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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
The references cited on the information disclosure statements listed on the Office Action Summary have been considered. However, due to the number of references cited, a thorough review of each reference cannot be timely completed. If applicant wishes that certain references be thoroughly considered, it is invited to list them and explain their relevancy in reply to this Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 4/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, it is noted that Applicant canceled claims 7-20 in the most recent reply filed on 4/7/2026. Based on this, the pending claims are claims 1-6.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell (USPN 4,700,422), and further in view of Newth (USPN 11,407,014).
As to claim 1, Russell discloses a drain cleaning device (drain cleaning apparatus 10) configured to be used in a pipe defining a pipe diameter, the drain cleaning device comprising:
a frame (frame assembly 12);
a drum assembly supported by the frame (a drum assembly 22 comprising a drum 24);
a flexible hose positioned at least partially within the drum assembly, the flexible hose configured to be extended from and retracted into the drum assembly, the flexible hose defining a first end and a second end opposite the first end (flexible snake hose 26 with free end 28 extendable from cage 24).
wherein the flexible hose includes a first nozzle angled in a direction away from the flexible scrubber and a second nozzle angled in a direction toward the flexible scrubber (Fig. 7: see sprayers 120 facing forward end and sprayers 122 spraying rearward; also at col. 5, lines 58-60 Russell discloses: “The nozzle 108 can have any desired arrangement of apertures to effect any selected jet spray pattern in fluid operation.”).
Russell discloses use of cleaning attachments, including a cutter blade and nozzle assembly 102 (Fig. 4), however, it is unclear whether Russell discloses use of a scrubber, and more specifically “a flexible scrubber adjacent the second end of the flexible hose”. However, in the art of conduit cleaning, use of scrubbers are relied on for achieving cleaning means as taught by Newth’s disclosure of a conduit cleaning device having a rotating head with filaments 36 (reads on a scrubber) that cleans an interior surface of a conduit (see Newth at Figs. 4-6, for example). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the known use of a brush attachment as taught by Newth in Russell to achieve improved contact cleaning with the side surfaces of the conduit while maintaining flexibility in movement of the bristles through the conduit. Thus achieving the goal of improved interior wall cleaning of the conduit.
As to claim 2, the cited references disclose wherein the flexible scrubber is configured to create a seal with the pipe (see Newth at Fig. 6, the deformation of filaments 36 creates a seal with the pipe).
As to claim 3, the cited references discloses wherein the second nozzle is one of a plurality of second nozzles, and wherein each of the plurality of second nozzles is angled in a direction toward the flexible scrubber (in Russell the rearward facing nozzles 122 would face the filaments 36 applied from Newth).
As to claim 4, the cited references disclose wherein the flexible scrubber is removably coupled to the flexible hose, the flexible scrubber is one of a plurality of flexible scrubbers, and each of the plurality of flexible scrubbers defines a different diameter (Newth discloses a plurality of bristles 36, see Fig. 4 for example. Also, Newth contemplates alternative lengths of its bristles, such as tapered or other-shape exterior surface, which results in different diameters as claimed (see col. 9. Lines 22-24: “The brush portion is substantially cylindrical, but in other embodiments there is an uneven, tapered or other-shape exterior surface.”)).
As to claim 5, the cited references disclose further comprising a reservoir supported by the frame, wherein the first end of the flexible hose is coupled to the reservoir (Russell at Figs. 2 and 4, see fluid reservoirs 56, 58).
As to claim 6, the cited references disclose wherein the flexible scrubber defines a scrubber diameter greater than the pipe diameter, and wherein the flexible scrubber flexes to fit within the pipe (The flexible nature of the filaments 36 allow for the filaments to bend and conform to the shape of a pipe, particularly one that has a pipe diameter smaller than filaments 36.) .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RITA P ADHLAKHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5pm EST.
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.
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights