DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 3/4/22. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 202220473642.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “provides” should be “providing” (line 8). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a second end of the pressure relieve valve (171)” should be “a second end of the pressure relief pipeline (17)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160157693 by Hess et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20030041407 by Savage, CN208905534U by Gu, and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180038585 by Zhang et al.
As to claim 1, Hess teaches a steam generation system comprising a water inlet pipe (from tank 32, fig. 2), a water pump 86, and a steam generator 38; wherein water flows through the pump and then to the steam generator; the steam generator comprises a heating device (inherent to a steam generator).
Hess does not teach an electromagnetic valve upstream of the water pump, the valve capable of a creating a pulsed water flow. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the system taught by Hess to have an electromagnetic valve, in particular to control fluid flow from a tank to a pump. Savage teaches a system having an electromagnetic solenoid valve 100 between a tank and a pump for the purpose of permitting pumping of fluid from the tank as desired (para. 70). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have an electromagnetic valve in the system of Hess for the reasons taught by Hess.
Hess does not teach particular of its steam generator, and thus does not teach the generator and heating device as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the claimed generator to have been obvious. Gu teaches a steam generator that comprises a heating device with a heating tube 7, steam pipe 2, heater base 3 made of a thermally conductive material (fig. 3, para. 22). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use the steam generator taught by Gu for its intended purpose with expected results as evidenced by the teachings of Gu.
Gu is silent as to a temperature sensing means, and thus does not teach a temperature sensor arranged on the heater base. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to arrange a temperature sensor on the base for the purpose of controlling the heating device to a desired temperature (see Zhang, fig. 1, para. 148, teaching the use of a temperature sensor on a steam generator heating device base to control temperature of the device).
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Zhang teaches that its first temperature sensor is arranged on a base along with a second temperature sensor, the first sensor to detect a normal operating temperature, the second sensor to detect a shutdown protection temperature (paras. 148, 151).
As to claim 6, Hess teaches a steam apparatus (fig. 1) that would comprise the steam generation system of claim 1 upon the obvious modification discussed above.
As to claim 9, Hess teaches that its steam apparatus is a steam cleaner that comprises a main body, cleaning gun, and connecting pipe; the steam generation system housed within the main body and the cleaning gun is in communication with the generation system through the connecting pipe (fig. 1).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160157693 by Hess et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20030041407 by Savage, CN208905534U by Gu, and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180038585 by Zhang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140048140 by Rohner et al.
As to claim 3, Hess does not teach a check valve between the pump and steam generator. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify its system to have a check valve. Check valves were well-known and common in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use one for its established purpose of preventing backflow. For example, Rohner teaches a system having a check valve to prevent backflow and control cold water flow to a heating coil (para. 28). Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 5, Hess teaches a steam discharge pipeline 68 (fig. 2). Hess does not teach a pressure relief pipeline and relieve valve connected to the steam discharge pipeline. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a pressure relief valve and an associated pipeline. It was well-known and common in the art to employ a pressure relief valve as a safety mechanism to prevent over-pressurization of steam (see Rohner, para. 24). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus been motivated to have a pressure relief valve and pipeline connected to the steam discharge pipeline as a well-known safety measure.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160157693 by Hess et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20030041407 by Savage, CN208905534U by Gu, U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180038585 by Zhang et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140048140 by Rohner et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180369841 by Fairchild.
As to claim 4, Hess does not teach an exhaust pipe in communication with the pump and a valve arranged on the pipe, the pipe between the pump and the check valve. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the system taught by Hess to have an exhaust pipe and valve. Fairchild teaches providing a valve at a pump outlet in order to expect air from the pump during a priming stage (para. 9). Based on Fairchild’s teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the system taught by Hess to have an exhaust line and valve in order to bleed air from the pump when priming the pump. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160157693 by Hess et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20030041407 by Savage, CN208905534U by Gu, and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180038585 by Zhang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210170453 by Kohler Fernandez et al.
As to claim 7, Hess teaches a housing, the steam generator and pump necessarily spaced apart. Hess does not explicitly teach ventilation holes with an air inlet and outlet, a fan, and cooling holes. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the claimed ventilation and cooling structures. Kohler Fernandez teaches that an enclosure may including a variety of cooling elements, such as slots, openings, and fans, to help maintain a motor and/or pump and associated electrical and/or mechanical components at an acceptable operating temperature (para. 56). Based on this teaching of Kohler Fernandez, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the claimed elements in order to provide cooling to the pump and steam generator. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160157693 by Hess et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20030041407 by Savage, CN208905534U by Gu, U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180038585 by Zhang et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210170453 by Kohler Fernandez et al.as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200023411 by Krajewski et al.
As to claim 8, Hess does not teach a partition separating the steam generator and the water pump, the partition dividing the spaces into respective cooling areas. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a partition that divides the spaces. Krajewski teaches that it is desirable to distance a pump from a heat source in order to increase the lifetime of the pump by eliminating exposure of it to high temperatures (para. 24). Based on this teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the apparatus of Hess to have a partition that divides the areas so that the fan may provide cooling to the pump to increase its lifespan. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160157693 by Hess et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20030041407 by Savage, CN208905534U by Gu, and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180038585 by Zhang et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170197000 by Buzzi and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200179882 by Kato.
As to claim 10, Hess teaches that the main body comprises a liquid delivery device comprising a delivery pump 80 (fig. 2). Hess does not teach independent and adjacent steam and cleaning liquid nozzles within its cleaning gun. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have separate steam and liquid nozzles. Buzzi teaches separate nozzles for steam and liquid in a cleaning gun which allow for independent control of steam and liquid flows and pressures (para. 35). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the apparatus taught by Hess to have separate nozzles, and associated connecting pipes, so that the steam and liquid outputs can advantageously be independently controlled, based on the teachings of Buzzi.
Hess also does not teach an air pump and an air connecting pipe that would connect the air pump to the cleaning liquid nozzle. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have an air pump. Kato suggests that a gas-liquid mixture enhances cleaning and scrubbing off dirt from an object (para. 6) and further teaches an air pump (compressor 5) connected to a cleaning liquid nozzle to deliver air to mix with the liquid (fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the apparatus taught by Hess to have an air pump that delivers air to a liquid nozzle in order to provide a two-fluid mixture to enhance cleaning, as suggested by Kato.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 11, Kato teach a dual-fluid nozzle 3 with respective liquid and gas connection pipes and inlets (fig. 3) to create an atomized spray to a cleaning nozzle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 are 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 prior art of record does not teach or suggest the totality of the limitations of claim 12 and the claims from which it depends. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach a high-pressure water device embodied as a water pump and a high-pressure water gun housed within the main body of a steam cleaner apparatus as set forth in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711