DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 8/1/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komine et al. JP 2013107037 A (henceforth referred to as Komine).
As for claim 1, Komine teaches a high-pressure washer (entire apparatus) comprising: a main body (3); a cover (4) configured to cover an upper portion of the main body; a washing tank formed between the main body and the cover (Fig. 1); a washing assembly (5, 6, and 64) disposed in the washing tank, wherein the washing assembly comprises a washing module (6 and 64) configured to clean a washing object, and wherein the washing module comprises a first washing element (6) disposed outside the washing object and configured to spray washing water and a second washing element (64) disposed in the washing object and configured to spray washing water.
As for claim 2, Komine further teaches that the washing assembly further comprises a rotating module (5) configured to rotate the washing object (paragraph [0024]).
As for claim 3, Komine further teaches: a jig (54) configured to fix the washing object to the rotating module (paragraph [0022]).
As for claim 4, Komine further teaches that the first washing element and the second washing element comprise: a spray stem (6 and 58) extending upward in the washing tank and through which washing water moves; a spray branch (60-61; “elbow type” connection between 58 and 64) extending outward from the spray stem; and a spray nozzle (60-61 and 64) disposed at an end of the spray branch.
As for claim 5, Komine further teaches that the spray branch extends in a direction traversing a longitudinal direction of the spray stem, and the spray nozzle faces the washing object (Fig. 1).
As for claim 12, Komine further teaches that the second washing element is disposed on a central upper portion of the rotating module (Fig. 1).
As for claim 13, Komine teaches a high-pressure washer (entire apparatus) comprising: a main body (3); a cover (4) configured to cover the main body; a washing tank formed between the main body and the cover (Fig. 1); and a washing assembly (5, 6, and 64) disposed in the washing tank, wherein the washing assembly comprises: a rotating module (5) configured to rotate a washing object (paragraph [0024]); and a washing module (6 and 64) configured to clean the washing object, and wherein the washing module comprises a first washing element (6) disposed to be spaced apart from the rotating module (Fig. 1) and a second washing element (64) disposed at a center of the rotating module (Fig. 1).
As for claim 14, Komine further teaches that the first washing element comprises a first nozzle (60-61) facing an outer portion of the washing object, and the second washing element comprises a second nozzle (64) disposed to face an inner portion of the washing object (Fig. 1).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komine et al. JP 2013107037 A (henceforth referred to as Komine).
Komine teaches the features as per above. Komine differs from the instant claims in failing to teach that two or more of the washing assemblies are disposed in the washing tank. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a duplication of parts. It is old and well known in the art to duplicate components to reduce time of a process or operation, for the process or operation to be at least twice as effective with respect to a single device component, due to size/ space design criteria, or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, B. Duplication of Parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 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: Komine et al. JP 2013107037 A, the closest prior art, differs from the instant claims in failing to teach a water storage tank formed on a bottom of the washing tank, wherein washing water that washes the washing object is returned to the water storage tank, filtered, and reused. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the high-pressure washer taught by Komine as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEVON J SHAHINIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/LEVON J SHAHINIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights