DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/26 have been fully considered but they are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection made in view of amendments to the claims.
Response to Amendments
The objections to claims 4, 5, 8, 16, and 17 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn.
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claims 6, 9, 12, and 13 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 1-24 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
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 1-24 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.
Claims 1, 2, 18, and 20 recite the limitation "the second extendable portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Remaining claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200222951 by Heitkoetter et al. in view of U.S. Patent 11577287 granted to Innes et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20070137680 by Fisher et al., and FR2659875A1 by Jean.
As to claim 1, Heitkoetter teaches a tank cleaning device comprising a first portion 12 (fig. 1a); at least one cleaning tool 24, 36 (fig. 1b); and a mount for attaching and detaching the tank cleaning device to a vehicle 34 (fig. 3a, para. 45).
Heitkoetter does not teach that the first portion 12 is extendable having at least two telescoping sections. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the first portion 12 taught by Heitkoetter to be extendable. Innes teaches a tank cleaning device with an extendable portion 7 designed to be inserted into a tank (fig. 1), the portion 7 configured to be extendable with at least two telescoping sections so that it may allow the device to have full reach into a tank (fig. 1; col. 6, ll. 58-61). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the tank cleaning device taught by Heitkoetter so that its first portion is extendable in order to allow for full reach into a tank for cleaning.
Heitkoetter also does not teach a second portion that would be hingedly coupled to the first extendable portion, and thus does not teach a cleaning tool coupled to the second portion. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a second portion. Innes teaches a second extendable portion 6 hingedly coupled to its first extendable portion 7 (fig. 1). Innes teaches that the second portion 6, in combination with its first extendable portion, allows for full reach into a tank (col. 6, ll. 58-61). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing a device structure to reach fully within an interior of a tank allows for cleaning of all desired portions, in particular the complete bottom of the tank (see Innes, fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have first and second extendable portions to further Heitkoetter’s goal of cleaning a bottom of a tank (see para. 1) by using a device with extendable portions to aid in fully reaching all portions of the tank. Upon this obvious modification, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a cleaning tool coupled to the second portion since Heitkoetter teaches a cleaning tool on an end of its first portion and Heitkoetter teaches a cleaning tool 4 on the end of its second extendable portion, each cleaning tool intended to provide a cleaning means on a distal end directed towards a surface to be cleaned.
Heitkoetter does not teach a support hingedly coupled to the distal-most telescoping section, the support extendable between retracted and dropped positions, the retracted position having a shorter profile. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have such support. Supports, such as wheels, were well-known in the art for their establish purpose of providing support and a means to allow movement of a device. For example, Fisher teaches wheels 16 attached to a cleaning device so that they may support and maneuver its device as it travels along and cleans a bottom of a tank (fig. 1, para. 32). The particular extension and retraction structure in which a retracted position has a shorter profile (e.g. a wheel that folds or retracts upward into a storage configuration) was also well-known in the art (see Jean, para. 35). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that upon the obvious modification of Heitkoetter in view of Innes to have a first extendable portion the addition of retractable wheels would allow the modified device of Heitkoetter to be inserted into a tank and supported and maneuvered as it travels along the bottom of the tank for cleaning as it is intended to operate.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Innes teaches an actuator 10 coupled between its first extendable portion and its second extendable portion (fig. 2A).
As to claim 3, Innes teaches that its actuator 10 is a hydraulic actuator (col. 7, ll. 42-43).
As to claim 4, Innes teaches that the first extendable portion includes a first telescoping section and a second telescoping section sized and shaped to fit within the first telescoping section (fig. 2G; col. 8, ll. 20-23; fig. 2D; col. 7, ll. 31-34).
As to claim 5, Innes teaches that the first extendable portion includes a hydraulic telescoping cylinder 12 to extend and retract the first extendable portion (fig. 2A).
As to claim 6, Innes teaches that a first portion of the hydraulic telescoping cylinder 12 is located within the first telescoping section (fig. 2A).
As to claim 7, Heitkoetter does not teach extendable portions, and thus does not teach a controller. Innes teaches a controller external to the tank when the device is positioned therein (col. 9, ll. 35-37), but does not teach a particular location nor a mount for attaching its device to a vehicle. However, upon the obvious modification to Heitkoetter to have the extendable portions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that locating a controller on the mount would have been an obvious place to try with a reasonable expectation of success. Innes suggests that the controller should be external to the tank and device, and taking into consideration the combination of the device and vehicle taught by Heitkoetter, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that locating a controller on the mount would have resulting in the controller and device functioning as intended.
As to claim 8, Innes teaches hydraulic valves coupled with hydraulic lines and actuators 10, 12 controlling the extension and retraction of the first and second extendable portions (fig. 2A; col. 4, ll. 4-8; col. 7, ll. 42-43).
As to claim 9, Innes teaches that hydraulic lines are internal to the first extendable portion (fig. 2G).
As to claim 10, Innes teaches a support 27 external to the first extendable portion to support hydraulic lines (fig. 2A).
As to claim 11, Heitkoetter teaches a support external to its first portion that supports a cleaning supply line 14 coupled to the cleaning tool (para. 42).
As to claim 12, Heitkoetter teaches that its cleaning tool is coupled via a coupler (see fig. 1b, tools 24, 36 shown coupled to the device portion); Innes also teaches a cleaning tool 4 coupled to the second extendable portion via a coupling means (fig. 2A).
As to claim 14, Innes teaches a guide sized and shaped to position cleaning tool 4 in a retracted position such that it fits within an opening of a tank (see fig. 2H).
As to claim 15, Heitkoetter teaches a supply line pipe 14 coupled to its cleaning tool (fig. 2).
As to claim 21, as discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious for the support to comprise a wheel.
As to claim 22, Fisher teaches that its wheels 16 are coupled via a hinged wheel support leg 14, the hinged leg allowing for the device to be folded for insertion into and removal from a tank (fig. 1; paras. 31-32). Jean also teaches a hinged wheel support leg (para. 35).
As to claim 23, Fisher teaches that the hinged wheel support leg may be coupled with hydraulic cylinders to control extension and retraction of the wheel support leg (fig. 1, para. 31).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200222951 by Heitkoetter et al. in view of U.S. Patent 11577287 granted to Innes et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20070137680 by Fisher et al., and FR2659875A1 by Jean as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 5065781 granted to Cox.
As to claim 13, Heitkoetter does not teach particular coupling means, and Innes teaches a “quick disconnect plate” (col. 7, ll. 46-50). While Innes does not explicitly teach that its quick disconnect plate is a quick disconnect coupler, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use a quick release coupler for a cleaning tool. Cox teaches that quick release couplers are known in the art and have the function of firm coupling but easy removal when desired (col. 5, ll. 30-34). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a quick release coupler for a cleaning tool in order to allow for easy removal when desired, as suggested by Cox. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200222951 by Heitkoetter et al. in view of U.S. Patent 11577287 granted to Innes et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20070137680 by Fisher et al., and FR2659875A1 by Jean as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170259309 by Innes et al. (hereinafter “Innes ‘309”).
As to claim 16, Heitkoetter teaches a supply line pipe, but does not teach a swivel joint and an input to receive a cleaning supply line. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use a swivel joint. Innes ‘309 teaches that swivel joints allow for transfer of fluids across interfaces between stationary components on one side of a pivot and rotating components on the other (para. 148). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a swivel joint with an input to receive a cleaning supply line would allow for rotating cleaning tools such as a rotating nozzle as taught in the configuration of Innes ‘309. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a swivel joint in a supply line, the swivel joint adapted to receive a cleaning supply line, in order to allow for rotation of a cleaning tool such as a nozzle, as taught by Innes ‘309. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 17, Innes ‘309 teaches a supply line pipe with a rigid potion coupled between the swivel joint and the cleaning tool (fig. 11B).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200222951 by Heitkoetter et al. in view of U.S. Patent 11577287 granted to Innes et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20070137680 by Fisher et al., and FR2659875A1 by Jean as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190374984 by Innes (hereinafter “Innes ‘984”).
As to claim 18, Heitkoetter teaches an input to receive a cleaning supply line (fig. 2). Heitkoetter does not teach a second portion, and while Innes teaches a first section of its second portion, it does not teach a second section of its second extendable portion. Thus, the combination of Heitkoetter and Innes does not teach a splitter coupling an input to first and second branches, the branches having respective terminations coupling the branches to respective first and second sections of a second extendable portion. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have first and second branches hingedly coupled to a telescoping portion and respective first and second sections of the second extendable portion. Innes ‘984 teaches that dual, extending, opposing booms allow for reach to each end of a tank so that the tank can be cleaned from both ends simultaneously (para. 12); Innes ‘984 teaches that its booms extend, retract, and pivot to allow for insertion into a tank similar to the structure and function of the second extendable portion of Innes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have first and second sections of a second extendable portion to achieve full reach and cleaning of both ends of a tank simultaneously, as taught by Innes ‘984.
Innes ‘984 teaches a cleaning supply line 21 that branches into first and second branches to each respective section of the second extendable portion (fig. 1A). While not explicitly disclosed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a splitter would allow for the supply line to couple a cleaning supply line to each branch line as shown by Innes ‘984. One of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized as obvious that each branch would have a termination coupling the branches to respective sections since the branch lines necessarily would be coupled to the sections to function as intended by Innes ‘984, in particular to allow for restraint of the branch lines during use and folding to remove the device from a tank.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 19, each cleaning tool would be in fluidic communication with a respective termination (see Innes ‘984, fig. 1A, note that each tool 32 would be in fluidic communication with respective terminations at a splitter for the cleaning fluid supply line at or near the pivot joint 26).
As to claim 20, Innes teaches that its first and second extendable portions are hollow such that cleaning supply flows therewithin directly to a cleaning tool (figs. 2A and 2F; col. 7, ll. 46-50; note that cleaning fluid supply is within the extendable portions).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200222951 by Heitkoetter et al. in view of U.S. Patent 11577287 granted to Innes et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20070137680 by Fisher et al., and FR2659875A1 by Jean as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220395851 by Gohl.
As to claim 24, Heitkoetter teaches its tank cleaning device may be mounted to a vehicle such as a “walk-behind mini-track loader” but also recognizes that “the skilled person will know of numerous other vehicles capable of the delivery function” (para. 45). Although Heitkoetter does not explicitly contemplate using a skid steer as a vehicle, it was known that a skid steer may be used to transport a tank leaning device (see Gohl, para. 32). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use a skid steer for its known an intended purpose of handling and positioning a tank cleaning device, as evidenced by Gohl, and thus would have recognized as obvious that the mount may be a skid steer mounting plate. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
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 Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711