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 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.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN215940967U; machine translation) in view of Reynolds, Jr et al. (US2020/0346256A1) and further in view of O’Quinn et al. (US2012/0067372A1).
Li et al. teach cleaning a seed coating storage tank by spraying water on the inner wall of the storage tank. Li et al. teach pumping the cleaning liquid by liquid pump 11 to a sprayer 9 located in storage tank of the seed treater and discharging the cleaning fluid from the sprayer into the mixing chamber for cleaning the mixing chamber (page 4 of the translation). Li et al. fail to teach or suggest pumping a cleaning fluid from a tank and further fails to teach retrieving with a recovery wand the cleaning fluid and transporting the retrieved cleaning fluid from the wand to the tank. The examiner takes the position that a source (i.e. tank) inherently provides a cleaning fluid to the mixing chamber. Alternatively the prior art of Reynolds Jr. et al. is relied upon to cure the deficiency. Reynolds, Jr. et al. teach a cleaning method of cleaning a cover assembly of a pressure pot used for coating a material (paragraphs 2-3). Reynolds, Jr et al. teach a cleaning system for cleaning a pressure pot cover assembly comprising directing a cleaning solution from a supply tank 54 to the cover assembly within the pressure pot (62, paragraphs 6, 21). Paragraph 49 teaches removing wet and/or dried residue coating material by spraying with a nozzle 52 (Fig.2). Reynolds Jr. et al. further teach transporting the retrieved cleaning fluid from the pressure pot 62 to a reclaimed tank 56 and to the supply tank 54 (Fig. 2). Applicant is directed to paragraphs 6, 21, and further Fig. 2, elements 56 (reclaim tank) and 88 (return line) and paragraph 44. In reference to a retrieving wand located in the chamber, the limitations are broadly read on piping connected to element 86, absent any further structural limitations to define the recovery wand. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Li et al. to include a supply tank, and a recovery wand, as taught by Reynolds Jr. et al. for purposes of storing and reclaiming the cleaning solution, for further use. Alternatively, it is well known in the art to use a recovery device for reclamation of fluids from a tank, as further evidenced by element 34 of O’Quinn et al. (US2012/0067372). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Li et al., to include a recovery wand, as taught by O’Quinn et al. for purposes of reclamation of fluids for recovery and reuse.
Re claim 16, refer to paragraph 21 of O’Quinn et al. which teaches the nozzle arm configured to move in the x, y, and z axis to effectively clean the interior surfaces of the container. Re claim 17, refer to the teachings of Reynolds Jr. et al. (paragraph 50). Re claim 18, refer to paragraph 23 of O’Quinn et al. Re claim 19, Li et al., in view of Reynolds Jr. et al., and O’Quinn et al. teach monitoring device to detect residues/sediments in the tank, but fails to teach automatically pumping the cleaning fluid from the tank to the sprayer in response to the images. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method to include adjusting processing parameters, such as the flow of the cleaning fluid depending upon the amount and type of residue present in the tank in order to achieve the desired level of cleanliness. Re claim 20, the claim limitations of “warning” is broadly interpreted to include visual screening as O’Quinn et al. teach a monitoring device, such as a thermal imaging device, to identify the location, pan, rotate and zoom residue/sediments present in the tank.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of the claims as being unpatentable over Li et al. is maintained. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the claimed invention. Specifically, applicant argues that the Li does not teach or suggest retrieving cleaning fluid from a chamber, transporting retrieved cleaning fluid back to the tank or reuse or recirculation of contaminated cleaning fluid. Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive as the secondary references are relied upon to cure the deficiencies, for the reasons set forth in the paragraphs above. Applicant further argues that Li et al. do not teach a tank for providing a cleaning fluid. The secondary references are relied upon to cure the deficiencies. In addition, the concepts of a)storing a cleaning fluid in a tank; b) transporting the cleaning fluid back to a tank and/or recirculation of the contaminated cleaning fluid, are not patentable subject matter, as further supported by the cited references.
Applicant further argues that Reynolds does not teach in-situ cleaning or retrieving the cleaning fluid from the tank. Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive as paragraphs 38 and 49 teaches that the cleaning assembly 52 directs cleaning solution into the wash cavity 62 of tank 50 (i.e. in situ cleaning) to remove residual material. Additionally Reynolds teaches in paragraph 50 the reclamation of cleaning solution from tank 50 to a reclaim tank 56, wherein the used cleaning solution may be recirculated to the supply tank 54.
Applicant further argues that O'Quinn ails to teach retrieving, via a recovery wand, located in the chamber, the cleaning fluid from the chamber. Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive. Reynolds teaches to conventional and well known concept of reclaiming the cleaning fluid via reclaim line 84 and O'Quinn teaches using a fluid recovery device 34.
In summary, applicant's limitations directed to in-situ cleaning of a tank, discharging cleaning fluid with a sprayer, retrieving the cleaning fluid and transporting the cleaning fluid to a tank does not constitute patentable subject matter.
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights