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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a cleaning device” in claims 1, 9, and 18; “a hose mover assembly” in claims 8, 17, and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-28 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 limitation “a cleaning device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no apparent disclosure of the structure of the claimed cleaning device, and it is not shown in the drawings. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
(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) 9, 10, 16-19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burma (US 2020/0352405; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 9, Burma discloses a cleaning system for a liquid storage system, the system comprising: a box assembly (Figures 2a, 2b, 4: 200); the box assembly having an aperture (212, 216); wherein the box assembly is configured to house a cleaning device (400); a hose system (408, 409; paragraph 44); the hose system connected to the cleaning device (Figure 5: 400, 408); a seal (at 212, 216; see paragraphs 37, 39, 44, 45 discussing minimizing seepage and grommet/bushing system); the seal positioned at least partially within the aperture of the box assembly (at 212, 216; see paragraphs 37, 39, 44, 45 discussing minimizing seepage and grommet/bushing system); wherein the hose system is configured to extend through the aperture of the box assembly and through the seal of the aperture and into the liquid storage system (see Figures 1, 5; see 400, 408, 409, 600); wherein the seal is configured to engage the hose system and prevent or reduce liquid from escaping through the aperture of the box assembly (at 212, 216; see paragraphs 37, 39, 44, 45 discussing minimizing seepage and grommet/bushing system).
Regarding claims 10, 16, and 17, Burma discloses wherein the hose system is configured to move through the box assembly and the liquid storage system (see Figures 1, 5; see 400, 408, 409, 600); wherein the cleaning device is configured to clean the liquid storage system (400; abstract); further comprising: a hose mover assembly (214, 409); the hose mover assembly operatively connected to the box assembly (Figure 5: 200, 214, 409); wherein the hose mover assembly is configured to help facilitate movement of the hose system into and out of the liquid storage system (214, 409; paragraphs 45, 59).
Regarding claim 18, Burma discloses a cleaning system for a liquid storage system, the system comprising: a box assembly (Figures 2a, 2b, 4: 200); wherein the box assembly attaches to the liquid storage system (see 300); a hose system (408, 409; paragraph 44); the hose system configured to extend through the box assembly and retractably extend into the liquid storage system (see Figures 1, 5; see 400, 408, 409, 600); a cleaning device (400); the cleaning device operatively connected to the hose system (400, 408); a hose mover assembly (214, 409); the hose mover assembly connected to the box assembly (Figure 5: 200, 214, 409); wherein the hose system extends through the hose mover assembly (214, 408, 409); and wherein the hose mover assembly is configured to help facilitate movement of the hose system in and out of the liquid storage system (214, 409; paragraphs 45, 59).
Regarding claims 19 and 22, Burma discloses the box assembly having an aperture (212, 216); the hose system configured to extend through the aperture of the box assembly (see Figures 1, 5; see 400, 408, 409, 600); a seal (at 212, 216; see paragraphs 37, 39, 44, 45 discussing minimizing seepage and grommet/bushing system); the seal positioned at least partially within the aperture of the box assembly (at 212, 216; see paragraphs 37, 39, 44, 45 discussing minimizing seepage and grommet/bushing system); wherein the hose system extends through aperture of the box assembly and through the seal (system (see Figures 1, 5; see 400, 408, 409, 600); wherein the seal is configured to reduce or prevent liquid from escaping through the aperture of the box assembly (at 212, 216; see paragraphs 37, 39, 44, 45 discussing minimizing seepage and grommet/bushing system); wherein the cleaning device is configured to clean the liquid storage system (400; abstract).
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) 1-3, 8, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burma (US 2020/0352405) in view of Fallon et al. (US 2014/0190517; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8, and 20, Burma is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the hose system is comprised of an inner hose positioned within an outer hose.
Fallon discloses a system and method for removing sludge from a tank including a concentric piping arrangement having an inner pipe (20) and an outer pipe (22) inserted into a gate valve assembly (16) into the tank (10). Working fluid flows through the inner pipe (20) into the tank (10) and material, such as fluidized entrained sludge, will flow out of the tank (10) through the outer pipe (22).
Because it is known in the art to provide a concentric arrangement for carrying a working fluid and a sludge, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing cleaning using a working fluid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the hose system is comprised of an inner hose positioned within an outer hose.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burma (US 2020/0352405), in view of Fallon et al. (US 2014/0190517), and further in view of Williams (US 580,823).
Regarding claim 5, Burma, in view of Fallon, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the inner hose is a non-collapsible hose.
Williams discloses a hose and hose reel, wherein the hose should be non-collapsible in order to avoid restricting the flow of water therethrough (page 2, lines 61-63).
Because it is known in the art to provide a non-collapsible hose, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, avoiding restricting the flow of water, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the inner hose is a non-collapsible hose.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burma (US 2020/0352405) in view of Emoto et al. (US 2007/0205561).
Regarding claim 11, Burma is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose
wherein the seal is comprised of a thermoplastic material.
Emoto discloses a sealing structure for sliding parts including a sealing member (20) formed from thermoplastic (paragraph 31).
Because it is known in the art to provide a thermoplastic seal, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, use of a known material for a known purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the seal is comprised of a thermoplastic material.
Claim(s) 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burma (US 2020/0352405) in view of Bingham et al. (US 6,305,265).
Regarding claims 12, and 13, Burma is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the seal is comprised of polyethylene; or wherein the seal is comprised of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene.
Bingham discloses a cylindrical bore receiving a reciprocating piston (16) and seal members (44) made from ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (col. 10, lines 45-48).
Because it is known in the art to provide an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene seal, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, use of a known material for a known purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the seal is comprised of polyethylene; or wherein the seal is comprised of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burma (US 2020/0352405) in view of Missel et al. (US 463,531).
Regarding claim 14, Burma is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the seal is self-lubricating.
Missel discloses a packing washer or ring to lie closely around a rod which is self-lubricating (col. 1, lines 12-22).
Because it is known in the art to provide a self-lubricating seal, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, use of a known seal type for a known purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the seal is self-lubricating.
Claim(s) 15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burma (US 2020/0352405) in view of Fallon et al. (US 2014/0190517) and Loewen et al. (US 2014/0069468).
Regarding claims 15 and 21, Burma, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose a gas system; the gas system operatively connected to the hose system; wherein the gas system is configured to insert gas into the hose system; wherein the gas system is configured to control buoyancy of the hose system.
Fallon discloses a system and method for removing sludge from a tank including a concentric piping arrangement having an inner pipe (20) and an outer pipe (22) inserted into a gate valve assembly (16) into the tank (10). Working fluid flows through the inner pipe (20) into the tank (10) and material, such as fluidized entrained sludge, will flow out of the tank (10) through the outer pipe (22). Loewen discloses a method of cleaning a submerged surface using a fluid jet discharging a liquid/gas combination, including a cleaning liquid supply (100), a non-reactive gas supply (102), and a reactive gas supply (104), corresponding lines (114, 116, 118), to facilitate removal of deposits (paragraph 25).
Because it is known in the art to provide a cleaning fluid and to also provide gas, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, facilitating cleaning of deposits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a gas system; the gas system operatively connected to the hose system; wherein the gas system is configured to insert gas into the hose system; wherein the gas system is configured to control buoyancy of the hose system. Note that providing gas inherently controls the buoyancy of the hose system.
Claim(s) 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burma (US 2020/0352405), in view of Fallon et al. (US 2014/0190517), and further in view of Byle et al. (US 632,442).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Burma, in view of Fallon, is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the seal is inflatable; or wherein the seal is inflatable and wherein when the seal inflates gas may be inserted into the box assembly in order to equalize the pressure inside the box assembly with the pressure inside the liquid storage system.
Byle discloses a rod packing for a piston rod (A) having cup liners (E) and a packing material (I) and an inflatable tube (F) seated within the liners (E) to be inflated with a fluid, such as air or water (col. 2, lines 63-65).
Because it is known in the art to provide an inflatable packing for a rod, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a controllable/adjustable seal known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the seal is inflatable; or wherein the seal is inflatable and wherein when the seal inflates gas may be inserted into the box assembly in order to equalize the pressure inside the box assembly with the pressure inside the liquid storage system. Note that the limitation “wherein when the seal inflates gas may be inserted into the box assembly in order to equalize the pressure inside the box assembly with the pressure inside the liquid storage system” is optional and is also considered to be intended use of the claimed apparatus. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Claim(s) 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burma (US 2020/0352405) in view of Byle et al. (US 632,442).
Regarding claims 25-28, Burma is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the seal is inflatable; or wherein the seal is inflatable and wherein when the seal inflates gas may be inserted into the box assembly in order to equalize the pressure inside the box assembly with the pressure inside the liquid storage system.
Byle discloses a rod packing for a piston rod (A) having cup liners (E) and a packing material (I) and an inflatable tube (F) seated within the liners (E) to be inflated with a fluid, such as air or water (col. 2, lines 63-65).
Because it is known in the art to provide an inflatable packing for a rod, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a controllable/adjustable seal known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the seal is inflatable; or wherein the seal is inflatable and wherein when the seal inflates gas may be inserted into the box assembly in order to equalize the pressure inside the box assembly with the pressure inside the liquid storage system. Note that the limitation “wherein when the seal inflates gas may be inserted into the box assembly in order to equalize the pressure inside the box assembly with the pressure inside the liquid storage system” is optional and is also considered to be intended use of the claimed apparatus. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, and 7 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.
Note that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) could be overcome by amending the “cleaning device” to be a “cleaner.”
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose, or render obvious, the cleaning system as defined by the combination of claims 1 and 4; the combination of claims 1 and 6; or the combination of claims 1 and 7. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Burma (US 2020/0352405), to further include: wherein the outer hose is a lay-flat hose; or further comprising: a gas system connected to the hose system; wherein the gas system is configured to insert gas into the outer hose of the hose system; and wherein the gas system is configured to control buoyancy of a portion of the hose system positioned within the liquid storage system; or further comprising: an electrical cable; wherein the electrical cable is positioned outside the inner hose and within the outer hose; and wherein the electrical cable is configured to provide power to the cleaning device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 6:00.
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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711