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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons detailed below. Examiner notes that claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 in the previous Office Action dated 2/23/2026, but now incorporates the limitations of cancelled claim 11. Applicant’s arguments are thus considered with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the previous Office Action dated 2/23/2026.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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). Specifically:
Regarding the Kristensen reference, Applicant first argues that Kristensen does not disclose “that the connection is checked via a coupled signal exchange involving a test signal and a confirmation signal” (Remarks, Page 10, first paragraph). Paragraphs 0039-0040 of Kristensen describe wireless communication signals transmitted between the first communication member and the second communication member (i.e., two-way communication in which any initiated signal may be considered a test and any response may be considered a confirmation that the test was received). Paragraph 0043 of Kristensen discloses that the device is capable of determining “if the remote control unit RCU is actively connected, i.e. is wirelessly synchronized or paired, with a motor unit. Further, the status window may be used to indicate an error state, e.g. [. . .] lack of radio contact with the motor unit containing the high pressure module HPM etc.”. Examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would, in view of the disclosed two-way communication capability, reasonably be expected to draw the inference that the connection status functionality disclosed by Kristensen is achieved via a coupled signal exchange between the communication members. See MPEP §2144.01 regarding implicit disclosure.
Kristensen is silent regarding the details of how these signals are used, other than to provide the indication on the operating unit, as described above. Thus, what the disclosure of Kristensen lacks is the configuration of the control unit to cut power to the apparatus when a loss of connection is determined (since Kristensen appears to only disclose the operating unit making this determination). This control unit configuration is taught by Teague in the context of a “dead man’s switch.”
Regarding the Teague reference, Applicant argues that the “sending of a signal triggered by pressing a dead man’s switch is not equivalent to or an obvious variant of a confirmation signal sent in response to a test signal” (Remarks, Page 10, third paragraph). Examiner agrees in the sense that a “dead man’s switch” is essentially a one-way communication, but notes that the relevant teaching of Teague, as described in the previously cited rejections, is not the switch structure, but the control unit configuration including the capability of electrically interrupting the at least one connection line based on the absence of a signal received from the operating unit. Since the apparatus of Kristensen is already monitoring the wireless connection via two-way communication, one having ordinary skill in the art would not consider it necessary to implement the teaching of Teague using the same “dead man’s switch” configuration.
Regarding the combination of references, Applicant argues that “There is no need for a person skilled in the art to change the cleaning apparatus of Kristensen, since Kristensen shows a consistently constructed cleaning apparatus that is reliably operative as shown.” (Remarks, Page 10, fourth paragraph). In response to applicant’s 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. See 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, Kristensen discloses in the cited passages above that a user would be notified of a loss of contact between the control unit and operating unit, but one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this does not address an obvious safety issue inherent in a device relying on wireless communication for controlling the apparatus (i.e., the inability to turn off the apparatus when connection is lost during operation). In addition to monitoring the connection, Teague teaches that such a device may be configured to cut power when signals from the operating unit cease to be received by the control unit.
Applying this teaching in the apparatus of Kristensen would result in a device having all of the structure needed to perform the recited function, as well as a motivation to configure the device according to the functional limitations of the claim. Therefore, Examiner maintains that the combination of Kristensen and Teague renders obvious the apparatus according to amended claim 1.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal language (“comprise” in line 4). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the at least of the two” in line 2 should read --the at least one of the two--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 21 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.
The claim recites “a further switching element” in line 2 and “the switching element which is actuated depending on the actuation of the actuating element” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations since claim 1 does not specify that the number of switching elements has been limited to a certain number, and no single switching element is described as being actuated depending on the actuation of the actuating element. For purposes of examination only, the claim will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding.
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 1-5, 7-10, 12-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kristensen (US 2017/0239676) in view of Teague (US 5,381,962).
Regarding claim 1, Kristensen discloses an electrically operated high-pressure cleaning apparatus (see the Abstract; Fig. 1), comprising
a support device (housing containing high pressure module HPM and controller CTL; Paragraph 0020; Fig. 1),
an electric motor held thereon and/or arranged thereon (Paragraph 0014),
a pump which is drivable by the electric motor (Paragraph 0014) and
an electrical device (see boxes labeled CTL and MC_SW in Fig. 3), as well as
a user-guided operating unit (spray handle SH) which is connected or connectable to the pump via a high-pressure conduit (Paragraph 0039),
the electrical device comprising two connection lines via which the electric motor is connected or connectable to a power supply device in a bipolar manner and is suppliable with electrical energy (Paragraph 0046; Fig. 3),
wherein the electrical device comprises at least one switching element (main switch MN_SW, micro switch MC_SW) connected in at least one of the two connection lines (Fig. 3), a control unit (controller CTL), and a first communication member (wireless receiver WR),
wherein the operating unit comprises an actuating element (user interface U_I; Paragraph 0021) and a second communication member (remote control unit RCU) for wirelessly transmitting a signal to the first communication member (Paragraphs 0039-0040), and
wherein the control unit is operatively connected to the at least one switching element (Fig. 3) and the at least one of the two connection lines is electrically conductively connected or electrically interrupted depending on the actuation of the actuating element (Paragraph 0016).
Kristensen further discloses that a test signal is transmissible from the control unit via the first communication member to the second communication member when at least one connection line is electrically conductively connected and a confirmation signal in response to the test signal is transmissible from the second communication member to the first communication member (one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that some form of “test” and “confirmation” signals would be “transmissible” as claimed, since the device is capable of two-way communication between the communication members, as well as determining a status of the connection between communication members; see Paragraphs 0039-0040, 0043). However, Kristensen does not explicitly disclose that the apparatus is capable of electrically interrupting the at least one connection line based on the absence of a confirmation signal being received in response to a test signal.
Teague teaches a similar apparatus in which signals (81) are transmissible between a first communication member (receiver 48; Fig. 1) and a second communication member (transmitter 10; Fig. 1) when at least one connection line is electrically conductively connected (Col. 9, lines 35-44), and that, when the first communication member fails to receive a signal from the second communication member, the at least one connection line is electrically interrupted (pressure washer is deactuated; Col. 9, lines 49-53). Teague teaches this configuration in the context of a control unit operating switching elements in the device (Col. 4, lines 34-41) and a “deadman’s switch” that prevents unintended discharge from the device (see the Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the apparatus of Kristensen with the capability of electrically interrupting the at least one connection line based on the absence of a signal received from the operating unit, as taught by Teague, in order to prevent unintended discharge from the device when wireless communication between the communication members is not established. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of incorporating this capability into the control unit of Kristensen with predictable results, especially considering that Kristensen already discloses the ability to determine a loss of communication, and that the two references describe similar control structures.
Regarding claim 2, Kristensen further discloses that the high-pressure cleaning apparatus is switched to a standby mode (“inactive state”; Paragraph 0016) when the connection lines are electrically conductively connected (power is still supplied via main switch MN_SW), the electric motor being switched on only when the user actuates a release element on the operating unit for spraying a cleaning liquid (trigger causes flow, which results in motor being switched on to restore pressure via MC_SW; Paragraphs 0021, 0047).
Regarding claim 3, Kristensen further discloses that a permanent radio connection between the communication members is provided after the at least one of the two connection lines has been electrically conductively connected for the first time by actuating the actuating element and until the at least one of the two connection lines is electrically interrupted by actuating the actuating element (radio communication is continuously monitored for active connection; Paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 4, Kristensen further discloses that the electrical device comprises only one switching element connected in the at least one connection line (no further switching elements are included in the connection line between MC_SW and the motor; see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Kristensen further discloses that the high-pressure cleaning apparatus is void of an operating element on the support device for the user as a component of the electrical device in order to electrically conductively connect the at least one of the two connection lines (Kristensen discloses a main switch, MN_SW, but it is apparent that this feature is separate from the support device and electrical device; Kristensen further notes that such a switch may be replaced by the remote switching capability of the operating unit; see Fig. 3 and Paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 7, Kristensen further discloses that the signal transmitted from the second communication member to the first communication member is a pulse signal (signal corresponds with a momentary press of an “increase pressure” or “decrease pressure” button; Paragraph 0042).
Regarding claims 8-10, Kristensen further discloses that, during operation of the high-pressure cleaning apparatus, the high-pressure cleaning apparatus is monitorable for the occurrence of a drop in pressure in a cleaning liquid, an indication of a pressure drop being providable to the user on an indicating unit (U_I) of the high-pressure cleaning apparatus, should a pressure drop occur (wireless status signal indicates whether desired pressure is reached via LEDs on U_I; Paragraph 0040). Kristensen further discloses that the indicating unit is a display unit (Fig. 2b). Kristensen further discloses that the operating unit comprises or forms the indicating unit (Fig. 2b) and a corresponding indication signal (wireless status signal) is transmissible from the first communication member to the second communication member (Paragraph 0040).
Regarding claims 12-13, Kristensen-Teague in combination discloses the high-pressure cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 1. Kristensen further discloses a test signal, as described above regarding claim 1. Kristensen does not explicitly disclose that the signal is repeatedly or periodically transmissible or that a connection line is interrupted after a predetermined number of absent signals or after a predetermined time.
Teague teaches a similar apparatus, as described above regarding claim 1. Teague further teaches that the test signal is repeatedly and periodically transmissible (e.g., once every second; Col. 9, lines 35-49), and that a connection line is interrupted after a predetermined period of time has elapsed (e.g., after a delay of three seconds; Col. 10, lines 10-18). Teague teaches that this configuration allows the device to continue operating normally during occasional interruptions of the signal (Col. 9, line 58 - Col. 10, line 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the combined invention such that the test signal is periodically transmissible and a connection line is interrupted only after a predetermined time passes without a signal received from the operating unit, as taught by Teague, in order to allow normal operation of the device during occasional interruptions of the test signal.
Regarding claims 14-15, Kristensen further discloses that the operating unit comprises at least one battery (BTT) for supplying power to the actuating element (see Fig. 4), and that an indication is providable when the at least one battery falls below a predetermined charge level (Paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 16, Kristensen-Teague in combination discloses the apparatus according to claim 14. Kristensen further discloses that the apparatus monitors the level of at least one battery that powers the second communication member when the actuating element is actuated and provides an indication when the battery falls to a predetermined charge level (Paragraph 0043). Further, it is inherent in such a device that no signal is transmitted from the second communication member to the first communication member if the at least one battery falls below a certain charge level (i.e., when there is insufficient power available to transmit the signal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the combined invention such that the low battery indication occurs just before the battery reaches the level at which there is insufficient power to transmit the signal. Doing so would maximize the usage time of the device before recharging/replacing the battery and would necessarily result in no signal being transmitted from the second communication member to the first communication member when the at least one battery falls below the predetermined charge level, thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 17-18, Kristensen further discloses that the operating unit comprises a release element via which the operating unit is activatable for spraying a cleaning liquid, the release element being different from the actuating element, wherein the release element is a hand-operated trigger (Paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 20, Kristensen further discloses that the high-pressure cleaning apparatus comprises a pressure switch by means of which pressure in the pump or downstream of the pump is detectable (pressure level at L_O is adjusted via CTL; Paragraph 0040), the pressure switch comprising or being operatively connected to a switching element (MC_SW) which is connected in one of the two connection lines (see Fig. 3), and the switching element electrically conductively connects the one of the two connection lines when the pressure falls below a threshold pressure, and interrupts said connection line when the pressure reaches and/or exceeds the threshold pressure (pressure sensitive valve operates MC_SW to keep pressure in a desired range; Paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 21, Kristensen further discloses that a further switching element is connected in a different connection line than the switching element which is actuated depending on the actuation of the actuating element (see MN_SW and MC_SW in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 22, Kristensen further discloses that the high-pressure cleaning apparatus is wired and has a connection cable comprising the connection lines (Fig. 1), and/or the high-pressure cleaning apparatus is battery-operated and has a receptacle for an electric battery which is couplable to the connection lines (Paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 23, Kristensen further discloses that the support device comprises a housing of the high-pressure cleaning apparatus and, in the housing, the electric motor, the pump and, at least in part, the electrical device are accommodated (Paragraph 0047).
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kristensen in view of Teague, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwab et al. (WO 2007/045259). All references to the written description of Schwab et al. are made to the attached machine translation into English (WO2007045259-MT).
Regarding claim 6, Kristensen-Teague in combination discloses the high-pressure cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 1, as described above, but does not disclose that the control unit is galvanically isolated from the at least one connection line via the switching element.
Schwab et al. teach a high-pressure cleaning apparatus in which the control unit is galvanically isolated from at least one connection line via the switching element (via a semiconductor relay; Paragraph 0010). Schwab et al. teach that this enables further control of the motor current, facilitating smooth start-up (Paragraph 0010).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the switching element of the combined invention with a relay galvanically isolating the control unit from the connection line, as taught by Schwab et al., in order to enable more control over the motor current.
Regarding claim 19, Kristensen-Teague in combination discloses the high-pressure cleaning apparatus in accordance with claim 1, as described above, but does not disclose that the control unit electrically interrupts the at least one of the two connection lines via the at least one switching element after a predetermined period of time has elapsed.
Schwab et al. teach a high-pressure cleaning apparatus in which a control unit electrically interrupts at least one connection line via at least one switching element after a predetermined period of time has elapsed within which a release element has not been actuated (timer switches off motor after the desired pressure is reached and a predetermined delay time passes without a reduction in pressure that would occur when the release element is actuated; Paragraph 0014). Schwab et al. teach that this prevents excessive loads on the control unit (Paragraph 0012).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention with the timer feature taught by Schwab et al. in order to prevent excessive loads on the control unit during short breaks in spraying.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 August 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights