regarding Claim 28, applicant has added the limitation “silicone rubber” in line 2 of claim 28. On paragraph 0038 of the originally filed specification the washers 25 could be formed from a silicone type material that can be compressed between the end of a tubular portion and a flange 26 on coupling member 23. A silicone type material that can be compressed is understood to include rubbers but also sponges and foams, for example. There is nothing in the originally filed claims, specification or drawings to support this newly added limitation. Thus, the newly added limitation is deemed to be NEW MATTER.
§ 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, the term “the first transition” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims and renders the claim indefinite.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purpose the recitation “the first transition…” has been interpreted as - - a first transition - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 1 and 2, the term “substantially circular” and generally rectangular” are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “substantially” 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 a cross-section, 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, substantially circular and substantially rectangular are interpreted to both include an ellipse and an oval.
Regarding Claim 6, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The term “substantially” 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 “substantially 90⁰…” has been interpreted as - - 90⁰ - - for clarity.
Regarding claim 22, the recitations of "optionally" renders the claim indefinite.
In particular, the term “optionally” is unclear to whether the limitation following the phrase, where the high density plastic is high density polyethylene and where the hard shell is fiberglass, is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 26, the recitations of "optionally" renders the claim indefinite.
In particular, the term “optionally” is unclear to whether the limitation following the phrase, where the high density plastic is high density polyethylene, is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 27, the recitations of "optionally" renders the claim indefinite.
In particular, the term “optionally” is unclear to whether the limitation following the phrase, where the additive is molybdenum, is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 3-5, 7-11, 23-25, and 27-32 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Yuan (CN108435709A)
Regarding Claim 1, Wada teaches a cleaning tool for cleaning equipment [a dry ice spraying device that sprays dry ice particles toward an object to clean the surface of the object; 0001], comprising:
an elongate tubular body [main body 2, Figure 1] the tubular body defining a longitudinal bore [see annotated Figure 1] extending between a first end and a second end [annotated Figure 1] thereof, the tubular body having a cleaning fluid input at the first end [the end of inner pipe 101 at expansion space 10a, Figure 1] and a nozzle adapter at a second end [detachable member 28 at inlet of nozzle 20, 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 [where injection path 18 passes through the length main body 2 from confluence space 11 to detachable member 28 at inlet of nozzle 20, Figure 1] when the cleaning fluid input and the nozzle adapter are secured to the tubular body [forming injection path 18 as shown in Figure 1];
a nozzle [nozzle 20, Figure 1], the nozzle having a first end securable to the nozzle adapter of the tubular body [where nozzle 20 attaches to main body 2 with detachable member 28, Figure 1; 0029], the nozzle having a longitudinal bore [from body introduction path 23 to jet orifice 30, Figure 2] that aligns with the longitudinal bore of the nozzle adapter when the nozzle is secured to the nozzle adapter of the tubular body [where when nozzle 20 is attached via detachable member 28, the introduction path 23 aligns with injection path 18, Figure 1], the longitudinal bore through the nozzle terminating at a cleaning fluid output at a second end of the nozzle [jet orifice 30, Figure 2];
wherein the cleaning fluid is a mixture comprising 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 a first transition accelerates a 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] such that the cleaning fluid exits the cleaning fluid output at an accelerated velocity [where the accelerated ice particles are injected from injection port 30 of nozzle 20; 0026];
wherein the longitudinal bores through the tubular body, the cleaning fluid input, and the nozzle adapter each have a substantially circular cross-section [where body introduction path 23 is circular leading into nozzle 20, Figure 3;0032; where the detachable member 20 is a nut; 0029], wherein the cleaning fluid input has a cleaning fluid input transition [annotated Figure 1] to reduce the cross- sectional diameter of the longitudinal bore therethrough in a direction extending toward the nozzle adapter of the tubular body [where the cross section of the main body injection path reduces upstream detachable member 20 at the cleaning fluid input, see annotated Figure 1] wherein the longitudinal bore 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 substantially circular at the first end of the nozzle [where body introduction path 23 is circular, Figure 3] to substantially generally rectangular at the cleaning fluid output [where the cross-sectional shape of the throat portion 26 may be other elongated hole shapes, such as a rectangle, Figure 3 and Figure 4; 0033; where the shape of the injection port 30 may be a rectangle or elliptical; 0035], such that pressurized cleaning fluid delivered to the cleaning fluid input passes through the cleaning fluid output in a stream having a substantially generally rectangular cross-section [where the spray body is injected from injection port 30 at a wide angle, Figure 12; 0038].
Wada does not teach where the cleaning tool is for cleaning electrical equipment, where the elongate tubular body [main body 2, Figure 1] is formed of an electrically insulative material, the tubular body defining and where the nozzle [nozzle 20, Figure 1] is formed of an electrically insulative material.
However, Yuan teaches a dry ice cleaning insulating nozzle device [0001] where the cleaning tool is for cleaning electrical equipment [where the dry ice cleaning nozzle for power transmission line equipment when energized; 0016], where the elongate tubular body [dry ice spray insulating pipe 5, Figure 1] is formed of an electrically insulative material [where the insulating nozzle 1, insulating spray gun 2, binding sleeve 3, insulating air inlet pipe 4, and dry ice spray insulating pipe 5 are all made of insulating materials; 0021; where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand insulation refers to electrical insulation in the context of improving dry ice cleaning device for cleaning energized transmission lines; 0008] and where the nozzle [insulated nozzle 1, Figure 1] is formed of an electrically insulative material [0021;0008] 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., greatly shortening the working time and provides better safety and traffic convenience for on-site operations [Yuan; 0008].
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 have where the cleaning tool is for cleaning electrical equipment, where the elongate tubular body is formed of an electrically insulative material, the tubular body defining and where the nozzle is formed of an electrically insulative material in view of the teachings of Yuan 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., greatly shortening the working time and provides better safety and traffic convenience for on-site operations [Yuan; 0008].
Regarding Claim 2, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the longitudinal bore through the nozzle [from body introduction path 23 to jet orifice 30, Figure 2] has a second nozzle transition [second transition portion 27, Figure 2; 0034] to alter its cross-sectional shape from a first substantially rectangular cross-section [where throat portion 26 may be rectangular, Figure 2; 0033] to a second substantially rectangular cross-section [where injection port 30 may be rectangular; 0035], the second substantially rectangular cross-section having a width greater than that of the first substantially rectangular cross-section [where the injection port 30 is wider in the longitudinal direction, Figure 3; 0036].
Regarding Claim 31, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the nozzle [nozzle 20, Figure 1] is configured to accelerate the velocity of the cleaning fluid through the longitudinal bore thereof such that the cleaning fluid exits the cleaning fluid output at the accelerated velocity [where the nozzle 20, when a jet is introduced into the jet introduction passage 23, the jet moves toward the jet nozzle 30 while accelerating within the first transition section 24, and passes through the throat section 26, which has a long cross-section, Figure 2; 0038].
PNG
media_image1.png
1106
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Yuan (CN108435709A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Leon (US5795214).
Regarding Claim 5, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach a flow adapter releasably securable to the cleaning fluid output, the flow adapter having an internal longitudinal bore of a configuration corresponding to that of the cleaning fluid output and aligned with the cleaning 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 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Yuan (CN108435709A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Mesher (US5681206A).
Regarding Claim 6, Wada, as modified teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the tubular body includes a handle extending outwardly from the tubular body at substantially 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 substantially 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 substantially 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.
Regarding Claim 32, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 31 and does not teach where the accelerated velocity is a supersonic velocity.
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]
PNG
media_image2.png
408
813
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Yuan (CN108435709A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Salas (ES2525400A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the tubular body is comprised of two or more elongate tubular portions connected in an end-to-end configuration, wherein adjacent elongate tubular portions are connected by a coupling member having a longitudinal bore extending therethrough and aligned with the longitudinal bores of the respective elongate tubular portions, the coupling member formed ofrespective elongate tubular portions to reduce or prevent transmission of an electrical charge along the length of cleaning tool.
However, Salas teaches a procedure and equipment for cleaning live electrical installations [0001] where the tubular body [an abrasive jetting hose; 0029] is comprised of two or more elongate tubular portions connected in an end-to-end configuration [where the abrasive jetting hose is formed by a plurality of epoxy-coated fiberglass poles connected together by fittings 55; 0029], wherein adjacent elongate tubular portions are connected by a coupling member [connections and fittings 55; 0029] having a longitudinal bore extending therethrough and aligned with the longitudinal bores of the respective elongate tubular portions [where the work poles may be filled 100% with abrasive material in operation; 0078], the coupling member formed of
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 where the tubular body is comprised of two or more elongate tubular portions connected in an end-to-end configuration, wherein adjacent elongate tubular portions are connected by a coupling member having a longitudinal bore extending therethrough and aligned with the longitudinal bores of the respective elongate tubular portions, the coupling member formed of
Regarding Claim 9, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 8 and further teaches where the plastic material [nylon; 0078; refer to the rejection of claim 8 above in view of Salas] from which the coupling member [connections and fittings 55; 0077] is formed has a low self-capacitance that reduces or prevents capacitive and static discharge during operation of the cleaning tool [where connections and fittings (55) are testing according to a standard, with the most sensitive fittings being made of nylon; 0077; where the current leakage for work up to 400KV is within a safety standard under worst possible scenario where the pole is 100% filled with abrasive material; 0078, refer to the rejection of claim 8 above in view of Salas].
Claims 10 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Yuan (CN108435709A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Lao (CN111154396A)
Regarding Claim 10, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1, and does not teach where the tubular body has a hydrophobic exterior surface that reduces or prevents electrical conductivity on the exterior surface of the cleaning tool during operation of the cleaning tool when water vapor condensation forms the exterior surface of the tubular body.
However, Lao teaches a nano-silica modified silicone resin superhydrophobic coating [0001] where the body [of a live-line working tool; 0004] has a hydrophobic exterior surface [a nano-silica modified silicone resin superhydrophobic coating; 0007; where the water droplet stands upright on the surface of the superhydrophobic coating under its own tension and maintains a small contact area with the coating surface angles between 159.6° and 161.8°, and an average static contact angle of 160.7°, Figure 3b; 0052-00053] that reduces or prevents electrical conductivity on the exterior surface of the tool during operation of the tool when water vapor condensation forms the exterior surface of the body [where applying this hydrophobic coating to live-line working tools helps ensure the electrical performance of these tools under damp or rainy conditions, improves the safety of live-line work in distribution networks under high humidity conditions; 0020] 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 the personal safety of power equipment operators [Lao;0004].
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 has a hydrophobic exterior surface that reduces or prevents electrical conductivity on the exterior surface of the cleaning tool during operation of the cleaning tool when water vapor condensation forms the exterior surface of the tubular body view of the teachings of Lao 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 the personal safety of power equipment operators [Lao;0004].
Regarding Claim 24, Wada, as modified teaches the invention of claim 10 and further teaches where the hydrophobic exterior surface is provided by a hydrophobic coating formed of a hydrophobic material [nano-silica modified silicone resin superhydrophobic coating; 0007, refer to the rejection of claim 10 above in view of Lao].
Regarding Claim 25, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 24 and further teaches where the hydrophobic coating [nano-silica modified silicone resin superhydrophobic coating; 0007, refer to the rejection of claim 10 above in view of Lao ] is adapted to cause water vapor condensate to form in droplets on the exterior surface of the cleaning tool when water vapor condensation forms, the water droplets forming beads which fall off of the cleaning tool rather than forming a continuous layer of water along a length of the cleaning tool [where the water droplet stands upright on the surface of the superhydrophobic coating under its own tension and maintains a small contact area with the coating surface angles between 159.6° and 161.8°, and an average static contact angle of 160.7°, Figure 3b; 0052-00053, refer to the rejection of claim 10 above in view of Lao].
Claims 11 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Yuan (CN108435709A) and in further view of Zhang (CN201208581Y).
Regarding Claim 11, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches adjacent elongate tubular portions [nozzle 20 and joining member 8 coupled by detachable member 28, Figure 1] and does not teach electrically insulating washers positioned between adjacent elongate tubular portions.
However, Zhang teaches a high-voltage live-line insulating cleaning spray gun for live-line cleaning of electrical equipment [Zhang; 0002] where electrically insulating washers [where each sealing connector has a sealing ring at each end made of rubber; 0013, where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand rubber is electrically insulating] are positioned between adjacent elongate tubular portions [where each of the four gun barrel sections are connected by a sealing connector 8 and each sealing connector has a sealing ring made of rubber; 0013] 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 construction by sealing gaps between components of the assembly.
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 electrically insulating washers positioned between adjacent elongate tubular portion in view of the teachings of Zhang 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 construction by sealing gaps between components of the assembly.
Regarding Claim 29, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches nozzle adapter [detachable member 28, Figure 1] is removable from the tubular body [where detachable member 28 attaches the nozzle to member 8, Figure 1;0029, such that member 8, member 28 and nozzle 20 are separable], but does not teach the cleaning fluid input is removable from the tubular body and the cleaning tool comprising electrically insulating washers positioned between the cleaning fluid input and the first end of the tubular body and between the nozzle adapter and the second end of the tubular body.
However, Zhang teaches 220KV high-voltage live-line insulating cleaning spray gun [0002] the cleaning fluid input is removable from the tubular body [rear spray gun rods, Figure 1; 0012] where the cleaning tool comprising electrically insulating washers [sealing rings; 0013] positioned between the cleaning fluid input and the first end of the tubular body [between rear spray gun rods; 0012] and between the nozzle adapter [nozzle extension tube 9, Figure 1; 0011] and the second end of the tubular body [gun body 1, Figure 1; 0011; where each of the four gun barrel sections are connected by a sealing connector 8 on both ends and each sealing connector has a sealing ring made of rubber, Figure 1; 0013] 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 extension to a user while ensuring a sealed fluid channel.
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 electrically insulating washers positioned between adjacent elongate tubular portion in view of the teachings of Zhang 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 extension to a user while ensuring a sealed fluid channel.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Yuan (CN108435709A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Yao (CN2056364U).
Regarding Claim 21, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the electrically insulative material from which the tubular body and the nozzle are formed has a low electrical capacitance that reduces or prevents capacitance and static discharge during operation of the cleaning tool.
However, Yao teaches a spray gun for live cleaning electrical equipment [0001] where the electrically insulative material from which the tubular body [gun rod 4; 0017] and the nozzle are formed [in nozzle sleeve 5, Figure 1; 0019] has a low electrical capacitance that reduces or prevents capacitance and static discharge during operation of the cleaning tool [where the invention is made of fiberglass insulation material to ensure safe and reliable operation; 0024, where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand fiberglass has a low electrical capacitance] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, a fiberglass material, 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., ensure safe and reliable operation [Yao;0024].
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 have wherein the electrically insulative material from which the tubular body and the nozzle are formed has a low electrical capacitance that reduces or prevents capacitance and static discharge during operation of the cleaning tool in view of the teachings of Yao 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., ensure safe and reliable operation [Yao;0024].
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Yuan (CN108435709A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Hauber (US20020054968A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the tubular body comprises an interior body section formed by a high density plastic, and an exterior body section comprising a hard shell, wherein the high density plastic is optionally high density polyethylene, and wherein the hard shell is optionally formed by fiberglass.
However, Hauber teaches the manufacturing of fiber reinforced thermoplastic pipes [0001] where the tubular body [pipe member 54, Figure 1] comprises an interior body section formed by a high density plastic [where suitable thermoplastic organic polymer materials forming the pipe member in the present composition construction include but are not limited to polyethylene such as high density polyethylene; 0011], and an exterior body section comprising a hard shell [the fiber reinforcement material 22, Figure 1], wherein the high density plastic is optionally high density polyethylene [0011], and wherein the hard shell is optionally formed by fiberglass [where the fiber reinforcement may be a glass composition such as E type and S type glass; 0011] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, a reinforced composite tube, 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., affording high strength and stiffness per unit weight [Hauber; 0002].
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 have where the tubular body comprises an interior body section formed by a high density plastic, and an exterior body section comprising a hard shell, wherein the high density plastic is optionally high density polyethylene, and wherein the hard shell is optionally formed by fiberglass in view of the teachings of Yao 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., affording high strength and stiffness per unit weight [Hauber; 0002].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Yuan (CN108435709A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Spalteholz (US20050272347A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the tubular body is formed of a thermally and electrically insulative material.
However, Spalteholz teaches a dry ice blasting apparatus for cleaning equipment and parts [0001] where the tubular body [wand 10 including inner tube 12 and outer tube 14, Figure 1] is formed of a thermally and electrically insulative material [where suitable material for withstanding the temperatures of dry ice pellets materials include dielectric-rated fibreglass for the inner tube 12; 0016] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, a thermally insulative and electrically insulative material, 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 safety of the device where it can operate in proximity to energized extremely high voltage equipment and withstand temperatures of dry ice pellets [Spalteholz ;0008; 0016]
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 formed of a thermally and electrically insulative material in view of the teachings of Spalteholz 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 of the device where it can operate in proximity to energized extremely high voltage equipment and withstand temperatures of dry ice pellets [Spalteholz ;0008; 0016]
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Yuan (CN108435709A) and Salas (ES2525400A1) as applied to claim 8 above and in further view of Guo et al. (CN103131169A).
Regarding Claim 26, Petit, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 8 and does not teach where the coupling member is formed of a high density plastic, wherein the high density plastic is optionally high density polyethylene.
However, Guo teaches a permanent antistatic PA6/HDPE alloy [0002] where a general mechanical part [components in specific working environments in the textile, coal mining and electronics industries; 0006] is formed of a high density plastic, wherein the high density plastic is optionally high density polyethylene [PA6/HDPE alloy; 0037] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, the addition of HDPE, to a known device, a coupling as taught in Salas in claim 8 above, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing a more long lasting anti-static effect [Guo; 0004].
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 of a high density plastic, wherein the high density plastic is optionally high density polyethylene in view of the teachings of Guo 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 more long lasting anti-static effect [Guo; 0004]
Regarding Claim 27, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 26 and does not teach where the high-density plastic comprises an additive that reduces or prevents capacitive and static discharge during operation of the cleaning tool, wherein the additive is optionally molybdenum.
However, Guo teaches a permanent antistatic PA6/HDPE alloy [0002] where the high density plastic [PA6/HDPE alloy; 0004; 0037] comprises an additive that reduces or prevents capacitive and static discharge [co-antistatic agent silicon dioxide; 0076], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, inclusion of a co-antistatic agent, to a known device, a coupling as taught by Salas in claim 8 above, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing a more long lasting anti-static effect [Guo; 0004].
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 high density plastic comprises an additive that reduces or prevents capacitive and static discharge during operation of the cleaning tool, wherein the additive is optionally molybdenum in view of the teachings of Guo 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 more long lasting anti-static effect [Guo; 0004]
Claims 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (JP6512502B1) in view of Yuan (CN108435709A) and Zhang (CN201208581Y as applied to claim 11 and 29 above and in further view of Low et al. (US20110094798A1).
Regarding Claim 28, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 11 and further does not teach where the electrically insulating washers are formed of specifically silicone rubber.
However, Low teaches a method of interfacing insulation parts in a high voltage environment [0003] where the electrically insulating washers [insulation medium 12, Figure 1] are formed of silicone rubber [preferably, a rubber gasket of solid silicone rubber may be used to implement insulation medium 12; 0018] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, to a known device, washers, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., effectively avoiding surface flashover while minimizing the insulative material required in high voltage conditions [Low; 0007].
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 electrically insulating washers are formed of silicone rubber in view of the teachings of Low 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., effectively avoiding surface flashover while minimizing the insulative material required in high voltage conditions [Low; 0007].
Regarding Claim 30, Wada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 28 and further does not teach where the electrically insulating washers are formed of specifically silicone rubber.
However, Low teaches a method of interfacing insulation parts in a high voltage environment [0003] where the electrically insulating washer [insulation medium 12, Figure 1] are formed of silicone rubber [preferably, a rubber gasket of solid silicone rubber may be used to implement insulation medium 12; 0018] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, to a known device, washers, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., effectively avoiding surface flashover while minimizing the insulative material required in high voltage conditions [Low; 0007].
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 electrically insulating washers are formed of silicone rubber in view of the teachings of Low 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., effectively avoiding surface flashover while minimizing the insulative material required in high voltage conditions [Low; 0007].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/02/2026 with respect to claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 on pages 18-23, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 5-6,8-11 and 21-32 except for their dependence upon claim 1. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights