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 .
Rejections Double Patenting
1. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. (12,089,798) to Pope, Jr. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims 10, 18 and 24 are encompassed by claims 1, 13 and 20 of the (‘798) to Pope, Jr.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18, 21-24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent (2,553,034) to Bridge.
Regarding independent claim 18, Bridge discloses a mobile frame (a); a motor (on pump (b)) mounted on the frame (a); a suction pump (b) mounted on the frame (a) and powered by the motor (on pump (b)); a slurry containment tank (c) mounted on the frame (a) receiving suction from the suction pump (b); and with the motor (on pump (b)) and the suction pump (b) are mounted on a stepped subframe (f) arranged on the mobile frame (a) (See Col. 1 lines 35-50 and FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 21, Bridge discloses a squeegee (See Col. 1 lines 15-25) in communication with the slurry containment tank (c), the squeegee (See Col. 1 lines 15-25) being adapted for floor contact to collect slurry for transfer to the slurry containment tank ©.
Regarding claim 22, Bridge discloses that the suction pump (b) is directly coupled to the motor (on pump (b)) without the use of belts, chains or pulleys.
Regarding claim 23, Bridge discloses that the suction pump (b) is directly coupled to the motor through a universal joint (i).
Regarding independent claim 24, Bridge discloses a mobile frame (a); a motor (on pump (b)) mounted on the frame (a); a suction pump (b) mounted on the frame (a) and powered by the motor (on pump (b)); a slurry containment tank (c) mounted on the frame (a) receiving suction from the suction pump (b); and wherein the suction pump (b) is directly coupled to the motor (See Col. 1 lines 35-50).
Regarding claim 27, Bridge discloses a squeegee (See Col. 1 lines 15-25) in communication with the slurry containment tank (c), the squeegee (See Col. 1 lines 15-25) being adapted for floor contact to collect slurry for transfer to the slurry containment tank (c).
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
3. 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.
Claims 10-17, 19, 20, 25, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent (2,553,034) to Bridge in view of U.S. Patent (6,023,813) to Thatcher et al.
Regarding independent claim 10, Bridge teaches a mobile frame (a); a propane engine (not shown) mounted on the frame (a) (See Col. 1 lines 35-45 of Bridge); a suction pump (b) mounted on the frame (a) and powered by the propane engine. Except, Bridge is silent regarding a propone engine; however, Thatcher et al. teaches a concrete floor surface machine that includes a propane tank (207) and propine engine (103) in order to power a suction blower (See Col. 5 lines 35-50 of Thatcher et al.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Bridge to include a propane engine in order to power the pump as a means of alternative suction power for the motor. Bridge as modified with Thatcher et al. teaches a slurry containment tank (c) (tank configured to contain slurry) mounted on the frame (a) receiving suction from the suction pump (b); and wherein the suction pump is directly coupled to the propane engine (103).
Regarding claim 11, Bridge as Thatcher et al. teaches a squeegee (See Col. 1 lines 15-25) in communication with the slurry containment tank (c), the squeegee (See Col. 1 lines 15-25) being adapted for floor contact to collect slurry for transfer to the slurry containment tank (See Col. 1 lines 15-25). As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Bridge to include a propane engine in order to power the pump as a means of alternative suction power for the motor.
Regarding claim 12, Bridge as modified with Thatcher et al. teaches a hose (See Col. 2 lines 1-10) connection connecting the slurry containment tank (c) to the squeegee (See Col. 1 lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 13, Bridge as modified with Thatcher et al. teaches a suction hose (See Col. 2 lines 1-10) connecting the suction pump (b) to the slurry containment tank (c.
Regarding claim 14, Bridge as modified with Thatcher et al. teaches that the suction pump (b) is directly coupled to the propane engine (103) without the use of belts, chains or pulleys. As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Bridge to include a propane engine in order to power the pump as a means of alternative suction power for the motor.
Regarding claim 15, Bridge as modified with Thatcher et al. teaches that the suction pump (b) is directly coupled to the propane engine (103) through a universal joint (i).
Regarding claim 16, Bridge as modified with Thatcher et al. teaches a propane tank (103) coupled to the propane engine (103) through a fuel line (See Col. 3 lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 17, Bridge as modified with Thatcher et al. teaches the propane engine (103) and the suction pump (b) are mounted on a stepped subframe (f) arranged on the mobile frame (a). As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Bridge to include a propane engine in order to power the pump as a means of alternative suction power for the motor.
Regarding claim 19, Bridge is silent regarding that the motor is a propane engine. Except, Bridge is silent regarding a propone engine; however, Thatcher et al. teaches a concrete floor surface machine that includes a propane tank (207) and propine engine (103) in order to power a suction blower (See Col. 5 lines 35-50 of Thatcher et al.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Bridge to include a propane engine in order to power the pump as a means of alternative suction power for the motor.
Regarding claim 20, Bridge as modified with Thatcher et al. teaches a propane tank (c) coupled to the propane engine. As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Bridge to include a propane engine in order to power the pump as a means of alternative suction power for the motor.
Regarding claim 25, Bridge as modified with Thatcher et al. teaches that the motor (on pump (b))) is a propane engine, and further including a propane tank mounted on the frame (a) and coupled to the propane engine (on pump (b)).
Regarding claim 28, Bridge as modified with Thatcher et al. teaches a hose (See Col. 2 lines 1-10) connecting the suction pump (b) to the slurry containment tank (c).
Regarding claim 29, Bridge as modified with Thatcher et al. teaches an output of the pump (c) can be used as a blower (capable of being used as a blower).
Conclusion
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. 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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MICHAEL DEANGILO. JENNINGS
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MICHAEL D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights