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 .
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bottom of the connector" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be understood as "a bottom of the connector"
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the interior of the rotary valve" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be understood as "an interior of the rotary valve"
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bottom of the valve body" and “the bottom of the rotating valve core” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be understood as "a bottom of the valve body" and “a bottom of the rotating valve core”
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent upon a previously recited claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 & 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Admitted prior art (see Figs.5-6 of instant application) in view of Costantini (US5494227A), Lin (US20240033754A1), Sadwith (US3645791A), Otterson (US20050217708A1) and Hamm (EP1312419A1).
As to claim 1 admitted prior art (Figs.5-6) discloses a surface cleaner comprising a connector (ref 2), a rotary valve core (ref 10), a valve body (ref 17) connected to two ends of the rotary valve core, a water outlet pipe (ref 51) connected to a bottom of a fixed valve core (ref 27), and a nozzle (ref 52) connected to each of two sides of the water outlet pipe.
The admitted prior art of the embodiment does not disclose a rotary valve sleeve in which the valve is disposed; however, such a feature would be obvious in view of Constantini and Lin. Admitted prior art embodiment does not disclose a rotating valve core; however, a separate embodiment also admitted as prior art indicates that the use of such a rotating valve core is known (see Fig.3 ref 33 rotary sleeve reading on rotating valve core or Fig.1 ref 46). Further, it is also suggested that by utilizing a metal rotating valve core allows for increased service life when compared to plastic components [0008-0010]. Such a benefit would also be readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art without such admission. Further, the use of a rotating union for supplying liquid to a nozzle is known in the art, as seen by Sadwith and Hamm.
Constantini discloses an art related cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is known that a collar (ref 49) provides fluid tight connection between a pipe and a connector (Col.4 lines 15-32).
Lin discloses an art related surface cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is known that utilizing sleeving protects piping [0036].
Sadwith discloses an art related cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is shown that rotating spray arms (refs 31) are attached to a rotating junction box (ref 30) in order to allow spray arms to rotate.
Otterson discloses an art related surface cleaning apparatus (abstract), wherein it is both common and known in the art to utilize and rotating valve core (ref 50) to connect to rotating spray arms (refs 58/60) to allow for rotation of the arms [0019 & 0022].
Hamm discloses an art related surface cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is shown that a rotatable part (ref 31) is provided after coupling part (ref 29) to allow for the rotation of the spinning spray heads (refs 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify to provide a collar (i.e., sleeve) for connection between the connector and the rotary valve in order to secure the two elements in a fluid tight manner while protecting a portion of the piping (Lin [0036] & Constantini Col.4 lines 15-32). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to utilize a rotating valve core in place of a fixed valve core, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both are known in the art for allowing rotation of rotating spray arms (see Sadwith, Otterson, & Hamm). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known valve core in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success, especially when the two are understood alternatives in the field by a skilled artisan.
As to claim 2, Modified admitted prior art teaches the cleaner of claim 1, wherein a water inlet screen (admitted prior art Fig.5 ref 1) is provided at a water inlet of the connector.
As to claim 4, Modified admitted prior art teaches the cleaner of claim 1, wherein a sealing ring (i.e., O-ring see admitted prior art Fig.5 ref 4) is provided between the valve body and the rotary valve core.
As to claim 8, Modified admitted prior art teaches the cleaner of claim 1, the valve body has a first plug (admitted prior art ref 16), a second plug (e.g., any of admitted prior art O-rings located in the valve body act as a plug preventing leakage). Although the cited embodiment of the admitted prior art does not showcase the water outlet pipe having third plugs at both ends, such is a known alternative configuration for the spray arm (see admitted prior art Fig.1 ref 53). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to utilize one spray arm configuration in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known spray arm configuration in place of another with a reasonably expectation of success.
As to claim 9, Modified admitted prior art teaches the cleaner of claim 1, wherein a gasket (admitted prior art ref 28) is attached to the lower end of the valve body and reads on a pressure plate as it experiences/provides a pressure to the valve body.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Admitted prior art (see Figs.5-6 of instant application) in view of Costantini (US5494227A), Lin (US20240033754A1), Sadwith (US3645791A), Otterson (US20050217708A1) and Hamm (EP1312419A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei (US20240189841A1) and Dong (CN112122222A).
As to claim 5, Modified admitted prior art teaches the cleaner of claim 1, wherein an O-ring is provided between the water outlet pipe and the rotating valve core (see admitted prior art Fig.3 ref 32) and an opening seal ring (admitted prior art ref 30 or ref 22/42) is provided between the valve body and the rotating valve core. The modified admitted prior art does not specifically disclose the presence of an O-ring between the rotary valve sleeve and the rotary valve core, further, assuming arguendo that the embodiment of Fig.3 and its O-ring is not to be utilized with the embodiment of Fig.5; such features feature would be obvious in view of Wei and Dong.
Wei discloses an art related cleaning apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize seal rings (e.g., O-rings) at ends of a rotary valve to prevent leakage [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the admitted prior art to include an O-ring between the rotary valve inlet end and the inlet pipe to prevent leakage (Wei [0039]).
Dong discloses an art related rotating cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is shown an O-ring is provided between a rotating valve core and a water outlet pipe (see ref 18) to prevent leakage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the admitted prior art to include an O-ring between connecting portions between the valve elements, including the rotary valve inlet end and the inlet pipe to prevent leakage as well as the rotating valve outlet end and the connection to the water pipe (Wei [0039] & Dong).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Admitted prior art (see Figs.5-6 of instant application) in view of Costantini (US5494227A), Lin (US20240033754A1), Sadwith (US3645791A), Otterson (US20050217708A1) and Hamm (EP1312419A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (EP3381565B1) and Alexander (US20070113368A1).
As to claim 6, Modified admitted prior art teaches the cleaner of claim 1, but does not disclose the use of a U-pin. However, such a feature would have been obvious in view of Lin and Alexander.
Lin discloses an art related cleaning apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize a U-shaped pin in higher pressure cleaning devices to secure and retain elements [0033, 0035, 0038]. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would glean from the reference that U-shaped pins can be utilized to ensure retaining of elements within a high pressure system.
Alexander discloses an art related surface cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize a u-clamp ref (31/36, e.g., a U-pin) for retaining two elements together [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the admitted prior art to utilize U-shaped pins to further ensure securing of elements together in a high pressure system (Lin [0033, 0035, & 0038] & Alexander [0029]). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to utilize such U-pins for connection of any and all elements pertaining to a high pressure liquid system, including within the valve body to secure the valve core.
Claim(s) 7 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Admitted prior art (see Figs.5-6 of instant application) in view of Costantini (US5494227A), Lin (US20240033754A1), Sadwith (US3645791A), Otterson (US20050217708A1) and Hamm (EP1312419A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dong (CN112122222A), Schilpp (EP2747891B1) and Young (US5135015A).
As to claims 7 & 10, Modified admitted prior art teaches the device of claim 1, but does not explicitly showcase the presence of a sheath or a fixed sleeve. However, such features are known in the art for the connection and rotating of spray arms, as seen by Dong, Schilpp, and Young.
Dong discloses an art related rotating cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is shown that a rotating valve core (ref 15) which allows for rotation of spray arms and an outlet pipe (refs 17/19) can utilize fixed sleeves (refs 12/16/20) located around the rotating valve core and between the rotating valve core and a valve body. It is also seen that an O-ring (refs 14 & 18) are provided on a bottom portion of the rotating valve core and can read on sheath as they at least partially sheath the rotating valve core. The configuration of Dong allows for protection of the device and preventing leaking of fluid [0054 & 0056].
Schilpp discloses an art related cleaning device (see title) wherein it is shown that a rotating valve core (ref 38) is attached to spray arms (refs 48/50) and utilized to rotate the spray arms [0029-0031]. It is further disclosed that a sheath element is provided at a bottom portion of the rotating valve core (refs 36/46) for distributing and supporting the spray arms [0029-0030], as well as a ball bearing (ref 40/42) provided within the valve body assembly. A skilled artisan understands that a ball bearing has an outer surface which acts as a fixed sleeve. The rotating valve core configuration of Schillp allows a self-lubricating assembly with low friction [0038].
Young discloses an are related cleaning device (abstract), wherein a rotating valve core (ref 20) is provided to connect and rotate spray arms (refs 35-37 & 39). The rotating valve core is provided with a sheath (ref 38) at a bottom portion of the rotating valve core and a thrust bearing (refs 53/54) between the rotating valve core and the fixed valve body (ref 40). A skilled artisan understands that a thrust bearing has an outer race which acts as a fixed sleeve. The configuration of Young allows for assisted maneuverability of the device (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify admitted prior art to include a fixed sleeve between the valve body and the rotating valve core, as well as implement a sheath at a bottom portion of the rotating valve core in order to protect the spraying device while preventing fluid leaks (Dong [0054 & 0056]), provide a low friction assembly that can support the rotating nozzles (Schilpp [0029-0031 & 0038]), or improve maneuverability of the cleaning device (Young abstract). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known spray arm rotating configuration in a cleaning device in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. Especially when other configurations are known to have potentially desirable benefits.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, & 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Admitted prior art (see Figs.1-2 of instant application) in view of Costantini (US5494227A), Lin (US20240033754A1), Sadwith (US3645791A), Otterson (US20050217708A1) and Hamm (EP1312419A1).
As to claim 1, Admitted prior art (Figs.1-2) discloses a surface cleaner comprising a connector (ref 2), a rotary valve core (ref 10), a valve body (ref 17) connected to two ends of the rotary valve core, a rotating valve core (ref 46) connected to the bottom of the valve body, a water outlet pipe (ref 51) connected to a bottom of a rotating valve core (ref 27), and a nozzle (ref 52) connected to each of two sides of the water outlet pipe.
The admitted prior art of the embodiment does not disclose a rotary valve sleeve in which the valve is disposed; however, such a feature would be obvious in view of Constantini and Lin.
Constantini discloses an art related cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is known that a collar (ref 49) provides fluid tight connection between a pipe and a connector (Col.4 lines 15-32).
Lin discloses an art related surface cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is known that utilizing sleeving protects piping [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify to provide a collar (i.e., sleeve) for connection between the connector and the rotary valve in order to secure the two elements in a fluid tight manner while protecting a portion of the piping (Lin [0036] & Constantini Col.4 lines 15-32). Such a modification would merely provide the collared portion as a separate piece thereby allowing for removal, repair, or servicing (see MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 2, Modified admitted prior art teaches the cleaner of claim 1, wherein a water inlet screen (admitted prior art Fig.1 ref 1) is provided at a water inlet of the connector.
As to claim 4, Modified admitted prior art teaches the cleaner of claim 1, wherein a sealing ring (i.e., O-ring see admitted prior art Fig.1 ref 42, elastic ring reading on an O-ring) is provided between the valve body and the rotary valve core.
As to claim 8, Modified admitted prior art teaches the cleaner of claim 1, the valve body has a first plug (admitted prior art ref 16), a second plug (e.g., any of admitted prior art O-rings located in between the valve body and the rotary core act as a plug preventing leakage), and third plugs (admitted prior art ref 53) provided at both ends of the water outlet pipe.
As to claim 9, Modified admitted prior art teaches the cleaner of claim 1, wherein a gasket (admitted prior art refs 40/41) is attached to the lower end of the valve body and reads on a pressure plate as it experiences/provides a pressure to the valve body.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Admitted prior art (see Figs.1-2 of instant application) in view of Costantini (US5494227A), Lin (US20240033754A1), Sadwith (US3645791A), Otterson (US20050217708A1) and Hamm (EP1312419A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei (US20240189841A1) and Dong (CN112122222A).
As to claim 5, Modified admitted prior art teaches the cleaner of claim 1, wherein an opening seal ring (admitted prior art ref 22 or 42) is provided between the valve body and the rotating valve core. The modified admitted prior art does not specifically disclose the presence of an O-ring between the rotary valve sleeve and the rotary valve core or between the water outlet pipe and the rotating valve core, however such a feature would be obvious in view of Wei and Dong.
Wei discloses an art related cleaning apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize seal rings (e.g., O-rings) at ends of a rotary valve to prevent leakage [0039]. Thus, Wei suggests, to one of ordinary skill in the art, utilizing O-rings for preventing leakage at ends where valve elements connect to another element.
Dong discloses an art related rotating cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is shown an O-ring is provided between a rotating valve core and a water outlet pipe (see ref 18) to prevent leakage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the admitted prior art to include an O-ring between connecting portions between the valve elements, including the rotary valve inlet end and the inlet pipe to prevent leakage as well as the rotating valve outlet end and the connection to the water pipe (Wei [0039] & Dong).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Admitted prior art (see Figs.1-2 of instant application) in view of Costantini (US5494227A), Lin (US20240033754A1), Sadwith (US3645791A), Otterson (US20050217708A1) and Hamm (EP1312419A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (EP3381565B1) and Alexander (US20070113368A1).
As to claim 6, Modified admitted prior art teaches the cleaner of claim 1, but does not disclose the use of a U-pin. However, such a feature would have been obvious in view of Lin and Alexander.
Lin discloses an art related cleaning apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize a U-shaped pin in higher pressure cleaning devices to secure and retain elements [0033, 0035, 0038]. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would glean from the reference that U-shaped pins can be utilized to ensure retaining of elements within a high pressure system.
Alexander discloses an art related surface cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize a u-clamp ref (31/36, e.g., a U-pin) for retaining two elements together [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the admitted prior art to utilize U-shaped pins to further ensure securing of elements together in a high pressure system (Lin [0033, 0035, & 0038] & Alexander [0029]). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to utilize such U-pins for connection of any and all elements pertaining to a high pressure liquid system, including within the valve body to secure the valve core.
Claim(s) 7 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Admitted prior art (see Figs.1-2 of instant application) in view of Costantini (US5494227A), Lin (US20240033754A1), Sadwith (US3645791A), Otterson (US20050217708A1) and Hamm (EP1312419A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dong (CN112122222A), Schilpp (EP2747891B1) and Young (US5135015A).
As to claims 7 & 10, Modified admitted prior art teaches the device of claim 1, but does not explicitly showcase the presence of a sheath or a fixed sleeve. However, such features are known in the art for the connection and rotating of spray arms, as seen by Dong, Schilpp, and Young.
Dong discloses an art related rotating cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is shown that a rotating valve core (ref 15) which allows for rotation of spray arms and an outlet pipe (refs 17/19) can utilize fixed sleeves (refs 12/16/20) located around the rotating valve core and between the rotating valve core and a valve body. It is also seen that an O-ring (refs 14 & 18) are provided on a bottom portion of the rotating valve core and can read on sheath as they at least partially sheath the rotating valve core. The configuration of Dong allows for protection of the device and preventing leaking of fluid [0054 & 0056].
Schilpp discloses an art related cleaning device (see title) wherein it is shown that a rotating valve core (ref 38) is attached to spray arms (refs 48/50) and utilized to rotate the spray arms [0029-0031]. It is further disclosed that a sheath element is provided at a bottom portion of the rotating valve core (refs 36/46) for distributing and supporting the spray arms [0029-0030], as well as a ball bearing (ref 40/42) provided within the valve body assembly. A skilled artisan understands that a ball bearing has an outer surface which acts as a fixed sleeve. The rotating valve core configuration of Schillp allows a self-lubricating assembly with low friction [0038].
Young discloses an are related cleaning device (abstract), wherein a rotating valve core (ref 20) is provided to connect and rotate spray arms (refs 35-37 & 39). The rotating valve core is provided with a sheath (ref 38) at a bottom portion of the rotating valve core and a thrust bearing (refs 53/54) between the rotating valve core and the fixed valve body (ref 40). A skilled artisan understands that a thrust bearing has an outer race which acts as a fixed sleeve. The configuration of Young allows for assisted maneuverability of the device (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify admitted prior art to include a fixed sleeve between the valve body and the rotating valve core, as well as implement a sheath at a bottom portion of the rotating valve core in order to protect the spraying device while preventing fluid leaks (Dong [0054 & 0056]), provide a low friction assembly that can support the rotating nozzles (Schilpp [0029-0031 & 0038]), or improve maneuverability of the cleaning device (Young abstract). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known spray arm rotating configuration in a cleaning device in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. Especially when other configurations are known to have potentially desirable benefits.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is that recited in this action. However, none of the prior art of record fairly teaches of suggests the invention of claim 3, thus claim 3 is considered to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm 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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights