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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 5/6/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-28 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 16-18, and 22 have been amended.
The interpretation of “a cleaning device” and “a hose mover assembly” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 9, 10, 16-19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burma (US 2020/0352405) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-3, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burma in view of Fallon et al. (US 2014/0190517) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Claim 20 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burma in view of Fallon. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Since the rejection over Burma in view of Fallon appears to be proper it is maintained and modified in response to the amendment.
The rejections of claims 5, 11-15, 21, and 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combinations of Burma, Fallon, Williams (US 580,823), Emoto (US 2007/0205561), Bingham et al. (US 6,305,265), Missel et al. (US 463,531), Loewen et al. (US 2014/0069468), Byle et al. (US 632,442) are withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
In response to Applicant’s amendments, new/modified ground(s) of rejection are applied below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 repeats limitations from claim 18. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 4 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cleaning system." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation has been interpreted as “the system for a liquid storage system.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 18-20, and 22 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 18, and 20, 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 cleaner (400); the cleaner operatively connected to the hose system (400, 408); a hose mover (214, 409); the hose mover connected to the box assembly (Figure 5: 200, 214, 409); wherein the hose system extends through the hose mover (214, 408, 409); and wherein the hose mover is configured to help facilitate movement of the hose system in and out of the liquid storage system (214, 409; paragraphs 45, 59).
Burma 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.
Regarding claims 19 and 22, modified Burma discloses the box assembly having an aperture (Burma: 212, 216); the hose system configured to extend through the aperture of the box assembly (Burma: see Figures 1, 5; see 400, 408, 409, 600); a seal (Burma: 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 (Burma: 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 (Burma: 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 (Burma: at 212, 216; see paragraphs 37, 39, 44, 45 discussing minimizing seepage and grommet/bushing system); wherein the cleaner is configured to clean the liquid storage system (Burma: 400; abstract).
Claim(s) 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 claim 21, modified 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) 27-28 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) and in view of Byle et al. (US 632,442).
Regarding claims 27-28, modified 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 1-3, 5, 6, 8-17, and 23-26 are allowed.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
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 claim 1 or claim 4. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Burma (US 2020/0352405), to further include: 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 cleaner; 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 the 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights