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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 17-18 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim 1-16, drawn to a skid for distributing fluids, classified in B65F7/00.
II. Claim 17-18, drawn to a method of distributing fluids, classified in B08B3/022.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions in group I and group II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the apparatus as claimed can be used for a materially different process such as cleaning vehicles while placed on a concrete pad.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 16-17 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-8 are original. Claims 9-18 are new. Claims 17-18 are withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-18 are currently pending and claims 1-16 and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/13/2026 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the following:
Certain drawing objections further discussed in the section titled “Response to Arguments”
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Solenoid Valve (Claim 2)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation " A portable skid for distributing fluids'' (underline for emphasis) in line 1 of claim 1 and claim 2 recites the limitation “The skid for distributing liquids” in line 1 of claim 2. However, it is suggested to amend the limitation of claim 2 to – the portable skid for distributing fluids-.
Similar objections to claims 3-7 and 9-16.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(Note 1: cross-out limitations in this office action indicates the lack of explicit teaching in the primary reference; the limitation is addressed by the teaching reference(s) below).
(Note 2: Claim 1 will be annotated claim 1a for one rejection and will be alternatively rejected as claim 1b for a second alternative rejection later in the Office Action.)
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9, 11-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Rimsa (US 2025/0326576) in view of Vistro (US 2008/0089764).
Regarding claim 1a, Rimsa discloses a portable skid (Fig. 5-12, 60; Para. 0010; The examiner will interpret portable as “capable of being carried or moved about” as defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary and the skid disclosed by Rimsa is portable by way of being picked up and moved around by a vehicle as described in Para. 0010) for distributing fluids (Para. 0048) comprising:
a platform (Fig. 9, 62, 66, & 80) having a first face (Annotated Fig. 12);
a first liquid storage container (Para. 0046 – “second fluid tank”)
a sprayer (Fig. 5, 74 & 76) fluidly connected to the first liquid storage container (Para. 0046 – “The at least one spray conduit 76 is in fluid connection with at least one fluid tank and at least one fluid pump 88, best seen in FIG. 12. In this example, the at least one spray conduit 74 is in fluid connection with the fluid tank 72, but it will be appreciated that the fluid tank in fluid connection with the at least one spray conduit 74 may be connected to a separate, second fluid tank that is not in fluid communication with the drain 70.”; In the configuration with a second tank described in Para. 0046 the sprayer is in fluid communication with the first liquid storage container.);
a pump (Fig. 12, 88 & 90) fluidly connected to the first liquid storage and the sprayer (In the configuration with a second tank described in Para. 0046 the pump is fluidly connected to the first liquid storage and the sprayer.), the pump
Rimsa does not explicitly disclose the first liquid storage container attached to the first face; a power source attached to the first face; and the pump electrically connected to the power source.
However, Vistro teaches a prior art comparable garbage container sanitizing system (Fig. 1-3, 10 & Fig. 4, 31), comprising a first liquid storage container (Fig. 4, 32) a power source (Fig. 4, 35), a sprayer (Fig. 4, 38) fluidly connected to the first liquid storage container, a pump (Fig. 4, 34) fluidly connected to the first liquid storage and the sprayer (Para. 0052), the pump electrically connected to the power source (Para. 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a power source and electrically connect the power source to the pump because Rimsa discloses that the pump can be electrically powered (Para. 0050 – “The fluid pump 88 of the example shown is configured to be driven by an actuator 90, which may be hydraulically or electrically powered.”), thus requiring a power source, and Vistro explicitly teaches the combination and therefore the examiner finds a reasonable expectation of success.
Rimsa in view of Vistro does not teach the first liquid storage container attached to the first face; and the power source attached to the first face.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the first liquid storage container and the power source to the first face, to protect them from the external environment with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts, such as arranging the first liquid storage container and the power source to the first face, requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient because rearranging the first liquid storage container and the power source to the first face would not have modified the operation of the device, and further the particular placement would be an obvious matter of design choice. Furthermore, the examiner finds that the applicant did not demonstrate criticality for the first liquid storage container attached to the first face (See para. 0029, Applicant’s specification.) nor the power source attached to the first face (Not recited in the Applicant’s specification.). See MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Regarding claim 4, Rimsa in view of Vistro teaches the skid for distributing liquids of claim 1a.
Vistro further discloses the skid comprising a liquid basin (Fig. 5, 68 & 70) attached to the first face (Fig. 5), the liquid basin having a drain (Fig. 5, 70).
Regarding claim 5, Rimsa in view of Vistro teaches the skid for distributing liquids of claim 4.
Rimsa further discloses the skid comprising a second liquid storage container (Fig 11-12, 72) fluidly connected to the liquid basin (Fig. 11), the second liquid storage container attached to the first face (Fig. 11)).
Regarding claim 6, Rimsa in view of Vistro teaches the skid for distributing liquids of claim 4.
Rimsa further discloses the skid further comprising at least one spray head fluidly (Fig. 5, 96) connected to the first liquid storage container (The spray head is attached to the sprayer connected to the first liquid sprayer.) and attached to the liquid basin (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Rimsa in view of Vistro teaches the skid for distributing liquids of claim 1a.
Rimsa further discloses wherein the platform includes lifting channels (Fig. 10, 82 & Fig. 9, 82) extending through the platform configured for forklift engagement (Fig. 10, 82 & Fig. 9, 82 shows engagement with forks 32).
Regarding claim 11, Rimsa in view of Vistro teaches the skid for distributing liquids of claim 1a. Rimsa in view of Vistro teaches wherein the platform is configured for placement in a truck bed (Rimsa in view of Vistro teaches all of the claimed structural limitations and can be placed in a truck bed in the same way as the instant claimed invention. The examiner further finds that skid taught by Rims in view of Vistro is portable/removable as evidenced in Para. 0005, 0010, 0014, and 0037.).
Regarding claim 12, Rimsa in view of Vistro teaches the skid for distributing liquids of claim 6.
Rimsa further discloses the skid comprising an arm assembly (Fig. 5-12, 78) mounted to the platform and configured to lift and invert a container (Fig. 10, RB) over the liquid basin.
Regarding claim 15, Rimsa in view of Vistro teaches the skid for distributing liquids of claim 12.
Rimsa further discloses the skid comprising a controller (Para. 0011 – “controls”) mounted tothe skid (underline to emphasize difference from applicants claimed language) and operatively connected to the arm assembly (Para. 0011).
Rimsa does not disclose the controller mounted to the liquid basin.
However, relocating the controller to the liquid basin is a mere rearrangement of parts, and the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0031 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimsa in view of Vistro and Mancuso (AU 2016256670).
Regarding claim 2, Rimsa in view of Vistro teaches the skid for distributing liquids of claim 1a, but does not teach the skid further comprising at least one solenoid valve electrically connected to the power source, the at least one solenoid valve having a fluid inlet and a fluid outlet; and the fluid inlet connected to the first liquid storage container.
However, Mancuso teaches a prior art comparable mobile organic waste treatment system (Fig. 1, 100) comprising at least one solenoid valve (Fig. 7, 610; Pg. 20: Ln 27-28) electrically connected to a power source (Fig. 1, 114; Pg. 11, Ln. 15-19), the at least one solenoid valve having a fluid inlet (Fig. 7, connection between 708 and 610) and a fluid outlet (Fig. 7, connection between 710 and 610); and the fluid inlet connected to a first liquid storage container (Fig. 1, 112; The fluid inlet is connected to the first liquid storage container via 308; Pg. 11, Ln. 15-19; Pg. 22: Ln. 18-19)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the elements of Mancuso into the skid taught by Rimsa in view of Vistro, because the prior art included each element claimed although not necessarily in a single reference, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (fluidically and electrically coupling) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, namely fluidically connecting and controlling the fluid contained by the first liquid storage container to the sprayer.
Regarding claim 3, Rimsa in view of Vistro and Mancuso teaches the skid for distributing liquids of claim 2.
Mancuso further teaches the skid comprising a controller (Fig. 6, 306) electrically connected (Fig. 6; Pg. 20, Ln. 26-27; Pg. 24: Ln. 27-28) to the at least one solenoid valve.
Claim(s) 7-8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimsa in view of Vistro and Carter (US 5,673,715).
Regarding claim 7, Rimsa in view of Vistro teaches the skid for distributing liquids of claim 1a. Rimsa further discloses the skid further comprises: the platform having a length (Annotated Fig. 10); the platform having a receiving face (Annotated Fig. 10) and an opposing face (Annotated Fig. 10) located opposite from the receiving face; and an orifice in the receiving face (Annotated Fig. 10; Opening of the Receiving Face).
Rimsa in view of Vistro does not teach at least two orifices in the receiving face, the at least two orifices extending at least half the length of the first face.
However, Carter teaches a prior art comparable washing apparatus (Fig. 1, 10) comprising a platform (Fig. 1, 12) having a first face (Annotated Fig. 1);
the platform having a length (Annotated Fig. 1);
the platform having a receiving face (Annotated Fig. 1) and an opposing face (Annotated Fig. 1) located opposite from the receiving face; and
at least two orifices (Fig. 1, 34) in the receiving face, the at least two orifices extending at least half the length of the first face (Col. 3: Ln. 50-56; If the rear base of the frame (not visible in FIG. 1) has vertical posts affixed across the fork pocket area to prevent a fork lift operator from attempting to insert the forks of a fork lift into the rear frame the orifices inherently go the entire length of the first face or there would not be an opening in the rear base of the frame to affix vertical posts to.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (at least two orifices in the receiving face, the at least two orifices extending at least half the length of the first face) as taught by Carter, into the skid taught by Rimsa in view of Vistro to provide clearance for the forks of a forklift or a pallet jack, enabling the entire apparatus to be easily moved to a job site or any desired location (Col. 3: Ln. 48-50) and yielding the predictable result of providing two orifices for handling the platform, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Rimsa discloses a skid (Fig. 5-12, 60) for distributing fluids (Para. 0048) comprising:
a platform (Fig. 9, 62, 66, & 80) having a first face (Annotated Fig. 12);
a first liquid storage container (Para. 0046 – “second fluid tank”);
a second liquid storage (Fig 11-12, 72) container attached to the first face;
a sprayer (Fig. 5, 74 & 76) fluidly connected to the first liquid storage container (Para. 0046 – “The at least one spray conduit 76 is in fluid connection with at least one fluid tank and at least one fluid pump 88, best seen in FIG. 12. In this example, the at least one spray conduit 74 is in fluid connection with the fluid tank 72, but it will be appreciated that the fluid tank in fluid connection with the at least one spray conduit 74 may be connected to a separate, second fluid tank that is not in fluid communication with the drain 70.”; In the configuration with a second tank described in Para. 0046 the sprayer is in fluid communication with the first liquid storage container.);
a pump (Fig. 12, 88 & 90) fluidly connected to the first liquid storage and the sprayer (In the configuration with a second tank described in Para. 0046 the pump is fluidly connected to the first liquid storage and the sprayer.), the pump attached to the first face (Fig. 12; The pump is attached via the conduits extending from 90.).;
a liquid basin (Fig. 5, 68 & 70) attached to the first face (Fig. 5), the liquid basin having a drain (Fig. 5, 70);
at least one spray head (Fig. 5, 96) fluidly connected to the first liquid storage container (The spray head is attached to the sprayer fluidly connected to the first liquid sprayer.) and attached to the liquid basin (Fig. 5);
the platform having a length (Annotated Fig. 10);
the platform having a receiving face (Annotated Fig. 10) and an opposing face (Annotated Fig. 10) located opposite from the receiving face; and
an orifice in the receiving face (Annotated Fig. 10; Opening of the Receiving Face).
Rimsa does not teach the first liquid storage container attached to the first face; a power source attached to the first face; the pump electrically connected to the power source; at least two orifices in the receiving face, the at least two orifices extending at least half the length of the first face.
However, Vistro teaches a prior art comparable garbage container sanitizing system (Fig. 1-3, 10 & Fig. 4, 31), comprising a first liquid storage container (Fig. 4, 32) a power source (Fig. 4, 35), a sprayer (Fig. 4, 38) fluidly connected to the first liquid storage container, a pump (Fig. 4, 34) fluidly connected to the first liquid storage and the sprayer (Para. 0052), the pump electrically connected to the power source (Para. 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a power source, and electrically connect the power source to the pump because Rimsa discloses that the pump can be electrically powered (Para. 0050 – “The fluid pump 88 of the example shown is configured to be driven by an actuator 90, which may be hydraulically or electrically powered.”), thus requiring a power source, and Vistro explicitly teaches the combination and therefore the examiner finds a reasonable expectation of success.
Rimsa in view of Vistro does not teach the first liquid storage container attached to the first face; the power source attached to the first face; the pump attached to the first face; at least two orifices in the receiving face, the at least two orifices extending at least half the length of the first face.
However, Carter teaches a prior art comparable washing apparatus (Fig. 1, 10) comprising a platform (Fig. 1, 12) having a first face (Annotated Fig. 1);
the platform having a length (Annotated Fig. 1);
the platform having a receiving face (Annotated Fig. 1) and an opposing face (Annotated Fig. 1) located opposite from the receiving face; and
at least two orifices (Fig. 1, 34) in the receiving face, the at least two orifices extending at least half the length of the first face (Col. 3: Ln. 50-56; If the rear base of the frame (not visible in FIG. 1) has vertical posts affixed across the fork pocket area to prevent a fork lift operator from attempting to insert the forks of a fork lift into the rear frame the orifices inherently go the entire length of the first face or there would not be an opening in the rear base of the frame to affix vertical posts to.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (at least two orifices in the receiving face, the at least two orifices extending at least half the length of the first face) as taught by Carter, into the skid taught by Rimsa in view of Vistro to provide clearance for the forks of a forklift or a pallet jack, enabling the entire apparatus to be easily moved to a job site or any desired location (Col. 3: Ln. 48-50) and yielding the predictable result of providing two orifices for handling the platform, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Rimsa in view of Vistro and Carter does not teach the first liquid storage container attached to the first face; the power source attached to the first face; the pump attached to the first face.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the first liquid storage container, the power source, and the pump to the first face to protect them from the external environment with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts, such as arranging the first liquid storage container, the power source, and the pump to the first face, requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient because rearranging the first liquid storage container, the pump, and the power source to the first face would not have modified the operation of the device, and further the particular placement would be an obvious matter of design choice. Furthermore, the examiner finds that the applicant did not demonstrate criticality for the first liquid storage container attached to the first face (See para. 0029, Applicant’s specification.), the power source attached to the first face (Not recited in the Applicant’s specification.), nor pump attached to the first face (Not recited in the Applicant’s specification.). See MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Regarding claim 14, Rimsa in view of Vistro teaches the skid for distributing liquids of claim 1a, but does not teach the skid further comprising a manifold fluidly connected between the pump and the sprayer.
However, Carter teaches a prior art comparable washing apparatus (Fig. 1, 10) comprising a manifold (Fig. 6, 130) fluidly connected between a pump (Fig. 6, 104) and the sprayer (Fig. 6, 96).
Therefore, the examiner finds it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a manifold fluidly connected between a pump and the sprayer to allow a fluid to be directed to the sprayer or a recirculation path to allow for reuse of the fluid (Col. 7: Ln. 35-42), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimsa in view of Vistro and Baran, Jr (US 4,725,004), hereinafter Baran.
Regarding claim 10, Rimsa in view of Vistro teaches the skid for distributing liquids of claim 1a, but does not disclose the skid further comprising a tank frame mounted to the first face, wherein the first liquid storage container is secured to the tank frame.
However, Baran teaches a prior art comparable spray system (Fig. 1-3, 50) comprising a tank frame (Fig. 1, 28 & Fig. 3, 43) mounted to a first face (Fig. 1 & 3, Face of 24 contacting 28) wherein a first liquid storage container (Fig. 1-3, 45) is secured to the tank frame (Col. 2: Ln. 25-46).
Therefore, the examiner finds it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a tank frame mounted to a first face wherein a first liquid storage container is secured to the tank frame to provide shock absorption for the tank (Col. 2: Ln. 40-43) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Rimsa in view of Vistro teaches the skid for distributing liquids of claim 11.
Rimsa further discloses the skid comprising lifting channels (Fig. 10, 82 & Fig. 9, 82) extending through the platform configured for forklift engagement (Fig. 10, 82 & Fig. 9, 82 shows engagement with forks 32).
Rimsa in view a Vistro does not teach and a tank frame mounted to the first face securing the first liquid storage container.
However, Baran teaches a prior art comparable spray system (Fig. 1-3, 50) comprising a tank frame (Fig. 1, 28 & Fig. 3, 43) mounted to a first face (Fig. 1 & 3, Face of 24 contacting 28) securing a first liquid storage container (Fig. 1-3, 45; Col. 2: Ln. 25-46).
Therefore, the examiner finds it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a tank frame mounted to a first face securing a first liquid storage container to provide shock absorption for the tank (Col. 2: Ln. 40-43) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
688
1044
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
462
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
643
1086
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Alternative Rejection of Claim 1
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 10,175,011).
Regarding claim 1b, Walker discloses a portable skid for distributing fluids (Fig. 1-7, all structural features; The examiner will interpret portable as “capable of being carried or moved about” as defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary and the skid disclosed by Walker is portable by way of being able to be moved by a worker (Col. 3: Ln. 12-15) and is explicitly disclosed as “a portable cleaning system.” (Col. 3: Ln. 1-2)) comprising:
a platform (Fig. 1-5, 30) having a first face (Fig. 1, face of 30 facing 26);
a first liquid storage container (Fig. 1 & 6, 52) attached to the first face (Fig. 3);
a power source (Fig. 7, 70) attached to the first face (Fig. 3);
a sprayer (Fig. 2 & 6, 46 & 50) fluidly connected to the first liquid storage container (Fig. 6);
a pump (Fig. 3 & 6, 40) fluidly connected to the first liquid storage and the sprayer (Fig. 6), the pump electrically connected to the power source (Col. 4: ln. 7-10)
Walker does not disclose the pump attached to the first face.
However, relocating the pump to the first face is a mere rearrangement of parts, and the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0028-0029 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Walker discloses the skid for distributing liquids of claim 1b.
Walker further discloses the portable skid comprising vertical posts (Fig. 2, 28 & 46) extending from the first face, wherein the sprayer is mounted to the vertical posts (Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the drawing objections on pages 6-9 the examiner is withdrawing the objection regarding the following items.
First Face (Claim 1 & 8)
Fluid Inlet and Fluid Outlet of the at least one solenoid valve (Claim 2)
Drain (Claim 4 & 8)
Spray Head (Claim 6)
Length of the platform (Claim 7 & 8)
Receiving face (Claim 7 & 8)
Opposing face (Claim 7 & 8)
At least two orifices (Claim 7 & 8)
Power Source (Claim 8)
The Examiner is still objecting to the limitation “Solenoid Valve” in claim 2. The Examiner believes that the solenoid valve may be shown at the bottom of Fig. 3. The Examiner requests that a leader line and item number be inserted onto Fig. 3 showing the solenoid valve if the solenoid valve is shown and an amendment to relate the leader line and item number to the solenoid valve.
With regards to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on page 9 the applicant argues that “Rimsa system is permanently integrated into a large commercial truck chassis designed for municipal collection routes” the examiner respectfully disagrees because Rimsa explicitly discloses that “ In the examples shown, the systems preferably include a container having fork pockets for use in removably mounting the container to a set of forks on a front load refuse collection vehicle” (Para. 0010) and is thus not permanently integrated. Furthermore, in response to the arguments that “Applicant's invention is specifically designed as a portable skid for placement "in the bed of a pickup truck, flat bed truck, or similar location" (specification, paragraph [0009]). These represent fundamentally different approaches to solving different problems-one focused on municipal waste collection efficiency through dedicated commercial vehicles, the other on portable accessibility and reduced operational costs through equipment that can be deployed using ordinary pickup trucks” this argument does not argue any of the claimed language and 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).
With regards to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on pages 9-11 the applicant argues that the Examiners use of "rearrangement of parts" under MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C not properly account for the functional significance of the claimed structural arrangements in the context of Applicant's portable skid system, and further reliance on the rearrangement-of-parts rationale under MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) is misplaced, and further argues that “The Office Action's reliance on the rearrangement-of-parts rationale under MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) is misplaced for several reasons. First, MPEP § 2144(III) expressly provides that "if the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on the rationale used by the court to support an obviousness rejection." Applicant has demonstrated such criticality here, as discussed above.” The examiner respectfully disagrees because the applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the specific limitation because the applicant cited Para. 0029 of applicants specification which does not describe any criticality. The applicant further stated that, “this arrangement provides weight distribution and stability during transport, enables spatial organization of components in a compact skid design, and facilitates integration with the lifting channels described in paragraph [0028] for forklift operation. These are not arbitrary design choices but rather functional requirements for creating a portable, self-contained system that can be safely transported and operated using a forklift or pallet jack” which does not provide any objective evidence of criticality or unexpected results regarding the location of the first liquid storage container attached to the first face; and the power source attached to the first face. See MPEP § 716.01 and MPEP § 2145-I. Additionally, Rimsa explicitly discloses “the systems preferably include a container having fork pockets for use in removably mounting the container to a set of forks on a front load refuse collection vehicle” (Para. 0010) where the front load refuse collection vehicle has forks (Fig. 8, 32) and thus is a portable, self-contained system that can be safely transported and operated using a forklift or pallet jack. Furthermore, Rimsa explicitly discloses the motivation of arranging elements to advantageously redistribute weight in Para. 0016 which states “External tanks not adjacent the container assembly may advantageously redistribute some of the weight of the wash system, to avoid having all of the weight carried by the front loader forks of the lift arms, and may allow for one or more fluid tanks having a larger capacity than may otherwise fit beneath the bottom wall of the receptacle.”
The applicant further argues that “the specific attachment of components to the first face is not an arbitrary positioning that leaves operation unchanged, but rather a functional arrangement that enables the portable skid system to operate as an integrated, transportable unit,” and the Examiner respectfully disagrees because applicant has not provided any objective evidence of criticality or unexpected results and further the skid disclosed by Rimsa is portable/removable (Para. 0010). See MPEP § 716.01 and MPEP § 2145-I.
The applicant further argues that “The Office Action has not identified any motivation in Rimsa, Vistro, or any other cited reference that would suggest attaching the liquid storage container, power source, and pump to a specific face of a platform to create a portable skid system,” and the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the skid disclosed by Rimsa is portable/removable (Para. 0010) and further shifting the position of the liquid storage container would not have modified the operation of the device and would be an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) states “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).” (Underline for emphasis.).
With regards to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on pages 11-12 the applicant argues that “The Office Action's reliance on Rimsa paragraph [0046] is also misplaced. This paragraph describes an alternative plumbing configuration where a spray-connected tank "may be connected to a separate, second fluid tank that is not in fluid communication with the drain." However, this passage addresses fluid connectivity, not the structural mounting arrangement claimed in the present application. Rimsa's context is a truck-integrated system where components are distributed throughout a large vehicle chassis, not a portable skid where specific attachment points serve functional purposes related to transport and operation,” and the examiner respectfully disagrees the skid disclosed by Rimsa is portable/removable (Para. 0010).
With regards to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on page 12 that the combination of Rimsa and Vistro lacks adequate motivation. The examiner respectfully disagrees as two separate motivations are provided on page 5 of the Non-final Office Action mailed on 04/13/2026. Additionally, 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). Additionally with the argument that “The Office Action's suggestion that components would be attached to protect them "from the external environment" is conclusory and lacks support in the cited references. Neither Rimsa nor Vistro explicitly teaches mounting a liquid storage container and power source to a specific face of a platform for environmental protection, and the Office Action provides no evidence that such an arrangement would be obvious in the context of the claimed portable skid system.” The examiner finds that protecting elements, such as the power source and the liquid storage container to the first face and thus protecting it from the external environment in the same way as shown in Fig. 10 of Rimsa, namely the elements shown underneath 68 and contained by the skid, from an external environment would be knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regards to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on pages 12-13, the applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Mancuso because Mancuso presents fundamentally different technical challenges. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because 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).
The applicant further argues that the KSR articulation in conclusory, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the Examiner has resolved the Graham factual inquires, in MPEP § 2141-II, and further articulated the KSR rationale in MPEP § 2143-I-A, which further states “the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020).”
With regards to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on pages 14-15, the applicant argues that “The Office Action relies on an inherency argument to establish that Carter teaches "at least two orifices extending at least half the length of the first face." However, this finding is based on inference rather than explicit disclosure. The Office Action cites Carter's Column 3, Lines 50-56, which discusses vertical posts being "affixed across the fork pocket area," but this passage does not explicitly teach orifices extending a specific length across a platform face. Inherency requires that the claimed feature be necessarily present, not merely possibly present based on inference. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient."),” and the examiner respectfully disagrees because Carter states “The rear base frame (not visible in FIG. 1) has vertical posts affixed across the fork pocket area to prevent a fork lift operator from attempting to insert the forks of a fork lift into the rear frame. The tub has a pair of molded fork clearance channels extending rearwardly in alignment with the fork pockets in order to clear the forks,” in Col. 3: Ln. 58 which describes forks extending through the fork pockets extending through the entirety of the structure until the rear of the frame where a vertical post is affixed and thus inherently extends at least half of the length because it extends the entire length.
The applicant further argues that “the Office Action's analysis does not adequately account for the different structural contexts and functional requirements of these systems” and further that the combination of Carter with Rimsa and Vistro lacks adequate motivation. However, 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).
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 ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752
September 9, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights