DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 4/15/2026
Claims 13-15 are new. Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined.
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 § 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epperson et al. (US 6,044,852 A) in view of KR 20100028282 A (machine translation attached) (“KR’282”).
Re claim 1, Epperson discloses a high-pressure washer (abstract) comprising:
a main body (figs. 1-7 ref. 26; figs. 8-11 ref. 120; figs. 12-18 ref. 214);
a cover (ref. 22, 122, 128) configured to cover an upper portion of the main body;
a washing tank (ref. 32, 132, 234) formed between the main body and the cover;
a washing assembly (ref. 46, 146, 240) disposed in the washing tank and comprising a base (see figs. 1-18, base of support structures) in which an object to be washed is disposed and a first washing module (ref. 56, 156, 238, 268) configured to clean the object to be washed;
a water storage tank (ref. 40, 140, 282 sump) formed on a lower portion of the washing tank; and
a water cleaning module (ref. 78 filter, 178, 286; see also ref. 29 strainer; see laso ref. 308 oil skimmer) disposed in the water storage tank, wherein a washing liquid that washes the object to be washed is returned to the water storage tank, filtered, and reused (see figs. 1-18), and the water cleaning module comprises a suction port (see figs. 12-18 oil skimmer 308) formed at a height corresponding to a water surface level of the washing liquid stored in the water storage tank and a discharge port configured to discharge floating matter introduced into the suction port to outside (chute 320).
Epperson does not disclose wherein the suction portion is configured such that, as the washing liquid used for washing the object to be washed falls from the washing tank to the water storage tank due to gravity, waves are formed on a surface of the washing liquid stored in the water storage tank and, due to the waves of the washing liquid, floating matter overflows into the suction port of the water cleaning module. However, KR’282 discloses it is well-known in the washer art (abstract) to provide a suction portion (ref. 12 via refs. 10a and 70) configured such that, as the washing liquid used for washing the object to be washed falls due to gravity (via ref. 33), waves are formed on a surface of the washing liquid stored in the water storage tank (RE “waves”, this is an intended use and falling water from a spray would be expected to create waves of some degree due to water movement) and, due to the waves of the washing liquid, floating matter overflows into the suction port of the water cleaning module (“The foreign substances generated when washing the object to be cleaned are suspended and discharged through the overflow hole 12”).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the suction portion of Epperson to further include simply an overflow-style discharge, in order to remove suspended foreign substances.
Re claim 2, a circulation port (see e.g. fig. 5 at ref. 78 to ref. 72) that is in fluid communication with the water storage tank, wherein the circulation port is configured to transport, to a filter device (ref. 70, 78), the washing liquid returned to the water storage tank.
Re claim 4, a heater (ref. 80) disposed in the water storage tank and configured to heat the washing liquid.
Re claims 10-11, further comprising a second washing module (see figs. 14-15 ref. 238), wherein the second washing module comprises: a spray stem (see figs. 14-15 side arms are extending upward) extending upward in the washing tank and through which a washing liquid moves; a spray branch (cross bar at top of ref. 238 or auxiliary spray tube 268) extending outward from the spray stem; and a spray nozzle (refs. 266, 270) disposed at an end of the spray branch. wherein the spray branch extends in a direction traversing a longitudinal direction of the spray stem (see fig. 14 top branch of ref. 238 or ref. 268 horizontal to the vertical spray stem), and the spray nozzle faces the object to be washed.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epperson et al. (US 6,044,852 A) in view of KR 20100028282 A (machine translation attached) (“KR’282”), as applied above, and further in view of Sheldon (US 5,398,708 A).
Re claim 3, Epperson/KR’282 discloses as shown above including a control module (ref. 18) and a water cleaning module, but does not disclose wherein the control module is configured to operate the water cleaning module when a predetermined time or a predetermined number of cleaning cycles is reached. However, Sheldon discloses it is very old and well-known in the parts cleaning machine art (title) to provide a timer to allow the filter (ref. 150, see fig. 1) and skimmer (ref. 200, see fig. 3) to operate for a prolonged time period so that fluid can be cleaned (col. 4 lines 1-5, col. 10 lines 3-8).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control module of Epperson/KR’282 to further operate the water cleaning module when a predetermined time is reached, as suggested by Sheldon, in order to remove contaminants from the cleaning fluid.
Re claim 12, Sheldon further discloses a jig (ref. 64) configured to fix the object to be washed to the base.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epperson et al. (US 6,044,852 A) in view of KR 20100028282 A (machine translation attached) (“KR’282”), as applied above, and further in view of TWI700132B (machine translation attached) (“TWI’132”).
Re claims 5-9, Epperson/KR’282 discloses as shown above including wherein the first washing module comprises: a washing liquid supply pipe (ref. 56, 156, 238, 268) and rotating nozzles (see fig. 14), but does not teach a rotating disk comprising a first surface perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the washing liquid supply pipe, a second surface formed on a side opposite to the first surface, and a side surface formed between the first surface and the second surface; a plurality of cleaning nozzles formed parallel to a rotation shaft of the rotating disk; and a plurality of propulsion nozzles formed to be inclined to the rotation shaft of the rotating disk, and the rotating disk rotates around the washing liquid supply pipe due to spraying from the plurality of propulsion nozzles. However, TWI’132 teaches it is well-known in the cleaning equipment nozzle art (abstract) to provide a first washing module comprising a washing liquid supply pipe (see figs. 1-6, ref. 112), a rotating disk (upper disk ref. 13 and ref. 20) comprising a first surface (top) perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the washing liquid supply pipe, a second surface (bottom) formed on a side opposite to the first surface, and a side surface formed between the first surface and the second surface; a plurality of cleaning nozzles (ref. 40, regarding “plurality” the mere duplication of parallel nozzles is prima facie obvious, moreso in view of Epperson having multiple parallel nozzles in the vertical direction, see Epperson fig. 14. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts) formed parallel to a rotation shaft of the rotating disk; and a plurality of propulsion nozzles (ref. 33) formed to be inclined to the rotation shaft of the rotating disk, and the rotating disk rotates around the washing liquid supply pipe due to spraying from the plurality of propulsion nozzle (see fig. 4).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first washing module of Epperson/KR’282 to further include a rotary cleaning nozzle, as suggested by TWI’132, in order to clean all gaps with no deadzones.
Re claims 5-9, wherein the washing liquid supply pipe is formed perpendicular to the base (see fig 1 and 4); wherein the plurality of cleaning nozzles extends in a vertical direction from the second surface of the rotating disk (see figs. 2 and 4); wherein the plurality of propulsion nozzles is disposed on the side surface of the rotating disk and formed to be inclined to the rotation shaft of the rotating disk (see figs. 1-2 and 4); Regarding “wherein angles formed between the plurality of propulsion nozzles and the rotation shaft are adjustable”, making components adjustable or separable is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable optimization or modification depending on the object being cleaned. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) Making Separable. Here, fig. 5 shows joints 23 for spray group 30 that could be rotatable to enable adjustment of the angle for speed or coverage.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epperson et al. (US 6,044,852 A) in view of KR 20100028282 A (machine translation attached) (“KR’282”) and TWI700132B (machine translation attached) (“TWI’132”), as applied above, and further in view of Medeiros (US 2020/0246811 A1).
Re claim 13, Epperson/KR’282/TWI’132 discloses as shown above but does not disclose wherein at least some of the plurality of cleaning nozzles are arranged in a pinwheel pattern on the second surface of the rotating disk. However, Medeiros discloses it is very old and well-known to provide a rotary cleaning nozzle (abstract) to further include a plurality of cleaning nozzles (ref. 307, see figs. 1, 34) arranged in a pinwheel pattern (see figs. 1 and 3) on the second surface of the rotating disk (ref. 102).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify cleaning nozzle(s) on the second surface of Epperson/KR’282/TWI’132 to further include a plurality of cleaning nozzles arranged in a pinwheel pattern, as suggested by Medeiros, in order to discharge water in a spinning pattern for increased coverage.
Re claims 14-15, TWI’132 and/or Medeiros further discloses wherein the plurality of cleaning nozzles comprises: first cleaning nozzles on the second surface of the rotating disk (TWI’132 ref. 40; Medeiros ref. 307); and second cleaning nozzles on the side surface of the rotating disk (TWI’132 ref. 33; Medeiros ref. 305); wherein the first cleaning nozzles are arranged in a pinwheel pattern on the second surface of the rotating disk (Medeiros see figs. 1 and 3 forming a pinwheel pattern on disk 102).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as shown in the rejection above.
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 KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 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 on 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights