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 .
This action is in response to the claims filed 11/16/2023
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 (currently recited by claims 1-18) in the reply filed on March 11, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that examining both inventions (the apparatus and the method) would not be a significant burden on the examiner. Applicant argues that "any search and examination relating to the subject matter of elected claims 1-18 would necessarily result in a search and examination relating to the subject matter of claims 19 and 20". This line of argument is not persuasive. Group I recites a spraying apparatus, Group II recites a method of spraying, and there is conceivably prior art that may be relevant to one of the inventions (that is, the method invention or apparatus invention) without being relevant to the other. As such, searching the different inventions would require different searching techniques. Further, the apparatus and method inventions are separately classified and would therefore require different fields of search within the classification system. For these reasons it is the examiner's position that there would be a serious burden in the search and examination of both inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the "two water outlet ends 4004" as described in Par. [0064] in the specification. Figure 6 seems to illustrate one of the outlet ends 4004, but the second (of the two) outlet end 4004 is not illustrated. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: claim 8 recites "the first spraying mechanism 1", but this numeral "1" appears to be typographical mistake. The "first spraying mechanism" is not labeled with the numeral "1" in applicant's specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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 a claim limitation is "moving component... to support and move the frame component" in the last two lines of claim 1, and such language is considered to refer to the wheels discussed in Par. [0092] and [0093] of applicant's specification. Such a claim limitation is "moving component... to support and move the frame component" in the last two lines of claim 15, and such language is considered to refer to the wheels discussed in Par. [0092] and [0093] of applicant's specification.
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 16-18 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the three moving wheels" in lines 2-3 and the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim establishes “at least three moving wheels”, so it is unclear which wheels are referenced by “the three moving wheels”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the connecting lines" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 17-18 depend on claim 16.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE202011107459 by Suttner in view of US 20220110497 by Rieben (hereinafter Suttner and Rieben, respectively).
With regard to claim 1, Suttner teaches an apparatus for cleaning a ground surface, wherein the apparatus comprises: a frame component (comprising hood 11 and side wall 16 in Figure 1) and a spraying component (comprising injector nozzle 21 in Figure 1, nozzle arm 14 in Figure 3, and ground-cleaning nozzle 15 in Figure 3; Abstract; pages 5-6 of translation). Suttner's hood 11 corresponds to applicant's supporting end, wherein the upper surface of the hood corresponds to applicant's first wall, wherein the lower surface of the hood 11 corresponds to applicant's second wall, and wherein the hood has a thickness dimension between said upper and lower surfaces of the hood 11 (Figures 1 and 3 of Suttner). In the apparatus of Suttner, the spraying component is attached to the supporting end (Figures 1 and 3 of Suttner). Suttner's spraying component comprises a first spraying mechanism (comprising injector 19 and injector nozzle 21 in Figure 1), and Suttner's spraying component comprises a second spraying mechanism (comprising nozzle arm 14 and ground- cleaning nozzle 15 in Figure 3; pages 5-6 of translation). At least one moveable nozzle (injector nozzle 21 in Figure 1) is arranged on the first spraying mechanism, and this nozzle is moveable because the cleaning apparatus is moveable across the ground when cleaning the ground. At least one moveable nozzle (ground-cleaning nozzle 15 in Figure 3) is arranged on the second spraying mechanism, and this nozzle is moveable because the ground-cleaning nozzle is rotated about swivel 13 (in Figure 3; pages 5-6 of translation). Suttner's spraying component also comprises a valve component (comprising 3-way valve 28 in Figure 1) communicating with the first spraying mechanism and the second spraying mechanism (pages 5-6 of translation). Suttner teaches that the nozzle arm 14 (in Figure 3) can be in two parts and comprise a total of two nozzles (page 5 of translation), and thus, the water channel between valve 28 (see Figure 1) and the arm parts corresponds to applicant's water flow channel. In the apparatus of Suttner, the first spraying mechanism (comprising injector 19 and injector nozzle 21 in Figure 1) is arranged on the upper surface of the hood 11 (see Figure 1), and the second spraying mechanism (comprising nozzle arm 14 and ground-cleaning nozzle 15 in Figure 3) is arranged on the lower surface of the hood 11 (Figure 3), and the first wall is provided with at least one fixing seat (just the attachment point of injector 19 to the top of the hood), which receives and fixes the first spraying mechanism 19, 21, wherein a spraying direction of the first spraying mechanism faces the side of the lateral spraying device (Fig. 2). Suttner does not teach that Suttner's ground-cleaning apparatus comprises a moving component to support and move the frame component. Rieben teaches that a ground-cleaning apparatus that comprises a frame in which ground-facing nozzles rotate and spray water onto the ground, and Rieben teaches that movement of such an apparatus across to-be-cleaned ground can be advantageously facilitated by casters (items 20 in Figures 1 and 2) fixed to the frame (Abstract; Par. 0024, 0049, and 0066; claim 1 of Rieben). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Suttner such that casters are affixed to the frame in order to facilitate movement of the cleaning apparatus across to-be-cleaned ground. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Rieben, who teaches that movement of a ground-cleaning apparatus across to-be- cleaned ground can be advantageously facilitated by casters fixed to the frame. In this combination of Suttner in view of Rieben, the casters correspond to applicant's moving component. In this combination of Suttner in view of Rieben, the casters allow the apparatus to be easily moved around in various directions, and thus the apparatus can be considered a multi-directional spraying device.
The combination of Suttner in view of Rieben teaches that the spraying component is attached to the hood (item 11 in Figures 1 and 3 of Suttner), but the combination of Suttner in view of Rieben does not teach that the spraying component is detachably attached to the hood. However, in the art of cleaning apparatuses, it is well known to make an apparatus component detachable such that it can be removed and replaced if it's damaged and needs replacing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Suttner in view of Rieben by making the spraying component be detachably attached to the hood - as the detachability would advantageously allow the spraying component to be replaced if it's damaged and needs to be replaced.
Regarding claim 2, Suttner as modified by Rieben comprises the lateral spraying device according to claim 1, wherein the spraying component further comprises a water supply device detachably attached to the valve component (see hose 12 in Suttner Fig. 1 and 2), wherein the water supply device comprises a water supply pipeline (a hose), a water inlet connector and a water outlet connector (the ends of the hose), and the water inlet connector is communicated with an external water source (it’s a hose).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suttner in view of Rieben as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 20080053495 by Franks (hereinafter “Franks”).
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Suttner in view of Rieben does not teach that the valve component comprises a piston device movably arranged across a valve body. Franks teaches that a valve for directing cleaning liquid from a single inlet to one or both of two outlets can comprise a piston device that is movable within a valve body of the valve such that one or neither of the outlets is blocked (Par. 0011, 0029, and 0031). 42. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Suttner in view of Rieben in view of Field such that the 3-way valve is substituted with a valve of the type taught by Franks, wherein a piston moves within a valve body, wherein the valve has a single inlet (reads on applicant's water inlet end) and a water inlet end comprising two different outlets, and wherein the piston can be controllably moved to have only one outlet closes, only the other outlet closed, or both outlets open. Motivation for performing the substitution was provided by Franks, who teaches that a valve for directing cleaning liquid from a single inlet to one or both of two outlets can comprise a piston device that is movable within a valve body of the valve such that one or neither of the outlets is blocked.
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Suttner in view of Rieben in view of Franks, as developed thus far, does not recite that the second end (corresponds to applicant's water outlet connector) of the water-supplying hose is attached to the valve via an adapter that allows for 360° rotation. Rieben teaches that when attempting to connect a water-supplying hose (item 4a in Figure 1) to a ground-cleaning apparatus that can be moved around on casters, the water-supplying hose can successfully be connected via a swivel joint (item 5 in Figure 1; Par. 0052, 0060, and 0065). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Suttner in view of Rieben in view of Field in view of Franks such that the water-supplying hose is connected to the inlet of the valve via a swivel joint (reads on adapter). Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Rieben, who teaches that when attempting to connect a water-supplying hose to a ground-cleaning apparatus that can be moved around on casters, the water-supplying hose can successfully be connected via a swivel joint. 46. The combination of Suttner in view of Rieben in view of Franks does not recite that the swivel joint allows for full (360°) rotation of the hose relative to the valve. However, since the purpose of the swivel joint is to provide flexible connection between the hose and the valve, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Suttner in view of Rieben in view of Franks such that the swivel joint permits full (360°) rotation of the hose relative to the valve, as such full rotation would advantageously allow the hose and valve to be successfully connected to each other regardless of relative movement between the hose and the valve.
Regarding claim 5, Suttner in view of Rieben in view of Franks comprises the lateral spraying device according to claim 4, wherein the water outlet end comprises a first water outlet port and a second water outlet port, wherein the first water outlet port is detachably attached to the first spraying mechanism, and the second water outlet port is detachably attached to the second spraying mechanism, wherein the first water outlet port defines a first axis through which water flows out via the first water outlet port, and the second water outlet port defines a second axis through which water flows out via the second water outlet port, and the first axis is transverse to the second axis (see Suttner Fig. 1-3, the flow ejected from port 15 downwards may be said to be transverse to the flow ejected from nozzle 21).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suttner in view of Rieben and Franks as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Jaeger in DE102007032772 (hereinafter “Jaeger”).
Regarding claim 6, Suttner as modified by Rieben and Franks and applied above against claim 5 is silent to a damping rubber ring that is arranged in the nozzle, and the spraying direction of the nozzle can be adjusted by the damping rubber ring. Jaeger teaches an analogous spraying device. Specifically, Jaeger teaches that on such spraying devices it is desirable to employ a rubber damping ring on the nozzle because such a feature allows adjustability of the nozzle and reduces vibrations (translation page 5 and Fig. 2B; rubber buffer/damper 13). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spraying device of Suttner in view of Rieben and Franks further by utilizing a damping rubber ring on the nozzles because it makes the nozzles adjustable and reduces vibrations and improves performance, as taught by Jaeger, and the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Suttner as modified by Rieben, Franks, and Jaeger comprises the lateral spraying device according to claim 6, wherein the first spraying mechanism comprises a first nozzle and a first water pipe (see nozzle 21 in Suttner Fig. 2 and piping tee 33), the first water outlet port (end of the hose 12 of Suttner) is communicated with the first nozzle through the first water pipe, and the fixing seat receives and fixes the first water pipe (the fixing seat being where plumbing tee 33 is attached to hood 11 in Fig. 2 of Suttner).
Regarding claim 8, Suttner as modified by Rieben, Franks, and Jaeger comprises the lateral spraying device according to claim 7, wherein the first spraying mechanism comprises at least one nozzle and at least one water pipe (see nozzle 21 in Suttner Fig. 2 and piping tee 33), wherein the first nozzle is arranged on the first wall, the first water outlet port is communicated with the nozzle through the water pipe, and the fixing seat receives and fixes the water pipe (the fixing seat being where plumbing tee 33 is attached to hood 11 in Fig. 2 of Suttner).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suttner in view of Rieben in view of U.S. 2003/0066158 by Porter (hereinafter “Porter”).
With regard to claim 15, Suttner teaches an apparatus for cleaning a ground surface, wherein the apparatus comprises a frame component (comprising hood 11 and side wall 16 in Figure 1) and a spraying component (comprising injector nozzle 21 in Figure 1, nozzle arm 14 in Figure 3, and ground-cleaning nozzle 15 in Figure 3; Abstract; pages 5-6 of translation). Suttner's hood 11 corresponds to applicant's supporting end, wherein the upper surface of the hood corresponds to applicant's first wall, wherein the lower surface of the hood 11 corresponds to applicant's second wall, and wherein the hood has a thickness dimension between said upper and lower surfaces of the hood 11 (Figures 1 and 3 of Suttner). In the apparatus of Suttner, the spraying component is attached to the supporting end (Figures 1 and 3 of Suttner). Suttner's spraying component comprises a first spraying mechanism (comprising injector 19 and injector nozzle 21 in Figure 1), and Suttner's spraying component comprises a second spraying mechanism (comprising nozzle arm 14 and ground- cleaning nozzle 15 in Figure 3; pages 5-6 of translation). At least one moveable nozzle (injector nozzle 21 in Figure 1) is arranged on the first spraying mechanism, and this nozzle is moveable because the cleaning apparatus is moveable across the ground when cleaning the ground. At least one moveable nozzle (ground-cleaning nozzle 15 in Figure 3) is arranged on the second spraying mechanism, and this nozzle is moveable because the ground-cleaning nozzle is rotated about swivel 13 (in Figure 3; pages 5-6 of translation). Suttner's spraying component also comprises a valve component (comprising 3-way valve 28 in Figure 1) communicating with the first spraying mechanism and the second spraying mechanism (pages 5-6 of translation). Suttner teaches that the nozzle arm 14 (in Figure 3) can be in two parts and comprise a total of two nozzles (page 5 of translation), and thus, the water channel between valve 28 (see Figure 1) and the arm parts corresponds to applicant's water flow channel. In the apparatus of Suttner, the first spraying mechanism (comprising injector 19 and injector nozzle 21 in Figure 1) is arranged on the upper surface of the hood 11 (see Figure 1), and the second spraying mechanism (comprising nozzle arm 14 and ground-cleaning nozzle 15 in Figure 3) is arranged on the lower surface of the hood 11 (Figure 3), and the first wall is provided with at least one fixing seat (just the attachment point of injector 19 to the top of the hood), which receives and fixes the first spraying mechanism 19, 21, wherein a spraying direction of the first spraying mechanism faces the side of the lateral spraying device (Fig. 2). In the apparatus of Suttner, the spraying component comprises a swivel (item 13 in Figure 3) that corresponds to applicant's rotating member (pages 5-6 of translation). In the apparatus of Suttner, the second spraying mechanism (comprising nozzle arm 14 and ground-cleaning nozzle 15 in Figure 3) is rotatably attached to the valve component through the swivel (pages 5-6 of translation). Suttner does not teach that Suttner's ground-cleaning apparatus comprises a moving component to support and move the frame component. Rieben teaches that a ground-cleaning apparatus that comprises a frame in which ground-facing nozzles rotate and spray water onto the ground, and Rieben teaches that movement of such an apparatus across to-be-cleaned ground can be advantageously facilitated by four casters (items 20 in Figures 1 and 2) spaced around the frame and fixed to the frame (Abstract; Par. 0024, 0049, and 0066; claim 1 of Rieben). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Suttner such that four casters are spaced around the frame and affixed to the frame in order to facilitate movement of the cleaning apparatus across to-be-cleaned ground. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Rieben, who teaches that movement of a ground-cleaning apparatus across to-be-cleaned ground can be advantageously facilitated by four casters spaced around the frame and fixed to the frame. In this combination of Suttner in view of Rieben, the casters correspond to applicant's moving component. In this combination of Suttner in view of Rieben, the casters allow the apparatus to be easily moved around in various directions, and thus the apparatus can be considered a multi-directional spraying device. The combination of Suttner in view of Rieben teaches that the spraying component is attached to the hood (item 11 in Figures 1 and 3 of Suttner), but the combination of Suttner in view of Rieben does not teach that the spraying component is detachably attached to the hood. However, in the art of cleaning apparatuses, it is well known to make an apparatus component detachable such that it can be removed and replaced if it's damaged and needs replacing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Suttner in view of Rieben by making the spraying component be detachably attached to the hood - as the detachability would advantageously allow the spraying component to be replaced if it's damaged and needs to be replaced. The combination of Suttner in view of Rieben teaches that the nozzle arm 14 (in Figure 3 of Suttner) can be in two parts and comprise a total of two nozzles (page 5 of Suttner translation). The combination of Suttner in view of Rieben teaches that ejection of water out of a nozzle 15 (in Suttner's Figure 3) on the arm 14 causes the arm 14 to rotate (page 5 of translation), but the combination of Suttner in view of Rieben does not explicitly teach that a water jet direction of the second spraying mechanism faces a ground surface. Porter teaches that when cleaning the ground with a ground-cleaning apparatus that comprises a spray arm (item 35 in Figure 4) with two nozzles (items 36 in Figure 4) thereon, the ground can be sprayed with cleaning liquid from the nozzles by having the nozzles pointed at the ground but with a small offset angle from perpendicular (relative to the ground) such that the ejection of liquid from the nozzles advantageously also causes the spray arm to rotate (Abstract; Par. 0019-0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparats of Suttner in view of Rieben such that the rotating nozzle arm 14 (in Figure 3 of Suttner) comprises two nozzles arranged at opposite ends of the arm while the arm is centered about the swivel (item 13 in Figure 3 of Suttner, wherein each nozzle has an ejection direction pointed towards the to-be-cleaned ground but also at a small offset angle from perpendicular (relative to the ground) such that water ejected from the nozzles propels the rotation of the arm 14. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Porter, who teaches that when cleaning the ground with a ground-cleaning apparatus that comprises a spray arm with two nozzles thereon, the ground can be sprayed with cleaning liquid from the nozzles by having the nozzles pointed at the ground but with a small offset angle from perpendicular (relative to the ground) such that the ejection of liquid from the nozzles advantageously also causes the spray arm to rotate.
Regarding claim 16, insomuch as it is understood, Suttner as modified by Rieben and Porter comprises the lateral spraying device according to claim 15, wherein a moving device comprises at least three moving wheels (see the four wheels 20 of Rieben Fig. 1), and the three moving wheels are fixedly connected with the frame component, wherein the connecting lines among the three moving wheels form a roughly triangular structure (one could draw a triangle between three of the wheels).
Regarding claim 17, insomuch as it is understood, Suttner as modified by Rieben and Porter comprises the lateral spraying device according to claim 16, wherein bristles are further arranged on the frame component, and the bristles are continuously formed around an outer periphery of the frame component, wherein a bottom surface of the bristles is not higher than the bottom surface of the moving wheel (see Suttner Fig. 1; bristles 17).
Regarding claim 18, insomuch as it is understood, Suttner as modified by Rieben and Porter comprises the lateral spraying device according to claim 17, further comprising a casing, wherein the casing is arranged on the first spraying mechanism, and the casing is also provided with a through hole through which the nozzle on the first spraying mechanism can pass, wherein the casing forms a barrier to the first spraying mechanism (see Suttner Fig. 1; the piping around the nozzle 21 could be equated to the claimed casing as it has a hole in which the nozzle 21 is inserted and it forms a barrier around the nozzle 21).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claims 9-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 9, the art of record, either alone or in combination, is silent to the lateral spraying device according to claim 5, wherein the spraying component further comprises a fixing member, which comprises a fixing hole, a connecting part and a cavity, wherein the fixing member is fixedly connected with the supporting end through the fixing hole, wherein the connecting part comprises a first connecting end and a second connecting end, the first connecting end is provided with a first external thread, and the second connecting end has a substantially cylindrical outer wall surface; and wherein, the connecting part further comprises a water flow path penetrating through the first connecting end and the second connecting end, wherein the cavity has a substantially cylindrical inner wall surface.
Claims 10-14 depend on claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Relevant Prior Art:
US5711051 discloses a hard surface cleaning device with a hood containing rotating pressure jet nozzles.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY D HEINLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00am-5:00pm).
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at (571) 272-4037. 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.
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights