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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/2025.
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 1-18 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.
The claims are indefinite because it is not clear what structure is required by the “whereby” clause of claim 1 and the first “whereby” clause of claim 18.
The referenced clause recites the intended functioning of the “flood of water”. It is not clear how this recitation limits the structure of the claimed device.
Further, the claims are indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the recited “flood of water” and “slurry” are parts of the claimed device.
Claim 3 is further indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the recited detergent is part of the claimed device.
Claim 8 is further indefinite because it is not clear what structure is required by the recitation of the intended functioning of the device recited by the claim.
Claim 9 is further indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the brushes are actually attached to the side of the vehicle.
Further, the claim is indefinite because it is clear what structure is required by the recitation of “configured to”.
Further, the claim is indefinite because it appears to contradict to the parent claim 1, which requires the brushes secured to the frame.
Claims 13 and 14 are further indefinite because it is not clear from claim 13 how holes can suction up something.
Claims 15-16 are further indefinite because it is not clear from claim 15 whether or not the recited “a suction source” is a part of the claimed device.
Claim 17 is further indefinite because it is not clear how the recitation of the properties of the field limits the structure of the claimed device.
Claim 18 is further indefinite because it is not clear how what is recited by the second “whereby” clause of claim 18 is related to what is recited by the other parts of the claim.
What structure is required by the reference clause?
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) 1-4, 6, 8-9, 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheirrett et al (WO 2018/136924, US 2019/0338479, citations by the US document).
Cheirrett et al teach a device as claimed.
As to claims 1 and 18:
The device 22 comprises:
a frame 68, said frame is attached to a vehicle through a coupling mechanism (at least Figures 1-4);
at least one chemical sprayer secured to a first end of said frame, said first end being an operational leading end of the field cleaning device, said at least one chemical sprayer configured to spray at least one paint remover chemical onto a field surface (readable on the sprayers 36 located on the front of the frame, which are disclosed as configured to spray different liquids including paint removal chemical (readable on the solvent recited by Cheirrett et al), best shown on Figures 1, 4;
a plurality of brushes 34 secured to said frame, said plurality of brushes configured to engage said field surface, best shawm at Figures 1-6;
a plurality of water sprayers (readable on the sprayers 36, provided on the front of the device in front of the brushes) secured to said frame (best shown on Figures 1-4), said plurality of water sprayers configured to spray water onto said field surface ahead of each of said plurality of brushes (the ability to spray water is disclosed at least at [0022], [0026], [0028]);
at least one vacuum device 24, said vacuum device secured to said frame at a second end thereof after said plurality of brushes and configured to collect and remove by vacuum suction particles and liquids from said field surface (best shown on Figures 1-4, 6-7); and
at least one flood sprayer secured to said frame between said at least one vacuum device and said plurality of brushes (readable on any one of the plurality of sprayers 36 provided between brushes 34 and the vacuum device 24, best shown on Figures 1, 4 and 6), the referenced sprayers are disclosed as configured to deliver water to field surface.
See at least Figures 1-7 and the related description and the Detailed Description.
As to claim 2:
Pushing the device by the vehicle is shown at least on Figures 1-3.
As to claim 3:
The device of Cheirrett et al is fully capable of spraying the recited detergent since it is disclosed as capable of spraying different liquids including water, solvents, and other different liquids, including the liquids forming suspensions.
As to claim 4:
The claimed number and configuration of the brushes are shown at least on Figures 1, 4, 5.
As to claim 6:
The claimed number and configuration of the brushes are shown at least on Figures 1, 4, 5.
As to claim 8:
The device of Cheirrett et al is fully capable of performing the recited intended functioning because it has the same structure as the claimed device.
As to claim 9:
The brushes of Cheirrett et al are attached by the frame to the front side of the vehicle.
As to claim 12:
Spraying of the mist is shown at least on Figure 1.
As to claims 13 and 14:
The recited holes are readable at least on openings of parts 88. The recited channels are readable at least on insides of the parts 84.
As to claims 15 and 16:
The recited port is readable at least on parts 88.
The recited hose is readable at least on the parts 44.
The recited vacuum source is readable at least on parts 42.
As to claim 17:
The device of Cheirrett et al is disclosed as for cleaning artificial turf. See at least [006-7].
As to claim 18:
The device of Cheirrett et al is disclosed as for removing paint. See at least the Abstract.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheirrett et al (WO 2018/136924, US 2019/0338479, citations by the US document).
Cheirrett et al, as applied above, teach a device as claimed except for the specific recitation of the 20-inch (claim 5) and 14-inch (claim 7) diameter brushes.
Cheirrett et al exemplify the brushes as 18-inch diameter brushes. See at least [0033].
However, Cheirrett et al do not restrict the disclosed brushes to any specific brush.
Cheirrett et al teaches:
“The brush 34 of the scrubbing device 22 may be any desired brush having any desired stiffness. For example, in this and other embodiments each brush 34 has a diameter of 18 inches and a ring of bristles 80 that are moderately stiff to provide sufficient contact pressure between the ends of the bristles 80 and the turf's synthetic fibers and/or blades of grass.”
Further, it has been held that the limitations relating to the size are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
The applicants have not demonstrated any unexpected results achieved by the claimed sizes. The applicants have not demonstrated that the device with the claimed sizes would perform differently than the prior art device.
Thereby, the claimed sizes of the brushes are not sufficient to differentiate the claimed device from the device of Cheirrett et al.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheirrett et al (WO 2018/136924, US 2019/0338479, citations by the US document) in view any one of Prevost (US 2007/0174980), Zamboni (US 4,069540), Feyma et al (US 2003/0037388).
Cheirrett et al, as applied above, do not specifically teach a control panel as claimed.
Cheirrett et al however, teach the machine is operated by a person (at least [0021]) and also teach that the machine is moving the scrubbing device and the vacuum device between elevated and lowered positions when needed (at least [0022]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was fled to provide the device of Cheirrett et al with a control panel connected to the cleaning device to enable the person to operate the machine as disclosed by Cheirrett et al.
Moreover, Prevost, Zamboni, and Feyma et al evidence that control panels connected to the cleaning device to enable the person to operating the cleaning machine to operate the cleaning device has been known in the art.
Having the teachings of any one of Prevost, Zamboni, and Feyma et al, an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed would have found an additional motivation to provide a control panel connected to the cleaning device of Cheirrett et al to enable the person operating the machine as disclosed by Cheirrett et al.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was fled to provide the device of Cheirrett et al with a control panel connected to the cleaning device to enable the person to operate the machine as disclosed by Cheirrett et al and in order to use a known device for its known purpose, since Prevost, Zamboni, and Feyma et al evidence that control panels connected to the cleaning device to enable the person to operating the cleaning machine to operate the cleaning device has been known in the art.
As to claim 11:
The claimed actuator is inherent from the disclosure of Cheirrett et al at [0022], wherein Cheirrett et al teach that the disclosed machine is moving the scrubbing device and the vacuum device between elevated and lowered positions when needed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to the devices for cleaning fields.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711