DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending. Claims 3 and 11-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 21 are subject to examination on the merits.
Response to Amendments
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The 07/30/2026 arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) have been fully considered. Applicant contends that the prior art of record does not teach certain limitations (e.g., “a transfer pump configured to pump…”) of the claims as amended (see Remarks at 7-8). Because those limitations are newly introduced through amendment, they are addressed in the updated 35 USC § 103 rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over INNES (US PGPUB 20190374984), in view of JANSEN et al. (US PGPUB 20160107205).
Regarding Claim 1, INNES teaches a railroad tank car cleaning system (see, e.g., abstract, Figs. 1-11, claims 1-20).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
1446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
INNES teaches the system comprising a cannon assembly (see annotated Fig. 1A above; see also Figs. 1-11, ¶¶ 0130-55) secured to a tank of a railroad tank car at an opening of a manway hatch of the tank (see id.), wherein the cannon assembly including an adapter (upper assembly 34) configured to close the opening of the manway hatch (see Figs. 1A-1B, ¶ 0143; see also annotated Fig. 1B below) and a hydraulic cannon (nozzle assembly 32, see Fig. 1A, ¶¶ 0145-46) configured to extend within an interior of the tank (see id.), wherein the hydraulic cannon (nozzle assembly 32) comprising at least a nozzle (e.g., nozzles 6, 7, 8, 9) for pressure cleaning the interior of the tank (see, e.g., Figs. 1A, 1F, 1G, 4, 4A, ¶¶ 0160, 0162, 0166) and a camera (see ¶ 0018) for remotely visualizing the interior of the tank (see id.).
PNG
media_image2.png
544
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
INNES teaches the system comprising a controller (the human machine interface or “HMI” comprises a CPU 78 and control software, see Fig. 10, ¶ 0175) configured to automatically control movement and operation of the hydraulic cannon during cleaning according to one or more cleaning profiles (see ¶ 0177).
Although INNES does not explicitly teach the adapter is configured to seal the opening, this is still reasonably expected based on the illustration in Fig. 1B and because INNES discloses that the tank may have hazardous substances (see ¶¶ 0002-03, 0009-10, 0156, disclosing hazardous dusts and vapors). Alternatively, if the teachings of INNES do not clearly envisage the adapter being configured to seal the opening, it still would’ve been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the adapter to seal the opening, with reasonable expectation of enclosing the hazardous substances. Because the tank may have hazardous substances—including hazardous dusts and vapors—a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to use an adapter that can seal the opening to prevent any inadvertent leakage of such hazardous substances.
INNES does not explicitly teach:
“one or more holding tanks to collect waste product drained from the tank”;
“a filtration unit configured to filter and recirculate liquid drained from the tank during cleaning”;
“a transfer pump configured to pump waste product drained from the tank into the one or more holding tanks and liquid drained from the tank into the filtration unit”;
“wherein the one or more holding tanks and the filtration unit are configured to be transported between railroad tank cars with the cannon assembly.”
JANSEN teaches a railroad tank cleaning system (see Fig. 1, 0020, abstract) comprising: a hydraulic cannon (spray nozzle 14); a holding tank (tank 42) to collect waste product drained from the tank (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0030, 0034, 0038); a filtration unit (filter assembly 46) configured to filter and recirculate liquid drained from the tank during cleaning (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0030-31); a transfer pump (pump 36) configured to pump waste product drained from the tank (rail tank car 10) into the holding tank (pump into tank 42, see Fig. 1, ¶ 0030) and liquid drained from the tank (rail tank car 10) into the filtration unit (pump into filter assembly 46, see Fig. 1, ¶ 0030).
JANSEN’s holding tank (tank 42) and filtration unit (filter assembly 46) are structurally fully capable of being transported between railroad tank cars with the cannon assembly. For example, the holding tank and filtration unit may be placed on a movable vehicle. Applicant is reminded that a claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II. ("Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does").
JANSEN teaches that the holding tank and the filtration unit—with the help of the transfer pump—provide benefits such as collecting waste product (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0030, 0034, 0038) and recycling the cleaning fluid (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0030-31).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cleaning system of INNES to incorporate a holding tank, a filtration unit, and a transfer pump, with reasonable expectation of collecting waste product and filtering the cleaning fluid.
First, the holding tank and the filtration unit—with the help of the transfer pump—provide benefits such as collecting waste product and recycling the cleaning fluid; given these benefits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate a holding tank, a filtration unit, and a transfer pump into the cleaning system of INNES.
Second, it’s already known in the prior art for a railroad tank car cleaning system to comprise a holding tank, a filtration unit, and a transfer pump (see JANSEN). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A. The holding tank, the filtration unit, and the transfer pump—as incorporated into INNES—would perform the same functions as before (e.g., collecting waste product, filtering cleaning fluid, circulating waste product and cleaning fluid), thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of INNES and JANSEN: the holding tank and the filtration unit are structurally fully capable of performing the recited function of “to be transported between railroad tank cars with the cannon assembly” (as explained above, those structures may be placed on a movable vehicle). A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of INNES and JANSEN teaches the cleaning system of claim 1. The cleaning system as taught by the combination of INNES and JANSEN is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function of “detect residual material on an interior surface of the tank based on images captured by the camera.” For example, the cleaning system comprises a camera (see INNES at ¶ 0018) for capturing images inside the tank and a human machine interface (“HMI”) having a display screen (see INNES at Fig. 10, ¶¶ 0175, 0178, 0180), which would allow a human operator to detect residual material on an interior surface of the tank based on images captured by the camera. A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II ("Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does").
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of INNES and JANSEN teaches the cleaning system of claim 1. The combination teaches the controller (HMI of INNES comprising a CPU 78 and control software, see INNES Fig. 10, ¶ 0175) is configured to control movement and operation of the hydraulic cannon during cleaning (see INNES at ¶¶ 0015, 0178 the HMI allows the nozzle assembly to be monitored and manipulated in real-time) based on images captured by the camera (see id. at ¶¶ 0015, 0018, 0178, 0181).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DESORMEAUX (US PGPUB 20180339318), in view of INNES and JANSEN.
Regarding Claim 1, DESORMEAUX teaches a railroad tank car cleaning system (see abstract, Figs. 1-5; the system may be used to clean a tanker railcar, see ¶ 0024).
DESORMEAUX’s system comprises a cannon assembly (cleaning apparatus 102/402, see Figs. 1-5, ¶¶ 0023, 0026, 0046), the cannon assembly including a hydraulic cannon (cleaning device 106, see Figs. 1-5, ¶¶ 0023, 0026-27, 0047) configured to extend within an interior of the tank (see Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0024), the hydraulic cannon comprising at least a nozzle (see ¶¶ 0027, 0043, 0047, Figs. 3-5, cleaning device 106 may be one or more nozzles) for pressure cleaning the interior of the tank (see id.) and a camera (camera 444) for remotely visualizing the interior of the tank (see Fig. 4, ¶ 0048).
DESORMEAUX’s system comprises a controller (controller 104, see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0023, 0032) configured to automatically control movement and operation of the hydraulic cannon during cleaning according to one or more cleaning profiles (see ¶¶ 0032, 0036-38, 0059-62).
DESORMEAUX teaches that the cannon assembly (cleaning apparatus 102/402) may be mounted to the vessel’s opening (see ¶ 0026, the base of the cleaning apparatus may be mounted at a predetermined or fixed location using a mounting mechanism such as vessel opening mounts). Indeed, DESORMEAUX teaches that many variations and modifications may be made to its invention (see ¶ 0104).
DESORMEAUX does not explicitly teach:
the cannon assembly is “secured to a tank of a railroad tank car at an opening of a manway hatch of the tank” and the cannon assembly includes “an adapter configured to seal the opening of the manway hatch”;
“one or more holding tanks to collect waste product drained from the tank”;
“a filtration unit configured to filter and recirculate liquid drained from the tank during cleaning”;
“a transfer pump configured to pump waste product drained from the tank into the one or more holding tanks and liquid drained from the tank into the filtration unit”;
“wherein the one or more holding tanks and the filtration unit are configured to be transported between railroad tank cars with the cannon assembly.”
INNES teaches a railroad tank car cleaning system (see, e.g., abstract, Figs. 1-11, claims 1-20), the system comprising a cannon assembly (see annotated Fig. 1A above; see also Figs. 1-11, ¶¶ 0130-55) secured to a tank of a railroad tank car at an opening of a manway hatch of the tank (see id.), wherein the cannon assembly including an adapter (upper assembly 34) configured to close the opening of the manway hatch (see Figs. 1A-1B, ¶ 0143).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify DESORMEAUX to incorporate an adapter configured to close the opening of the manway hatch, with reasonable expect of mounting the cannon assembly to the tank of the railroad tank car. DESORMEAUX already teaches that its cleaning system is for cleaning a railroad tank car (see ¶ 0024), wherein the cannon assembly may be mounted via “vessel opening mounts” (see ¶ 0026) and many modifications may be made to its invention (see ¶ 0104). And it’s already known in the prior art to secure a cannon assembly to a tank of a railroad tank car at an opening of a manway hatch of the tank (see INNES), wherein the cannon assembly is secured using an adapter configured to close the opening of the manway hatch (see INNES). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A. The adapter as incorporated would serve the same function as before (e.g., mount the cannon assembly to the tank’s manway hatch), thereby yielding predictable results.
Additionally, it would’ve been obvious to configure the adapter to seal the opening, with reasonable expectation of enclosing the tank. It’s already known in the prior art that tanks may have hazardous substances therein (see INNES at ¶¶ 0002-03, 0009-10, 0156, disclosing hazardous dusts and vapors; see also DESORMEAUX at ¶¶ 0003, tank cleaning is hazardous and dangerous); a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to use an adapter that can seal the opening to prevent any inadvertent leakage of such hazardous substances.
In the resulting combination of DESORMEAUX and INNES: the cannon assembly (DESORMEAUX’s cleaning apparatus 102/402) would be secured to a tank of a railroad tank car at an opening of a manway hatch of the tank, wherein the cannon assembly would include an adapter configured to seal the opening of the manway hatch.
The combination of DESORMEAUX and INNES does not explicitly teach:
“one or more holding tanks to collect waste product drained from the tank”;
“a filtration unit configured to filter and recirculate liquid drained from the tank during cleaning”;
“a transfer pump configured to pump waste product drained from the tank into the one or more holding tanks and liquid drained from the tank into the filtration unit”;
“wherein the one or more holding tanks and the filtration unit are configured to be transported between railroad tank cars with the cannon assembly.”
JANSEN teaches a railroad tank cleaning system (see Fig. 1, 0020, abstract) comprising: a hydraulic cannon (spray nozzle 14); a holding tank (tank 42) to collect waste product drained from the tank (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0030, 0034, 0038); a filtration unit (filter assembly 46) configured to filter and recirculate liquid drained from the tank during cleaning (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0030-31); a transfer pump (pump 36) configured to pump waste product drained from the tank (rail tank car 10) into the holding tank (pump into tank 42, see Fig. 1, ¶ 0030) and liquid drained from the tank (rail tank car 10) into the filtration unit (pump into filter assembly 46, see Fig. 1, ¶ 0030).
JANSEN’s holding tank (tank 42) and filtration unit (filter assembly 46) are structurally fully capable of being transported between railroad tank cars with the cannon assembly. For example, the holding tank and filtration unit may be placed on a movable vehicle. Applicant is reminded that a claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II. ("Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does").
JANSEN teaches that the holding tank and the filtration unit—with the help of the transfer pump—provide benefits such as collecting waste product (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0030, 0034, 0038) and recycling the cleaning fluid (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0030-31).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of DESORMEAUX and INNES to incorporate a holding tank, a filtration unit, and a transfer pump, with reasonable expectation of collecting waste product and filtering the cleaning fluid.
First, the holding tank and the filtration unit—with the help of the transfer pump—provide various benefits such as collecting waste product and filtering the cleaning fluid for reuse; given these benefits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate a holding tank, a filtration unit, and a transfer pump into the combination of DESORMEAUX and INNES.
Second, it’s already known in the prior art for a railroad tank car cleaning system to comprise a holding tank, a filtration unit, and a transfer pump (see JANSEN). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A. The holding tank, the filtration unit, and the transfer pump—as incorporated into DESORMEAUX and INNES—would perform the same functions as before (e.g., collecting waste product, filtering cleaning fluid, circulating waste product and cleaning fluid), thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of DESORMEAUX, INNES, and JANSEN: the holding tank and the filtration unit are structurally fully capable of performing the recited function of “to be transported between railroad tank cars with the cannon assembly” (as explained above, those structures may be placed on a movable vehicle). A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II. ("Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does").
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of DESORMEAUX, INNES, and JANSEN teaches the cleaning system of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein individual cleaning profiles specify a pre-programmed duration and pattern of movement for the hydraulic cannon for cleaning the interior of the tank (see DESORMEAUX at ¶ 0032, the cleaning protocol includes parameters of how cleaning device 106 is moved, including its travel path, direction, speed, and distance; moreover, because speed equals to distance divided by time, the duration of movement is inherently or implicitly included in the cleaning protocol).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of DESORMEAUX, INNES, and JANSEN teaches the cleaning system of claim 2. The combination teaches the controller (DESORMEAUX’s controller 104) is configured to automatically select a cleaning profile based on at least one of a shape of the tank and a material stored in the tank (see DESORMEAUX at ¶¶ 0037, 0059, 0068, determine cleaning protocol based the shape of the vessel and the material in the vessel). DESORMEAUX also reasonably suggests using the size of the tank as a factor, because DESORMEAUX teaches using size of area as a factor (see ¶ 0068) and one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that a larger tank has a larger area.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of DESORMEAUX, INNES, and JANSEN teaches the cleaning system of claim 1. The combination teaches an electronic storage accessible by the controller (see DESORMEAUX at ¶¶ 0032-33). DESORMEAUX teaches that instructions are stored in a memory and the controller executes such stored instructions (see id.). Because the cleaning profiles are simply instructions for the hydraulic cannon (see id. at ¶¶ 0032, 0036-38, 0059-62), then one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand or reasonably expect that the cleaning profiles are stored in an electronic storage accessible by the controller.
Alternatively, if the combination does not clearly envisage storing the one or more cleaning profiles in electronic storage accessible by the controller, it still would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for several reasons. First, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that, by storing the cleaning profiles in the electronic storage, those profiles can be quickly retrieved and reused, thereby saving time and computing resources. Given these benefits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to store the cleaning profiles in the electronic storage. Second, DESORMEAUX already teaches that instructions are stored on a memory (see ¶¶ 0032-33), and the cleaning profiles are simply instructions for the hydraulic cannon (cleaning device 106 of DESORMEAUX). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of DESORMEAUX, INNES, and JANSEN teaches the cleaning system of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches: a camera (i.e., camera 444 of DESORMEAUX); a hydraulic cannon (i.e., cleaning device 106 of DESORMEAUX); and a controller (i.e., controller 104 of DESORMEAUX) configured to automatically control movement and operation of the hydraulic cannon during cleaning.
The combination does not explicitly teach that the controller is further configured to control movement and operation of the hydraulic cannon during cleaning “based on images captured by the camera.” But INNES already teaches a controller (HMI comprising a CPU 78 and control software, see INNES Fig. 10, ¶ 0175) configured to control movement and operation of the hydraulic cannon during cleaning (see INNES at ¶¶ 0015, 0178 the HMI allows the nozzle assembly to be monitored and manipulated in real-time) based on images captured by the camera (see id. at ¶¶ 0015, 0018, 0178, 0181).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of DESORMEAUX, INNES, and JANSEN to configure the controller (i.e., controller 104 of DESORMEAUX) to control movement and operation of the hydraulic cannon during cleaning “based on images captured by the camera,” with reasonable expectation of cleaning the railroad tank. It’s already known in the prior art that the controller may be configured to control movement and operation of the hydraulic cannon (see DESORMEAUX; see INNES) during cleaning based on images captured by the camera (see INNES). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Claims 2, 4-5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of INNES and JANSEN (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of DESORMEAUX.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of INNES and JANSEN teaches the cleaning system of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “wherein individual cleaning profiles specify a pre-programmed duration and pattern of movement for the hydraulic cannon for cleaning the interior of the tank.”
DESORMEAUX teaches a cleaning system for cleaning a railroad tank car (see ¶ 0024), wherein the system comprises a hydraulic cannon (cleaning device 106, see Figs. 1-5, ¶¶ 0023, 0026-27, 0047) comprising at least a nozzle (see ¶¶ 0027, 0043, 0047, Figs. 3-5) and a controller (controller 104) configured to automatically control movement and operation of the hydraulic cannon during cleaning according to one or more cleaning profiles (see ¶¶ 0032, 0036-38, 0059-62). DESORMEAUX teaches wherein individual cleaning profiles specify a pre-programmed duration and pattern of movement for the hydraulic cannon for cleaning the interior of the tank (see ¶ 0032, the cleaning protocol includes parameters of how cleaning device 106 is moved, including its travel path, direction, speed, and distance; moreover, because speed equals to distance divided by time, the duration of movement is inherently or implicitly included in the cleaning protocol).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of INNES and JANSEN such that the individual cleaning profiles specify a pre-programmed duration and pattern of movement for the hydraulic cannon for cleaning the interior of the tank, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the tank. It’s already known in the prior art for a railroad tank car cleaning system to have individual cleaning profiles specify a pre-programmed duration and pattern of movement for the hydraulic cannon for cleaning the interior of the tank (see DESORMEAUX). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The individual cleaning profiles, as modified, would still serve the same function as before (e.g., providing instructions for the hydraulic cannon), thereby yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of INNES, JANSEN, and DESORMEAUX teaches the cleaning system of claim 2. As explained above, INNES teaches a controller (CPU 78 and control software, see INNES at Fig. 10, ¶ 0175).
The combination does not explicitly teach: “wherein the controller is configured to automatically select at least one cleaning profile based on at least one of a size of the tank, a shape of the tank, and a material stored in the tank.”
But DESORMEAUX teaches that a controller (controller 104) may be configured to automatically select a cleaning profile based on at least one of a shape of the tank and a material stored in the tank (see ¶¶ 0037, 0059, 0068, determine cleaning protocol based the shape of the vessel and the material in the vessel). DESORMEAUX also reasonably suggests using the size of the tank as a factor, because DESORMEAUX teaches using size of area as a factor (see ¶ 0068) and one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that a larger tank has a larger area.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of INNES, JANSEN, and DESORMEAUX to configure the controller (CPU 78 and control software of INNES) to automatically select at least one cleaning profile based on at least one of a size of the tank, a shape of the tank, and a material stored in the tank, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the tank. First, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that, by having the controller automatically select the cleaning profile, it’s possible to reduce the user’s involvement, thereby saving time and energy for the user. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to configure the controller to automatically select at least one cleaning profile based on certain criteria (e.g., size of tank, shape of tank, material in tank), especially considering that the hydraulic cannon moves through the interior of the tank (as explained above). Second, it’s already known in the prior art for the controller (of a railroad tank car cleaning system) to automatically select at least one cleaning profile based on certain criteria, e.g., size of tank, shape of tank, material in tank (see DESORMEAUX). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of INNES and JANSEN teaches the cleaning system of claim 1.
Although the combination does not explicitly teach “wherein the one or more cleaning profiles are stored in electronic storage accessible by the controller,” this is inherently taught or reasonably expected based on the teachings of INNES. INNES discloses a computer (control station 75) having a controller (CPU 78) and control software (see ¶ 0175), the control software including the cleaning profiles (see ¶ 0177). A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand or reasonably expect that the control software is not just an idea in someone’s mind, but rather the software physically exists in a computer-readable medium, i.e., the software (including the cleaning profiles) is stored in an electronic storage accessible by the controller.
Alternatively, if the teachings of INNES do not clearly envisage storing the cleaning profiles in an electronic storage accessible by the controller, it still would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use an electronic storage (accessible by the controller) to store the cleaning profiles, with reasonable expectation of storing the profiles for repeated use. It’s already known in the prior art to store software in an electronic storage accessible by the controller (see DESORMEAUX at ¶¶ 0032-33, 0059). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A. The electronic storage as incorporated would serve the same function as before (e.g., storing software therein), thereby yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of INNES and JANSEN teaches the cleaning system of claim 1. The combination teaches that the system is configured to map interior contours of the tank based on images captured by the camera (see INNES at ¶¶ 0180-81).
The combination does not explicitly teach that the system is configured to “automatically select at least one cleaning profile based on the mapped interior contours of the tank.”
DESORMEAUX teaches a cleaning system for cleaning a railroad tank car (see ¶ 0024); wherein the system is configured to map the interior contours of the tank (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0007-08, 0036-37, 0040, 0056); wherein the system comprises a controller (controller 104) configured to automatically select a cleaning profile based on the mapped interior contours of the tank (see abstract, ¶¶ 0007-08, 0036-37, 0056, 0061).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of INNES and JANSEN to configure the controller (i.e., CPU 78 and control software of INNES) to automatically select at least one cleaning profile based on the mapped interior contours of the tank, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the tank. First, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that, by having the controller automatically select the cleaning profile, it’s possible to reduce the user’s involvement, thereby saving time and energy for the user. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to configure the controller to automatically select at least one cleaning profile based on certain criteria (e.g., the mapped interior contours of the tank), especially considering that the hydraulic cannon moves through the interior of the tank (as explained above). Second, it’s already known in the prior art for the controller (of a railroad tank car cleaning system) to automatically select at least one cleaning profile based on certain criteria, e.g., the mapped interior contours of the tank (see DESORMEAUX). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of INNES and JANSEN (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of COLE et al. (US PGPUB 20210283667).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of INNES and JANSEN teaches the cleaning system of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach: “one or more vehicles configured to transport at least the cannon assembly, the controller, the one or more holding tanks, and the filtration unit between railroad tank cars within a railyard.”
But it’s already known in the prior art for a railroad tank car cleaning system to have a vehicle (e.g., a truck). See COLE at Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0029, 0031-33. The vehicle provides the benefits of supporting and transporting various components of the cleaning system (see id.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of INNES and JANSEN to incorporate a vehicle (e.g., a truck), with reasonable expectation of supporting and transporting various components of the cleaning system. First, a vehicle provides the benefits of supporting and transporting various components of the railroad tank car cleaning system; given these benefits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such vehicle into the cleaning system as taught by the combination of INNES and JANSEN. Second, it’s already known in the prior art for a railroad tank car cleaning system to have a vehicle to support the system’s components (see COLE). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The vehicle as incorporated would serve the same function as before (e.g., supporting and transporting components of the cleaning system), thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of INNES, JANSEN, and COLE: the incorporated vehicle (e.g., a truck) is structurally fully capable of transporting various components—e.g., the cannon assembly, the controller, the holding tank, and the filtration unit—between railroad tank cars within a railyard.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of DESORMEAUX, INNES, and JANSEN (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of COLE et al. (US PGPUB 20210283667).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of DESORMEAUX, INNES, and JANSEN teaches the cleaning system of claim 1. As explained above, the cleaning system comprises components such as cannon assembly, controller, holding tank, and filtration unit.
Although the combination does not explicitly teach “one or more vehicles configured to transport at least the cannon assembly, the controller, the one or more holding tanks, and the filtration unit between railroad tank cars within a railyard,” it’s already known in the prior art for a railroad tank car cleaning system to have a vehicle (e.g., a truck). See COLE at Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0029, 0031-33. The vehicle provides the benefits of supporting and transporting various components of the cleaning system (see id.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of DESORMEAUX, INNES, and JANSEN to incorporate a vehicle (e.g., a truck), with reasonable expectation of supporting and transporting various components of the cleaning system. First, a vehicle provides the benefits of supporting and transporting various components of the railroad tank car cleaning system; given these benefits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such vehicle into the cleaning system as taught by the combination of DESORMEAUX, INNES, and JANSEN. Second, it’s already known in the prior art for a railroad tank car cleaning system to have a vehicle (see COLE). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The vehicle as incorporated would serve the same function as before (e.g., supporting and transporting components), thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of DESORMEAUX, INNES, JANSEN, and COLE: the incorporated vehicle (e.g., a truck) is structurally fully capable of transporting various components—e.g., the cannon assembly, the controller, the holding tank, the filtration unit—between railroad tank cars within a railyard.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of INNES and JANSEN (as applied to Claim 8 above), in further view of LU et al. (US PGPUB 20170016796).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of INNES and JANSEN teaches the cleaning system of claim 8. The combination teaches that the residual material on the interior surface of the tank may include oil (see INNES at abstract, ¶¶ 0002, 0009).
The combination does not explicitly teach: “the system is configured to utilize fluorescence-based imaging functionality to identify the residual material on the interior surface of the tank.” But it’s already known in the prior art to use a detection system having fluorescence-based imaging functionality to identify oil. See LU at abstract, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0009, 0018. In particular, LU teaches the detection system comprises a light source and an imaging device (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0018).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of INNES and JANSEN to incorporate a detection system (comprising a light source and an imaging device) having fluorescence-based imaging functionality, with reasonable expectation of detecting oil in the tank. First, INNES teaches that the residual material on the interior surface of the tank may include oil, and LU teaches a detection system that can identify oil; given this benefit (e.g., allowing oil to be identified), a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such detection system into the cleaning system as taught by the combination of INNES and JANSEN. Second, it’s already known in the prior art that the residual material on the interior surface of the tank may include oil (see INNES) and that oil can be identified using a detection system having fluorescence-based imaging functionality (see LU). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The detection system, as incorporated, would still serve the same function as before (e.g., using fluorescence-based imaging to identify oil), thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of INNES, JANSEN, and LU: the cleaning system would comprise a detection system (comprising a light source and an imaging device) having fluorescence-based imaging functionality, which means the system would be structurally fully capable of performing the recited function of “utilize fluorescence-based imaging functionality to identify the residual material on the interior surface of the tank.”
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of INNES and JANSEN (as applied to Claim 8), in further view of SHARMA et al. (US PGPUB 20240420299).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of INNES and JANSEN teaches the cleaning system of claim 8. The combination teaches that the residual material on the interior surface of the tank may include oil (see INNES at abstract, ¶¶ 0002, 0009).
The combination does not explicitly teach: “the system is configured to utilize fluorescence-based imaging functionality to identify the residual material on the interior surface of the tank.” But it’s already known in the prior art to use a detection system having fluorescence-based imaging functionality to identify oil. See SHARMA at abstract, Fig. 2A, ¶¶ 0060, 0063. In particular, SHARMA teaches the detection system comprises a light source and an imaging device (see Fig. 2A, ¶¶ 0060, 0063).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of INNES and JANSEN to incorporate a detection system (comprising a light source and an imaging device) having fluorescence-based imaging functionality, with reasonable expectation of detecting oil in the tank. First, INNES teaches that the residual material on the interior surface of the tank may include oil, and SHARMA teaches a detection system that can identify oil; given this benefit (e.g., allowing oil to be identified), a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such detection system into the cleaning system as taught by the combination of INNES and JANSEN. Second, it’s already known in the prior art that the residual material on the interior surface of the tank may include oil (see INNES) and that oil can be identified using a detection system having fluorescence-based imaging functionality (see SHARMA). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The detection system, as incorporated, would still serve the same function as before (e.g., using fluorescence-based imaging to identify oil), thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of INNES, JANSEN, and SHARMA: the cleaning system would comprise a detection system (comprising a light source and an imaging device) having fluorescence-based imaging functionality, which means the system would be structurally fully capable of performing the recited function of “utilize fluorescence-based imaging functionality to identify the residual material on the interior surface of the tank.”
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
YOUNG et al. (US PGPUB 20190023234) teaches a railroad tank car cleaning system (¶ 0002, “The present disclosure is directed to systems . . . for cleaning (e.g., washing and sanitizing) the interior of an elongate, generally rectangular freight container, such as . . . a railroad car”), the system comprising an ultraviolet lamp that emits UV light inside the tank (see abstract, ¶¶ 0005-06, 0019, 0021, 0023-24, 0101-02, 0109).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached on (571) 272-1344. 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.
/RICHARD Z. ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights