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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 2, “blocking the path of spray inside tank” should read –blocking the path of spray inside the tank--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
In regards to claim 3, the limitation "said body and deflectors" is recited in line 1. 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winsted (US 5058612 A).
In regards to claim 1, Winsted discloses a safety device comprising: a main body (15) (Fig. 1) that fits onto an existing tank (11) manway (12) in place of the original door (as seen in Fig. 1); securing arms (34) (Fig. 3) attached via quick release clamps (col. 4, lines 23-27) to said main body (15); a solid spray deflector (22) (Fig. 2) attached to inside of said main body (15), and a rubber spray deflector (23) attached to the bottom of said main body (as seen in Fig. 2).
In regards to claim 3, Winsted discloses a safety device as in claim 1, wherein said body (15) (Fig. 1) and deflectors (22, 23) (Fig. 2) allow for a hose (27-29) to pass through into the tank (as seen in Fig. 2), while still blocking the path of spray inside tank (as seen in Fig. 2, the hose 27-29 fill the through-hole seen in Fig. 3, further blocking spray from inside the tank).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winsted (US 5058612 A) in view of Johnson (US 2105458 A).
In regards to claim 2, Winsted teaches a safety device as in claim 1, wherein said securing arms (34) (Fig. 3) are
Winsted does not teach the securing arms are adjustable in depth and rotation.
Johnson teaches the securing arms (65-69, 72-73) (Fig. 2) being adjustable in depth and rotation (pg. 3, col 2, lines 44-72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the securing arms of Winsted to include the adjustable securing arms as taught by Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of enabling the safety device to operate with differently sized manhole openings (see Johnson, pg. 3, col 2, lines 73-75 through pg. 4, col. 1, lines 1-2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Swan (WO 2025196401 A1) discloses a support apparatus for a pressurized fluid tool.
Anderson (US 20220219188 A1) discloses a slurry preparation sprayer apparatus.
Belue (US 20210016333 A1) discloses a cleaning apparatus for a tank.
Johnson (US 9725237 B2) discloses an inflatable hatch sealing device.
Harman (US 20170008045 A1) discloses a system and process for cleaning tanker truck interiors.
Moulder (US 5720310 A) discloses a tank car cleaning and rinsing apparatus and method.
Jaeger (US 5718382 A) discloses an apparatus for cleaning vessels fitted into a manhole with clamps.
Wieringa (US 4941493 A) discloses a device for washing and drying the inside tank of a tanker truck.
McKenzie (US 4030513 A) discloses a tank washer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615