DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/26 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The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action is withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
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, 3, 5, 6, 21-25, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 4700422 granted to Russell in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20260026606 by Krzyzanowski.
As to claim 1, Russell teaches a drain cleaning device 10 comprising a frame 12; a drum assembly 22 supported by the frame; 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 one direction and a second nozzle angled in an opposing direction (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 does not teach a flexible scrubber adjacent the second end of the hose, the scrubber being a solid disc configured to create a seal with the pipe. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to include a flexible scrubber with the device taught by Russell. Krzyzanowski teaches a device to clean an interior of a pipe, the device having flexible scrubbers 14 (fig. 9), the scrubbers configured as flexible solid discs to create a seal with the pipe (paras. 96, 123). Krzyzanowski teaches that having a scrubber allows for wiping of contaminants to expel them from the pipe as well as providing a pressure seal so that a pressure may be applied to an end of the pipe to propel the cleaning tool if so desired. Based on these teachings of Krzyzanowski one of ordinary skill in the art would have had obvious motivation to modify the device taught by Russell. Upon this obvious modification to have the claimed scrubber, the first nozzle would be angled away from the scrubber and the second nozzle would be angled toward the scrubber.
As to claim 3, Russell teaches that the second nozzle is one of a plurality of second nozzles (Fig. 7: see sprayers 120 facing forward end and sprayers 122 spraying rearward; also at col. 5, lines 58-60 Russell teaches: "The nozzle 108 can have any desired arrangement of apertures to effect any selected jet spray pattern in fluid operation."), and each of the plurality of second nozzles would be angled in a direction toward the flexible scrubber upon the obvious modification discussed above.
As to claim 5, Russell teaches 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, Russell teaches a drain cleaning device 10 comprising a frame 12; a drum assembly 22 supported by the frame; 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 one direction and a second nozzle angled in an opposing direction (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 does not teach a disc-shaped flexible scrubber adjacent the second end of the hose, the scrubber defining a diameter greater than the pipe diameter and flexing to fit within the pipe. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to include a flexible scrubber with the device taught by Russell. Krzyzanowski teaches a device to clean an interior of a pipe, the device having flexible scrubbers 14 (fig. 9), the scrubbers configured as flexible solid discs to create a seal with the pipe and defining a diameter greater than the pipe diameter that requires flexing to fit within the pipe (paras. 95, 96, 123). Krzyzanowski teaches that having a scrubber allows for wiping of contaminants to expel them from the pipe as well as providing a pressure seal so that a pressure may be applied to an end of the pipe to propel the cleaning tool if so desired. Based on these teachings of Krzyzanowski one of ordinary skill in the art would have had obvious motivation to modify the device taught by Russell. Upon this obvious modification to have the claimed scrubber, the first nozzle would be angled away from the scrubber and the second nozzle would be angled toward the scrubber.
As to claim 21, while Krzyzanowski does not explicitly state that the seal is a “perfect” seal, it does teach that it is a “substantially complete circumferential seal” and is designed to contain a pressure differential (para. 123). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the flexible scrubber taught by Russell would have a seal essentially and substantially “perfect” based on Russell’s suggestions.
As to claim 22, Krzyzanowski teaches that the entire periphery of the flexible scrubber engages an inner surface of the pipe to create the seal (see fig. 9).
As to claim 23, Krzyzanowski teaches that the scrubber defines a diameter greater than the pipe diameter flexes to fit within the pipe (paras. 95, 96, 123).
As to claim 24, Russell does not explicitly teach a specific output of its nozzles, but does teach in embodiments that a nozzle can have any desired arrangement of apertures to effect any selected jet spray pattern in fluid operation (col. 5, ll. 58-60) and that jet apertures of apertures will vary according to a desired spray pattern for a particular cleaning application (col. 6, ll. 51-56). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a first nozzle configuration to output more liquid per second than the second nozzle would have been an obvious design choice based on the teachings of Russell that set forth that particular nozzle characteristics were known to be selected based on a desired design for particular applications.
As to claim 25, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that configuring the second nozzle to create a vortex would have been an obvious design choice for a desired application as discussed above.
As to claim 34, Krzyzanowski teaches that the flexible scrubbers 14 are configured as flexible solid discs to create a seal with the pipe (paras. 96, 123).
As to claim 35, while Krzyzanowski does not explicitly state that the seal is a “perfect” seal, it does teach that it is a “substantially complete circumferential seal” and is designed to contain a pressure differential (para. 123). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the flexible scrubber taught by Russell would have a seal essentially and substantially “perfect” based on Russell’s suggestions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 26-33 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach the totality of the limitations of claim 4, either alone or in obvious combination. While Russell and Krzyzanowski establish that it would have been obvious to have a drain cleaning device having flexible scrubbers, the prior art of record does not support an obvious rationale to have a plurality of scrubbers, each removably coupled to the hose, the scrubbers have a quick-change attachment with the claimed attachment portions, and each of the scrubbers defining a different diameter. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach a flexible scrubber with the claimed quick-change attachment, and nothing in the prior art of record teaches or suggests that each of the scrubbers may define a different diameter. Krzyzanowski does not recognize a need to remove its scrubbers, in particular using a quick-change attachment, and also teaches that each of its scrubbers 14 have at least substantially the same diameter (fig. 9). It would have frustrated Krzyzanowski’s stated purpose of its scrubbers to seal and wipe if at least one of the scrubbers has a smaller diameter than one as shown, since the smaller diameter scrubber would not seal against the inside of the pipe and have the ability to wipe. It would also not have been obvious to have at least one of the scrubbers with a larger diameter than one as shown, since the diameter would be in excess of what is necessary to seal and wipe and would have no established purpose based on the current record. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized as obvious to have a drain cleaning device with a plurality of different-diameter scrubbers installed on its hose at the same time.
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
Prosecution Insights