DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/26 have been fully considered but they are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection made in view of amendments to the claims. Epperson is not present cited for teaching the claimed second cleaning module.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claim 14 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 1-14 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
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 1-3 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6044852 granted to Epperson et al. in view of KR0176673B1 by Jo.
As to claim 1, Epperson teaches a high-pressure cleaning device comprising a main body 20 (fig. 1); a cover 22 to cover an upper portion of the main body; a cleaning tank 32 between the main body and cover (fig. 2); and a cleaning assembly in the tank, the cleaning assembly comprising a base 46 in which an object to be cleaned is disposed (fig. 1) and a cleaning module to clean the object, the cleaning module comprising a cleaning liquid supply pipe (conduits from outlet 76 of pump, fig. 3).
Epperson teaches a spray tube 56 (fig. 1), but does not teach the first and second cleaning modules as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the device taught by Epperson to have the claimed cleaning modules.
Jo teaches a cleaning device having a first cleaning module comprising a rotating disk 31 (fig. 2) having a first surface (upper or lower surface as shown in fig. 3) perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of a cleaning liquid supply pipe, a second surface (other of the upper or lower surface as shown in fig. 3) on a side opposite to the first surface, and a side surface between the first and second surfaces, a plurality of cleaning nozzles 37 in parallel to a rotation shaft of the disk (figs. 3 and 4), and a plurality of propulsion nozzles 35 inclined with respect to the rotation shaft (fig. 4, para. 30), the disk being rotated due to spraying from the propulsion nozzles (para. 30). Jo teaches that its rotating disk can be easily assembled and improves washing performance by evenly spraying washing water throughout a washing tank, including corner areas (paras. 32-33). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the device taught by Epperson to include a first cleaning module, such as the rotating disk taught by Jo, to provide enhanced spray coverage using a simple and easily assembled structure.
Jo also teaches a second cleaning module (11 or 21, fig. 2) comprising a spray stem extending upward in the tank through which a cleaning liquid moves, a spray branch extending outward from the spray stem, and a spray nozzle disposed at an end of the spray branch. Jo teaches that its second cleaning modules, when used along with its first cleaning module, provides for even spraying within a wash chamber (para. 31). Jo further teaches that its second module is between the fist cleaning module and its base, the second cleaning module being closer to the base than the first cleaning module (fig. 2).
Based on the teachings of Jo, both of the claimed cleaning modules would have been recognized as obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art, in particular to provide thorough and even spraying of cleaning fluid within a cleaning chamber. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Jo teaches that the plurality of nozzles extends in a direction perpendicular to the second surface of the disk (fig. 3).
As to claim 3, Jo teaches that the propulsion nozzles are on the side surface of the disk and are inclined with respect to the rotation shaft of the disk (fig. 4).
As to claim 6, Jo teaches that the spray branch extends in a direction traversing a longitudinal direction of the spray stem and the spray nozzle faces the object to be cleaned (see fig. 2).
As to claim 7, Jo teaches that its cleaning module comprises a cleaning liquid receiving chamber formed in the disk and the plurality of cleaning nozzles and propulsion nozzles communicate with the chamber (fig. 3).
As to claim 8, Epperson teaches a water reservoir 40 (fig. 2) on a bottom of the tank, wherein a cleaning liquid is returned to the water reservoir, is filtered, and reused (col. 7, ll. 12-31).
As to claim 9, Epperson teaches a water cleaning module 308 in the water reservoir, the module comprising an inlet port at a height corresponding to a water surface level and a discharge port to discharge floating matter introduced into the inlet port to the outside (fig. 16; col. 13, ll. 40-63).
As to claim 10, Epperson teaches a circulation port in fluid communication with the water reservoir, the circulation port to transport returned cleaning liquid to a filter device 78 (fig. 5; also note filter device 129 to which returned cleaning liquid from a circulation port is directed, fig. 10).
As to claim 11, Epperson teaches a heater 80 in the water reservoir to heat the cleaning liquid (fig. 2).
As to claim 12, in the device taught by Epperson, as modified to have the cleaning module taught by Jo, at least a portion of a cleaning liquid sprayed from the cleaning nozzles and propulsion nozzles may be sprayed toward a recess of an object to the cleaned (an object may be placed in the device such that the nozzles are oriented towards a recess).
As to claim 13, Epperson teaches a jig to fix the object to be cleaned to the base, the jig may be in contact with an inner wall of a recess of an object to be cleaned (col. 5, ll. 50-54).
As to claim 14, Epperson teaches a high-pressure cleaning device comprising a main body 20 (fig. 1); a cover 22 to cover the main body; a cleaning tank 32 between the main body and cover (fig. 2); and a cleaning assembly in the tank, the cleaning assembly comprising a base 46 in which an object to be cleaned is disposed (fig. 1) and a cleaning module to clean the object, the cleaning module comprising a cleaning liquid supply pipe (conduits from outlet 76 of pump, fig. 3).
Epperson teaches a spray tube 56 (fig. 1), but does not teach first and second cleaning modules as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the device taught by Epperson to have the claimed cleaning modules.
Jo teaches a cleaning device having a first cleaning module comprising a rotating disk 31 (fig. 2) having a first surface (upper or lower surface as shown in fig. 3) perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of a cleaning liquid supply pipe, a second surface (other of the upper or lower surface as shown in fig. 3) on a side opposite to the first surface, and a side surface between the first and second surfaces, and a plurality of spray nozzles 37 to spray liquid toward the object to be cleaned in a direction perpendicular to the second surface (figs. 3 and 4). Jo teaches that its rotating disk can be easily assembled and improves washing performance by evenly spraying washing water throughout a washing tank, including corner areas (paras. 32-33). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the device taught by Epperson to include a first cleaning module, such as the rotating disk taught by Jo, to provide enhanced spray coverage using a simple and easily assembled structure.
Jo also teaches a second cleaning module (11 or 21, fig. 2) comprising a spray stem extending upward in the tank through which a cleaning liquid moves, a spray branch extending outward from the spray stem, and a spray nozzle disposed at an end of the spray branch. Jo teaches that its second cleaning modules, when used along with its first cleaning module, provides for even spraying within a wash chamber (para. 31). Jo further teaches that its second module is between the fist cleaning module and its base, the second cleaning module being closer to the base than the first cleaning module (fig. 2).
Based on the teachings of Jo, both of the claimed cleaning modules would have been recognized as obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art, in particular to provide thorough and even spraying of cleaning fluid within a cleaning chamber. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 15, Jo teaches first cleaning nozzles on a second surface of the rotating disk and second cleaning nozzles on the side of the rotating disk (fig. 3).
As to claim 16, Jo teaches first cleaning nozzles arranged in a pattern on a second surface of the rotating disk (fig. 4), but does not explicitly teach that the nozzles are in a pinwheel pattern. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have nozzles in a pinwheel pattern. It was well-established in the art that the arrangement of nozzles is a design consideration to achieve a desired cleaning fluid spray coverage dependent on the target object and the cleaning space. Nozzles in a pinwheel pattern would have had expected results commensurate with the known properties of nozzles.
As to claim 17, Epperson teaches that the cleaning tank is between the main body and the cover in an upward direction (fig. 1). Upon the obvious modification to have a rotating disk in view of Jo, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to orient the rotating disk to direct cleaning fluid in a desired direction for a particular target object or arrangement of the cleaning space. Having the first surface and the shaft perpendicular to the upward direction (i.e. oriented horizontally) would have been an obvious design choice in order to direct cleaning fluid in a desired direction.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6044852 granted to Epperson et al. in view of KR0176673B1 by Jo as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210177235 by Haegermarck et al.
As to claim 4, Jo does not teach that the angles formed between the propulsion nozzles and the first surface are adjustable. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to make the angles adjustable. Haegermarck teaches that the angle of a propulsion nozzle on the side of a rotating cleaning body may be adjustable in order to achieve an ideal rotational speed in different settings or scenarios such as a lower flow pump (para. 30). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the fixed propulsion nozzles taught by Jo to be adjustable so that an ideal rotational speed may be achieved, as taught by Haegermarck. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
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 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
Prosecution Insights