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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on June 19, 2025 has been received and carefully considered. Claim 18 is canceled. Claim 19 is new. Claims 1-17 and 19 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on June 19, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,726 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 19, 2025 have been fully considered.
With respect to the rejection of claim 1, Applicant (at page 10, last sentence, to page 11, second paragraph) argues,
“… As a threshold matter, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Under this standard, ‘ground-engaging frame sub-assembly’ clearly requires a frame structure that physically engages with the ground, not merely a housing or chamber as described in the Korean reference.
… Claim 1 specifically requires "a ground-engaging frame sub-assembly." The Korean reference describes a "main body part (102)" with various structural components, but nowhere discloses or suggests a "ground-engaging frame sub-assembly" as claimed. The Korean reference appears to describe a washing chamber apparatus, not a frame assembly that engages with the ground. The Examiner's mapping of the Korean reference's "main body part 102 that engages with the ground" to the claimed "ground-engaging frame sub-assembly" is unsupported by the actual disclosure…” (with emphasis added).
The Office respectfully disagrees.
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. Furthermore, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The primary reference to Oh (KR 101043800 B1) discloses a main body part (102) comprising a “frame” constructed from a plurality of elongated beams that are fastened together (best shown in FIG. 1). The main body part (102) is considered a “sub-assembly” because the main body part (102) is a component of the overall disinfecting assembly. The main body part (102) is also considered to be “ground-engaging” because, in use, the legs of the main body part (102) engage with and are supported by the ground. The opposite of a “ground-engaging” structure would be, for instance, a structure that is suspended in the air.
Applicant (at the paragraph bridging pages 11-12) further argues,
“… The Examiner's speculative language that "one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the disinfecting assembly inherently comprises an energy source" fails to meet the legal standard for inherency, which requires that the element be necessarily present, not merely recognizable as potentially present. The fact that the Korean reference describes electrical components that require power does not inherently disclose an "energy source" as claimed…”. (with emphasis added).
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Oh discloses that the apparatus is electrically powered, as evidenced by the statement, “electricity and the unnecessary manpower wasting are minimized” (see translation at page 6, fifth paragraph). In the apparatus of Oh, the controller (108), the fluid displacement pump (220), and the motion sensor (106) are electrically powered components.
Furthermore, electricity, by definition, is: “1. A form of energy resulting from the existence of charge particles (such as electrons or protons), either statically as an accumulation of charge or dynamically as a current.” (see Google Search definition).
Therefore, the apparatus of Oh necessarily comprises an energy source (i.e., electricity, in the form of a current) for enabling the operations of the electrically powered components.
It is noted that claim 1 merely recites “an energy source”. Further limitations regarding specific types of energy sources (e.g., an alternating current, a direct current, a primary and/or secondary electrical cell, etc.) or a specific location of the energy source are addressed by the prior art cited for the rejections of dependent claims 6-8.
Applicant (at page 12, second paragraph) further argues,
“The Examiner explicitly admits that "Oh fails to disclose that the controller 108 is a programmable logic controller." The Korean reference only teaches a generic "control unit (108)" - not a programmable logic controller as specifically claimed. This admission alone is fatal to the obviousness rejection, as the primary reference fails to teach a key claimed element.” (with emphasis added).
The Office respectfully disagrees.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant (at page 12, last paragraph) further argues,
“Andre fails to cure the fundamental structural and functional deficiencies in the Korean reference. Andre describes a different type of cart washing apparatus and does not teach or suggest the specific "ground-engaging frame sub-assembly" limitation that is missing from the Korean reference. Andre does not provide the missing energy source disclosure that would cure the Korean reference's deficiency in this regard…”.
The Office respectfully disagrees.
The secondary reference to Andre (US 2006/0107486) was merely relied upon to teach a programmable logic controller for the controller.
Applicant (at page 13, first paragraph) further argues,
“…the Examiner's reliance on multiple secondary references to patch the deficiencies in the Korean reference demonstrates the non-obviousness of the claimed invention. The need to combine four different references (Andre, Foster, Schwei, and Metheny) to address claim 17 is strong evidence that the invention would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill…”.
The Office respectfully disagrees.
The reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Applicant (at page 13, second paragraph) further argues,
“… The Examiner states it would be "obvious" to select a programmable logic controller because it "was recognized to be a suitable type of controller," but this reasoning fails to provide adequate motivation for why a person of ordinary skill would modify the specific Korean reference system with Andre's different controller system. The Korean reference describes a complete, functional washing apparatus for shopping carts. There is no indication in either reference that would motivate a person of ordinary skill to modify the Korean reference's control system by incorporating Andre's programmable logic controller. The Examiner's reasoning appears to be based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction in light of the claimed invention. The Korean reference describes a self-contained washing chamber system that operates effectively as disclosed. A person of ordinary skill would have no reason to redesign this working system by incorporating elements from completely different apparatus configurations...” (with emphasis added).
The Office respectfully disagrees.
In response to the argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Oh discloses a controller (i.e., a control unit 108) that electrically communicates with a motion sensor (106) and a fluid displacement pump (220) (i.e., when a cart enters the main body part 102, its entry is sensed by the sensor unit 106, and the sensor unit 106 transmits a signal to the control unit 108; the control unit 108 then operates the pump 220 to supply the disinfecting fluid to the nozzle unit 240; see translation on page 6, third and fourth paragraphs). In other words, the controller (108) receives a signal from the motion sensor (106) to activate the pump (220) for spraying the disinfecting fluid.
Since Oh merely describes a generic controller, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to known controllers, used in similar apparatus in substantially the same way, to select a suitable type of controller for controlling the spraying operation.
The secondary reference to Andre discloses a similar apparatus (i.e., an apparatus for spraying a disinfecting fluid on large mobile objects, such as shopping carts; see FIG. 1), wherein the apparatus comprises a control system (200) for automatically controlling the disinfecting fluid spraying operation. The control system (200; see FIG. 2) includes a controller (202) in electrical communication with a motion sensor (i.e., a wash sensor 208) and a fluid delivery system (140) for delivering a disinfecting fluid to a spray nozzle (144). In operation, the motion sensor (208) notifies the controller (202) when a shopping cart is in position for washing and causes the controller (202) to activate the fluid delivery system (140) to deliver disinfecting fluid to the spray nozzle (144) (see paragraph [0061]). Therefore, like Oh, Andre discloses that the controller (202) receives a signal from the motion sensor (208) to activate the fluid delivery system (140) for spraying the disinfecting fluid. Andre further discloses that suitable types of controllers comprise “… devices including, but not limited to, analog logic circuits, digital logic circuits, programmable interrupt controllers, programmable logic controllers, microcontrollers, microprocessors, Stamp controllers, and similar devices.” (at paragraph [0062]). This is knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to select a programmable logic controller for the controller in the disinfecting assembly of Oh because a programmable logic controller was considered a suitable type of controller for automating the operations of a disinfecting assembly in which the disinfecting fluid spraying operation was activated based on the feedback received from a motion sensor, as taught by Andre.
In response to the argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With respect to the rejection of claim 17, Applicant (at page 14, last paragraph) argues that Oh fails to disclose “a ground-engaging frame sub-assembly”. This argument is not found persuasive, for the same reasons mentioned for the rejection of claim 1, above.
Applicant (at the paragraph bridging pages 14-15) further argues that Oh fails to disclose the claimed “first and second horizontal support members” having “proximal sections… outwardly flared relative to the distal sections”.
However, the secondary references to Andre and Foster were relied upon to teach the argued feature. In particular, Andre discloses another embodiment of a disinfecting assembly (see FIG. 6; paragraphs [0074]-[0075]) in which carts are manually pushed through the disinfecting assembly. In this case, the disinfecting assembly comprises a ground-engaging frame subassembly (i.e., a frame 602) further including first and second horizontal support members (i.e., guide rails 606) that function to guide a shopping cart through the disinfecting assembly. In addition, Foster discloses an apparatus for disinfecting carts (22), wherein the apparatus comprises a frame sub-assembly including first and second guide rails (see FIG. 17), wherein each guide rail comprises a proximal section (i.e., an end section 122 at an entrance side) and a distal section (i.e., a central section 120), wherein the distal sections (120) are positioned in a spaced apart and parallel configuration, and wherein the proximal sections (122) are outwardly flared relative to the distal sections (i.e., the end section 122 is at an angle to the central section 120). The provision of guide rails having proximal sections that are outwardly flared relative to the distal sections would have further assisted in guiding or funneling the carts into the disinfecting assembly (see paragraph [0068]).
Applicant (at page 15, second paragraph) further argues that Oh fails to disclose that the frame assembly comprises “L-brackets”.
However, the secondary reference to Foster was additionally relied upon to teach the argued feature. Foster discloses that the ground-engaging frame subassembly (see FIG. 13, 18; paragraph [0058]) includes a mounting member having a left vertical component (i.e., when facing the entrance to the enclosure, a left leg 52), a right vertical component (i.e., a right leg 52), a first L-bracket (i.e., a first L-shaped mounting bracket 82), a second L-bracket (i.e., a second L-shaped mounting bracket 82), and a top horizontal component (i.e., a support bracket 80, a top divider 74) positioned between the left and right vertical components 52,52. The L-brackets would have facilitated the attachment of the top horizontal component to the left and right vertical components at right-angles to construct the frame assembly.
Applicant (at page 15, third paragraph) further argues that Oh fails to disclose the claimed “first guard/overspray panel” and “second guard/overspray panel”.
However, Oh further discloses the argued features. In particular, a first guard/overspray panel is secured to the first and second left vertical components (i.e., when facing the entrance to the main body part 102, a first side panel is fixed to the frame elements on the left side of the main body part 102; see FIG. 2) and a second guard/overspray panel is secured to the first and second right vertical components (i.e., when facing the entrance to the main body part 102, a second side panel is fixed to the frame elements on the right side of the main body part 102; see FIG. 2).
Applicant (at page 15, fourth paragraph) further argues that Oh fails to disclose the claimed “energy source comprises 110 volts alternating current”.
However, as discussed above, Oh discloses an energy source (i.e., electricity, in the form of a current) for powering the electrical components of the apparatus. It is also well-known that 110 volts AC is the standard voltage for electricity in North America.
Applicant (at the paragraph bridging pages 15-16) further argues that Foster, Schwei et al., and Metheny “describe different apparatus configurations that do not reach the specific ground-engaging frame sub-assembly structure that is central to claim 17. The Examiner’s attempt to piece together elements from multiple disparate references to reconstruct the claimed invention constitutes impermissible hindsight reasoning.”
However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Furthermore, in response to the argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant’s arguments (at page 17, first and second paragraphs) with respect to the obviousness type double patenting rejections have been fully considered. In view of the filing of a terminal disclaimer, the rejections of claims 1-6, 9, and 11-17 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,726 (US ‘726); claims 7 and 8 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US ‘726 in view of Foster (US 2007/0272279); and claim 10 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US ‘726 in view of Schwei et al. (US 2005/0214159) are withdrawn.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Regarding claim 19, “the first and second left vertical components” (at line 13) lacks proper antecedent basis. It is suggested that “first and second” be deleted from the recitation.
Also, “the first and second right vertical components” (at line 14) lacks proper antecedent basis. It is suggested that “first and second” be deleted from the recitation.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 101043800 B1) in view of Andre (US 2006/0107486).
Regarding claim 1, Oh discloses a disinfecting assembly that enables large mobile objects to be disinfected (i.e., an apparatus for automatically sterilizing a shopping cart; see FIG. 1-5 and translation) comprising:
a ground-engaging frame sub-assembly (i.e., a main body part 102 that engages with the ground, the main body part comprising a frame; see FIG. 1);
a reservoir (i.e., a chemical tank 210 of an injection system 104) containing disinfecting fluid (i.e., a fungicide and disinfectant; see translation at page 5, eleventh paragraph);
an output spray nozzle (i.e., a nozzle unit 240 of the injection system 104) associated with the ground-engaging frame subassembly (i.e., the nozzle unit 240 is fixed to and combined inside the upper side of the main body part 102; see translation at page 6, first paragraph);
a fluid displacement pump (i.e., a pump 220);
a first conduit associated with the reservoir 210 and the fluid displacement pump 220 (i.e., a fluid conduit, shown, between the chemical tank 210 and the pump 220);
a second conduit associated with the fluid displacement pump 220 and the output spray nozzle 240 (i.e., a fluid conduit, shown, between the pump 220 and the nozzle unit 240);
a motion sensor (i.e., a sensor unit 106) that detects an object moving within the disinfecting assembly (i.e., when a cart enters the main body part 102, its entry is sensed by the sensor unit 106; see translation at page 6, third and fourth paragraphs); and
a control box having a controller (i.e., a box comprising a control unit 108), wherein the controller is in electrically communication with the pump 220 and the motion sensor 106 (i.e., when a cart enters the main body part 102, its entry is sensed by the sensor unit 106, and the sensor unit 106 transmits an entry sensing signal to the control unit 108; the control unit 108 then operates the pump 220 to supply a predetermined amount of the disinfecting fluid from the chemical tank 210 to the nozzle unit 240 in order to sterilize and disinfect the cart; see translation on page 6, third and fourth paragraphs).
The disinfecting assembly is electrically powered, as evidenced by the statement, “Also electricity and the unnecessary manpower wasting are minimized” (see translation at page 6, fifth paragraph). While Oh does not specifically mention an energy source, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the disinfecting assembly inherently comprises an energy source (i.e., electricity), where the controller 108 electrically communicates with the energy source, since the controller 108, the fluid displacement pump 220, and the motion sensor 106 are all devices that inherently require energy to function.
Oh fails to disclose that the controller 108 is a programmable logic controller.
Andre discloses a disinfecting assembly that enables large mobile objects to be disinfected (i.e., an automatic cart wash apparatus 100 for disinfecting shopping carts, see FIG. 1) comprising a control system 200 for automating the operations of the disinfecting assembly (see FIG. 2, paragraphs [0060]-[0065]). The control system 200 comprises a controller 202 in electrical communication with a fluid delivery system 140 to deliver a disinfecting fluid to a spray nozzle 144 (see FIG. 1) and a motion sensor (i.e., a wash sensor 208 that notifies the controller 202 when a cart is in position for washing and causes the controller 202 to activate the fluid delivery system 140 to deliver disinfecting fluid to the spray nozzle 144; see paragraph [0061]), wherein, specifically, the controller 202 suitably comprises a programmable logic controller (see paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a programmable logic controller for the controller in the disinfecting assembly of Oh because a programmable logic controller was considered a suitable type of controller for automating the operations of a disinfecting assembly in which the disinfecting fluid spraying operation was activated based on the feedback from a motion sensor, as taught by Andre.
Regarding claim 2, Oh discloses that the ground-engaging frame subassembly 102 includes first and second horizontal support members (i.e., horizontal bars equipped with buffer members 120; see FIG. 1) each having a proximal section (i.e., a section closest to a cart entrance) and a distal section (i.e., a section closest to a cart exit), wherein the distal sections of the first and second horizontal support members are positioned in a spaced apart and parallel configuration and define an object pathway therebetween (i.e., a pathway for the cart travel through the main body part 102; see FIG. 3-5).
Regarding claim 15, Oh discloses a pressure/flow regulator positioned between the reservoir 210 and the output spray nozzle 240 (i.e., a supply pressure gauge 250 controlling the pressure of the fluid from the pump 220; a jet pressure gauge 254 controlling the pressure of the fluid through a nozzle 244 of the nozzle unit 240; see page 6, second paragraph).
Claims 3-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 101043800 B1) in view of Andre (US 2006/0107486), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foster (US 2007/0272279).
Regarding claim 3, Oh fails to disclose that the ground-engaging frame sub-assembly includes first and second horizontal support members each having a proximal section and a distal section, wherein the distal sections are positioned in a spaced apart and parallel configured and define an object pathway therebetween, and the proximal sections are outwardly flared relative to the distal sections.
Andre discloses another embodiment of a disinfecting assembly (see FIG. 6; paragraphs [0074]-[0075]) in which carts are manually pushed through the disinfecting assembly. In this case, the disinfecting assembly comprises a ground-engaging frame subassembly (i.e., a frame 602) further including first and second horizontal support members (i.e., guide rails 606) that function to guide a shopping cart through the disinfecting assembly.
Foster also discloses a disinfecting assembly that enables large mobile objects to be disinfected (i.e., an apparatus for sanitizing shopping carts; see FIG. 2) comprising: a ground engaging frame sub-assembly (i.e., a frame constructed from leg elements 52, side rails 78, and equipment support brackets 80; see FIG. 1, 18); an energy source (i.e., AC and DC power; see paragraphs [0062]-[0064]); a reservoir containing disinfecting fluid (i.e., a tank 124 for sanitizing solution; FIG. 2); an output spray nozzle (i.e., an upper spray nozzle 128; see FIG. 19, paragraph [0069]); a fluid displacement pump (i.e., a pump 144; see FIG. 2, paragraphs [0062], [0070]); fluid conduits inherently connecting the reservoir 124 to the fluid displacement pump 144 and the fluid displacement pump 144 to the output spray nozzle 128; and a control box having a controller (see paragraph [0063]) in electrical communication with the energy source and the fluid displacement pump. Specifically, Foster discloses that when carts 22 are to be manually pushed through the disinfecting assembly, first and second guide rails are provided (see FIG. 17; paragraph [0068]), wherein each guide rail comprises a proximal section (i.e., an end section 122 at an entrance side) and a distal section (i.e., a central section 120), wherein the distal sections 120 are positioned in a spaced apart and parallel configuration, and wherein the proximal sections 122 are outwardly flared relative to the distal sections (i.e., the end section 122 is at an angle to the central section 120).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed first and second horizontal support members for the ground-engaging frame sub-assembly in the modified disinfecting assembly of Oh because the first and second horizontal support members would help guide a cart into the disinfecting assembly when the cart is manually pushed into the disinfecting assembly, as taught by Andre, and the provision of proximal sections that are outwardly flared relative to the distal sections would further assist in funneling the cart into the disinfecting assembly, as taught by Foster (see paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 4, Oh discloses that the ground engaging frame sub-assembly 102 (see FIG. 1) includes: a first mounting member having a left vertical component, a right vertical component, and a top horizontal component positioned between the left and right vertical compounds (i.e., when facing an entrance to the main body part 102, a left vertical component, a right vertical component, and a top horizontal component extending between the left and right vertical components); and a second mounting member having a left vertical component, a right vertical component, and a top horizontal component positioned between the left and right vertical components (i.e., when facing the entrance to the main body part 102, a left vertical component, a right vertical component, and a top horizontal component extending between the left and right vertical components defining an exit from the main body part 102).
Oh, however, fails to disclose that the first mounting member further comprises a first L-bracket and a second L-bracket.
The same comments with respect to Foster apply. In addition, Foster discloses that the ground-engaging frame subassembly (see FIG. 13, 18; paragraph [0058]) includes a mounting member having a left vertical component (i.e., when facing the entrance to the enclosure, a left leg 52), a right vertical component (i.e., a right leg 52), a first L-bracket (i.e., a first L-shaped mounting bracket 82), a second L-bracket (i.e., a second L-shaped mounting bracket 82), and a top horizontal component (i.e., a support bracket 80, a top divider 74) positioned between the left and right vertical components 52,52.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first L-bracket and a second L-bracket for the first mounting member in the modified disinfecting assembly of Oh because the L-brackets would facilitate the attachment of the top horizontal component to the left and right vertical components at right-angles to construct the frame assembly, as taught by Foster.
Regarding claim 5, Oh discloses that the ground engaging frame subassembly 102 includes a first guard/overspray panel secured to the first and second left vertical components (i.e., when facing the entrance to the main body part 102, a first side panel is fixed to the frame elements on the left side of the main body part 102; see FIG. 2) and a second guard/overspray panel secured to the first and second right vertical components (i.e., when facing the entrance to the main body part 102, a second side panel is fixed to the frame elements on the right side of the main body part 102; see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Oh fails to disclose that the energy source comprises alternating current and/or direct current. The same comments with respect to Foster apply. In addition, Foster discloses an energy source comprising an alternating current and/or a direct current (i.e., an AC source for powering dry components and a DC source for powering components exposed to liquid; see paragraphs [0062]-[0064]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an alternating current and/or a direct current for the energy source in the modified disinfecting system of Oh because the alternating current and/or the direct current would have facilitated the powering of the dry components and the wet components of the disinfecting assembly, as taught by Foster.
Regarding claim 7, Oh fails to disclose that the energy source comprises a primary and/or secondary electrochemical cell. The same comments with respect to Foster apply. In addition, Foster discloses an energy source comprising a secondary electrochemical cell (i.e., a battery 148 that is rechargeable by a battery charger 146; see FIG. 2, paragraph [0064]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a secondary electrochemical cell for the energy source in the modified disinfecting assembly of Oh because the secondary electrochemical cell would have facilitated the powering of the components of the disinfecting assembly, as taught by Foster.
Regarding claim 8, the same comments with respect to Foster apply. While Foster does not specifically disclose that the energy source is positioned within a control box, it is noted that the energy source (i.e., the rechargeable battery 148, FIG. 2) is positioned within a compartment isolated from the area receiving the spray of disinfecting fluid. It would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the energy source (i.e., a rechargeable battery) within the control box 108 in the modified disinfecting assembly of Oh because such positioning of the energy source would have isolated the energy source from the area receiving the spray of disinfecting fluid. One of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized the positioning of the energy source within the control box, in close proximity to the energy-consuming electrical components within the control box, to be convenient.
Regarding claim 11, Oh discloses that the output spray nozzle 240 is mounted to the first mounting member (i.e., the nozzle unit 240 is fixed to the panel of the upper side of the main body part 102; see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Oh discloses that the fluid displacement pump 220 is mounted to the first mounting member (i.e., the pump 220 is fixed to the panel of the upper side of the main body part 102; see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Oh discloses that the motion sensor 106 is mounted to the first mounting member (i.e., the sensor unit 106 is fixed to the panel of the upper side of the main body part 102; see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Oh discloses that the control box 108 is mounted to the first mounting member (i.e., the control unit 108 is all fixed to the panel of the upper side of the main body part 102; see FIG. 1).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 101043800 B1) in view of Andre (US 2006/0107486), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwei et al. (US 2005/0214159).
Regarding claim 9, Oh does not disclose that the disinfecting fluid comprises a solvent and a disinfecting agent.
Schwei et al. discloses a disinfecting assembly for disinfecting large mobile objects (i.e., a cart sanitizing system 10; see FIG. 1-6) comprising: a ground-engaging frame sub-assembly (i.e., an enclosure 12 comprising a frame constructed from support beams 30; the enclosure engages the ground at non-skid pads 52); an energy source (i.e., a power supply 140; see FIG.5, paragraph [0053]); a reservoir containing disinfecting fluid (i.e., a storage tank 106 containing a sanitizing fluid; see FIG. 4, paragraph [0047]); an output spray nozzle (i.e., a spray arch 58 with nozzles 68); a fluid displacement pump (i.e., a pump 100; see FIG. 4, paragraph [0045]); a first conduit 108 (see FIG. 4) associated with the reservoir 106 and the pump 100; a second conduit 98, 80 (see FIG. 4) associated with the pump 100 and the output spray nozzle 58,68; a motion sensor (i.e., a motion detector 74; see FIG. 2, 5) that detects objects moving within the disinfecting assembly (see paragraphs [0040], [0053]); and a controller (see electrical control diagram in FIG. 5, paragraph [0053]) in electrical communication with the energy source 140, the pump 100, and the motion sensor 74. Specifically, Schwei et al. discloses that the disinfecting fluid comprises a solvent and a disinfecting agent (i.e., a mixture of water (solvent) from a fresh water inlet 124, a sanitizing agent from a chemical tank 128, and a surfactant from a surfactant tank 126; FIG. 4; column 7, lines 38-49).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a disinfecting fluid that comprises a solvent and a disinfecting agent for the disinfecting fluid in the modified disinfecting assembly of Oh because the substitution of one known disinfecting fluid for another known disinfecting fluid would have involved routine skill in the art, and such disinfecting fluid would have sanitized a cart while also reducing the surface tension of water to aid in the rapid drying of the cart after the disinfecting fluid has been applied, as taught by Schwei et al. (see paragraphs [0018], [0051]).
Regarding claim 10, Oh does not disclose that the disinfecting fluid comprises a solvent, a disinfecting agent, and a surfactant.
The same comments with respect to Schwei et al. apply. Specifically, Schwei et al. discloses that the disinfecting fluid comprises a solvent, a disinfecting agent, and a surfactant (i.e., a mixture of water (solvent) from a fresh water inlet 124, a sanitizing agent from a chemical tank 128, and a surfactant from a surfactant tank 126; FIG. 4; column 7, lines 38-49).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a disinfecting fluid that comprises a solvent, a disinfecting agent, and a surfactant for the disinfecting fluid in the modified disinfecting assembly of Oh because the substitution of one known disinfecting fluid for another known disinfecting fluid would have involved routine skill in the art, and such disinfecting fluid would have sanitized a cart while also reducing the surface tension of water to aid in the rapid drying of the cart after the disinfecting fluid has been applied, as taught by Schwei et al. (see paragraphs [0018], [0051]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 101043800 B1) in view of Andre (US 2006/0107486) and Foster (US 2007/0272279), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Metheny (US 2008/0210268).
Oh fails to disclose a positive pressure dryer mounted to a second mounting member.
Metheny discloses a disinfecting assembly that enables large mobile objects to be disinfected (i.e., a shopping cart washer and sanitizer; see Figures) comprising: a ground engaging frame assembly (i.e., a frame 12 supporting an enclosure 10; see FIG. 3, paragraph [0027]-[0028]); an energy source (i.e., a source of electricity, e.g., via an electrical cord and plug or hard wiring, see paragraph [0014]); a reservoir containing disinfecting fluid (i.e., a liquid supply tank 68 containing a cleaning liquid, such as a detergent solution or a germicidal sanitizing solution; see paragraphs [0016], [0036]); an output spray nozzle 66 (FIG. 3) associated with the ground-engaging frame sub-assembly; a fluid displacement pump (i.e., a pump 62; see FIG. 5, paragraph [0036]); a first conduit (see FIG. 5-6) associated with the reservoir 68 and the pump 62; a second conduit (see FIG. 5-6) associated with the pump 62 and the output spray nozzle 66; a motion sensor (i.e., a proximity sensor 100, see paragraph [0041]); and a control box having a controller (i.e., an electronic controller 98; see FIG. 6, paragraph [0041]) in electrical communication with the energy source, the fluid displacement pump 62, and the motion sensor 100. Metheny further discloses a second mounting member (i.e., interpreted as the frame 12 elements defining an exit 22 of the enclosure 10); wherein, specifically, a positive pressure dryer is mounted to the second mounting member (i.e., perforated air ducts 42, 44 are mounted on either side of the exit and fed by a blower 46; see FIG. 3, paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a positive pressure dryer mounted to a second mounting member in the modified disinfecting assembly of Oh because the mounting of a positive pressure dryer at the exit from the disinfecting assembly would help to dry the carts after the application of the disinfecting fluid, as well as retain the overspray and mist generated by the output spray nozzle within the enclosure, as taught by Metheny (see paragraph [0034]).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 101043800 B1) in view of Andre (US 2006/0107486), Foster (US 2007/0272279), Schwei et al. (US 2005/0214159), and Metheny (US 2008/0210268).
Regarding claim 17, the claimed disinfecting assembly comprises the combination of features recited in claims 1-16. Therefore, the same comments with respect to Oh, Andre, Foster, Schwei et al., and Metheny from the rejections of claims 1-16, above, apply.
With respect to the further limitation that the energy source is 110 volts AC, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide 110 volts AC for the energy source in the modified disinfecting assembly of Oh because 110 volts AC is the standard voltage for electrical outlets in N. America.
With respect to the further limitation that the PLC is also in electrical communication with the positive pressure dryer, Metheny discloses that the controller 98 (FIG. 5-6, paragraph [0041]) is in electrical communication (see dashed lines) with the energy source (see paragraph [0014]), the fluid displacement pump 62, the motion sensor 100, and the positive pressure dryer (i.e., via a motor of blower 46). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the PLC to also be in electrical communication with the positive pressure dryer in the modified disinfecting system of Oh because the entire cart disinfecting operation, including both the disinfecting step and the drying step, could fully automated, as taught by Metheny (see paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 19, the claimed disinfecting assembly comprises the combination of features recited in claim 17. Therefore, the same comments with respect to Oh, Andre, Foster, Schwei et al., and Metheny from the rejections of claim 17, above, apply.
With respect to the further feature of “an emergency shut off”, Oh fails to disclose that the control box further an emergency shut off. Schwei et al., however, further discloses a control box including an emergency shut off (i.e., a control panel 155 including an emergency stop switch 150; see FIG. 5-6 and paragraphs [0054]-[0059]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the control box to include an emergency shut off in the modified disinfecting assembly of Oh because the emergency shut off would allow for the supply of power to be interrupted in the case of an emergency, as taught by Schwei et al.
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 JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, CLAIRE X WANG can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774