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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (claims 1-9, 42-54) in the reply filed on 3/17/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-41 have been cancelled and withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/17/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7 and 51 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “…the control system..” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 51 recites the limitation "..the fluid passage.." in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freidell (US20030024485).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 50, Freidell teaches a mixing system configured for use with a power washer (see abstract), comprising: an electrically actuated valve 104/108/356/358 communicated with a supply of a working fluid (see fluid disposed inside containers 102) (see paragraphs [0024], [0038], [0041], [0050], [0058], [0062], figures 3a-3b), the valve 104/108/356/358 having a valve head that is movable between open and closed positions to control the flow rate of the working fluid through an outlet of the valve 104/108/356/358, wherein the outlet of the valve 104/108/356/358 is communicated with an inlet of the power washer 128 to enable flow of the working fluid into a primary fluid (see e.g. water, as shown in figures 3a, 3b) and discharge of a mixture of the primary fluid and working fluid from the power washer 128 when the valve 104/108/356/358 is open, and to provide a flow of primary fluid from the power washer 128 when the valve 104/108/356/358 is closed (see paragraphs [0024], [0038], [0041], [0050], [0058], [0062], figures 3a-3b) (reads on claim 1); a controller, and wherein the electrically actuated valve 104/108/356/358 is connected to the controller and actuated by the controller (see paragraphs [0048], [0050], [0062], see control system and computer) (reads on claim 5); the outlet of the electrically actuated valve 104/108/356/358 is communicated with a fluid passage 310 of the power washer 128 in which the working fluid is entrained into the primary fluid via a venturi effect generated by flow of the primary fluid through the fluid passage 310 (see paragraphs [0023], [0027], [0029], figures 3a-4) (reads on claim 50).
Claims 1, 5, 44 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shaffer (US4821958A).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 50, Shaffer teaches a mixing system configured for use with a power washer (see abstract), comprising: an electrically actuated valve 26/28/30/32 communicated with a supply of a working fluid (see fluid disposed in 18/20/22/24, respectively) (see figure 2, column 3, line 15-56), the valve 26/28/30/32 having a valve head that is movable between open and closed positions to control the flow rate of the working fluid through an outlet of the valve 26/28/30/32, wherein the outlet of the valve is communicated with an inlet of the power washer 104 to enable flow of the working fluid into a primary fluid (see fluid contained in 10) and discharge of a mixture of the primary fluid and working fluid from the power washer 104 when the valve 26/28/30/32 is open, and to provide a flow of primary fluid from the power washer when the valve 26/28/30/32 is closed (see figure 2, column 3, line 15-56) (reads on claim 1); a controller 42, and wherein the electrically actuated valve 26/28/30/32 is connected to the controller 42 and actuated by the controller 42 (see figure 2, column 3, line 15-56) (reads on claim 5); the outlet of the electrically actuated valve 26/28/30/32 is communicated with a fluid passage 14 of the power washer 104 in which the working fluid is entrained into the primary fluid via a venturi effect generated by flow of the primary fluid through the fluid passage 14 (see figure 2, column 3, line 15-56) (reads on claim 50).
Regarding claim 44, Shaffer teaches the limitations of claim 5. Shaffer also teaches that the controller 42 is configured to actuate the electrically actuated valve 26/28/30/32 as a function of user actuation of a trigger 108 associated with a nozzle of the power washer 104, including varying operation of the electrically actuated valve based on a frequency and duration of trigger actuation over a defined time interval (see column 5, lines 28-56).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer (US4821958A) as applied to claim 5, in view of Bender et al. (US4898361A).
Regarding claims 6, 8 and 9, Shaffer teaches the limitations of claim 5. Shaffer does not teach that the electrically actuated valve is controlled by a pulse-width modulated signal or a battery electrically coupled to the electrically actuated valve via the controller. Bender et al. teaches an electrically actuated fluid control valve (see abstract) with a battery 70 electrically coupled to energize the electrically actuated valve via the controller 42 (column 2, line 48 – column 3, line 4) (reads on claim 8) and that the electrically actuated valve may be controlled by a pulse-width modulated signal (reads on claim 6); the controller 42 includes instructions by which the signal provided by the controller 42 to the electrically actuated valve varies as a function of the voltage of the battery 70 (column 4, line 16- column 5, line 8) (reads on claim 9), allowing for energization of the solenoid that is substantially independent of supply voltage variations (see abstract, column 1, lines 23-35). Since Shaffer teaches a spray cleaning system with an electrically actuated valve and Bender et al. teaches an electrically actuated valve, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the electrically actuated valve in the system by Shaffer may be energized by a battery and be controlled by a pulse-width modulated signal so as to allow for energization of the valve operation that is substantially independent of supply voltage variations, as shown to be known and conventional by Bender et al.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer (US4821958A) as applied to claim 5, in view of Connors (US20090261282).
Regarding claim 7, Shaffer teaches the limitations of claim 5. Shaffer does not teach a wireless communication device adapted to pair with a remote device to receive instructions from the remote device that alter control of the electrically actuated valve. Connors teaches a spray cleaning system (see abstract) and that the control system 28 may comprise a wireless communication device adapted to pair with a remote device 16 to receive instructions from the remote device 16 that alter control of the electrically actuated valve, allowing for improved user convenience in operating the electrically actuated valve (see paragraphs [0019]-[0020], [0029], [0034], [0042]). Since both Shaffer and Connors teach spray cleaning systems with fluid control valves it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the system by Shaffer may include a wireless communication device adapted to pair with a remote device so as to allow for improved user convenience in operating the electrically actuated valve, as shown to be known and conventional by Connors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 42-43, 45-49, 52-54 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 51 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Shaffer (US4821958A). Shaffer fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claims 2, 42, 45, 46, 48, 52, 53. Furthermore, no other prior art of record was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711