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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are original. Therefore, claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
First Face (Claim 1 & 8)
Solenoid Valve (Claim 2)
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)
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimsa (US 2025/0326576) in view of Vistro (US 2008/0089764).
Regarding claim 1, 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 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.).
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 1.
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).
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 1, 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 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 1. 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.
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
Conclusion
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
March 31, 2026
/ARTHUR O. HALL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights