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 listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant(s) regard as their invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the support surface" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting claim 1 to recite “a support surface”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the vacuum tank" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is considering claim 4 to be dependent upon claim 3.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the discharge pump" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting claim 9 to recite “a discharge pump”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by Locascio et al., USPA 2003/0019509 (Locascio).
Regarding claim 1, Locascio discloses a moveable washing system for reclaiming and processing fluid (abstract, figs. 1-22) comprising:
A first holding compartment (REF 214, figs. 15, 22, see “containment mat”, ¶ 0073-0074) for holding fluid;
A second holding compartment (REF 103, fig. 22, see “tributary tank”, ¶ 0060, 0090-0091, Claim 14) in fluid communication with the first holding compartment;
A third holding compartment (see “reservoir”, ¶ 0064) in fluid communication with the second holding compartment (¶ 0064, 0090-0091, Claims 28-30); and
A frame (REF 10, 11, fig. 1, ¶ 0040) to support the movable washing system, and wherein the movable washing system is movable (via wheels on REF 10, 11, fig. 1) across a support surface.
Regarding claim 2, Locascio discloses a system further comprising an inlet conduit (inlet of REF 354, fig. 22, ¶ 0090) to receive fluid.
Regarding claim 5, Locascio discloses a system further comprising a tank baffling device (REF 219, fig. 13, ¶ 0073) within the first holding compartment.
Regarding claim 7, Locascio discloses a system wherein the first holding compartment is connected to the second holding compartment via a first transfer channel (conduit from REF 354 to REF 103, fig. 22).
Regarding claim 8, Locascio discloses a system wherein the first transfer channel includes a filter (see “sump filter”, REF 354, fig. 22, ¶ 0090) to filter fluid flowing between the first and second holding compartments.
Regarding claim 12, Locascio discloses a system wherein the third holding compartment is attached to a high-pressure pump (REF 52, fig. 5, ¶ 0064) to discharge cleaning fluid.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locascio in view of Parr, USPA 2008/0257837 (Parr).
Regarding claim 3, Locascio does not explicitly disclose the use of a vacuum tank connected to the inlet conduit. However, Parr discloses a waste water treatment system (abstract, REF 11, fig. 2, ¶ 0004) comprising a vacuum pump/chamber assembly (REF 9, 19, fig. 2) connected to an inlet conduit (REF 12).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Locascio to include the vacuum pump/chamber assembly as described in Parr since it has been shown that the use of vacuum is equally effective in transferring fluid from one container to another.
Regarding claim 4, Parr further discloses using a vacuum device (REF 19, fig. 2, ¶ 0021) for generating a vacuum within the vacuum tank.
Regarding claim 6, Parr further discloses the vacuum tank (REF 19) includes a sensor (REF 14, fig. 2, ¶ 0021) to control a fluid level within the vacuum tank (¶ 0024).
Claims 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locascio in view of McCurdy, USPA 2014/0263079 (McCurdy).
Regarding claim 9, Locascio does not explicitly disclose the use of a discharge pump to remove unwanted material from the second holding compartment. However, Parr recognizes the need to remove build-up of unwanted components from a treatment tank (via REF 13, ¶ 0021). Furthermore, it can be envisioned that any facility drawing the unwanted components from the treatment tank would use a pumping assembly if the material itself is not fluidic enough to flow via gravity alone. Lastly, McCurdy recognizes the equivalence of using a discharge pump and a gravity fed sump for discharging unwanted components from a treatment tank (¶ 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to generally provide a discharge pump in the second holding compartment since it has been shown that a gravity fed sump and discharge pump are art recognized equivalents for their use in the water treatment art, and the use of any of these known equivalents to discharge unwanted components from a treatment tank would be within the level or ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding claim 13, Locascio (in view of McCurdy) disclose a chattel (abstract, figs. 1-2), moveable automobile washing system (abstract) comprising a frame (REF 216, 221, 222, 228, 230, fig. 15), a vacuum air pump system (REF 356, fig. 21, ¶ 0090) attached to the frame (REF 330, fig. 21), a discharge pump as relied upon in the rejection of claim 9 set forth above, the vacuum pump system capable of collecting used fluid from the wash system (¶ 0090), a plurality of processing tanks attached to the tanks (REF 103, figs. 8, 22) and the frame (REF 214, figs. 15, 21-22), each tank capable of processing the fluid in the wash fluid, i.e. purifying (via REF 103) and collecting (via REF 214), wherein the system allows the collection of wastewater from the lowest point of a wash area (i.e. sump of REF 214) without the need to dig into the surface of an existing wash area.
Claims 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locascio in view of Hoel, US 5958240 (Hoel).
Regarding claims 10-11, while Locascio discloses the use of microfilters for removing contaminants from a recycle stream, Locascio does not explicitly disclose the use of an inclined plate clarifier. However, Hoel discloses that it is common to utilize inclined plate clarifiers for wastewater recycling systems (abstract, C1/L24-27, L58-63).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Locasio to utilize the inclined plate clarifier as described in Hoel in order to remove pollutants from water and provide recycled water for downstream purposes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIRK R BASS whose telephone number is (571)270-7370. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on (571) 270-3240. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DIRK R. BASS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/DIRK R BASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779