DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Invitation to Call
After conducting his search of the prior art, the examiner thinks that this application will likely progress towards allowance. After reviewing this office action, applicant is invited to call the examiner (at 571-270-7376) to discuss possible ways of amending the claims. Such an interview is not required, but such interviews can often be productive for advancing prosecution.
Language Consistency
In claim 1, applicant recites “at least one outflow opening” in line 15 of claim 1. However, applicant simply recites “the outflow opening” in claim 3. Applicant is encouraged to be consistent in how things are named. Applicant successfully was consistent in claim 2, for example, wherein applicant recited “the at least one outflow opening” and thus maintained consistency with the language of claim 1.
Claim Objection
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informality: applicant recites “(iv)” in line 15 of claim 8. This appears to be a typographical mistake, as it does not follow from a corresponding (iii). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informality: applicant recites “(iv)” in line 14 of claim 13. This appears to be a typographical mistake, as it does not follow from a corresponding (iii). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informality: applicant recites “(iv)” in line 17 of claim 15. This appears to be a typographical mistake, as it does not follow from a corresponding (iii). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “minimum” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 6 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to know if my distance is a minimum distance or not?” In Par. [0035] of applicant’s U.S. 2025/0214117, applicant discusses using a “spacer” in the context of a minimum distance, but this discussion does not explain what “minimum” means in that context. This rejection is not a mere technicality; the examiner himself is genuinely uncertain about what applicant means by “minimum” in claim 6.
Claim 8 recites “the discharge channel of the respective cleaning device” (in line 32 of claim 8). However, starting in line 3 of claim 8, applicant recites what “an individual cleaning device comprises”, including “a discharge channel” in line 17. Thus, in claim 8, applicant only explicitly recites that one of the cleaning devices comprises “a discharge channel”. Thus, a problem emerges when applicant recites “the discharge channel of the respective cleaning device” (of the plurality of cleaning devices) because only one cleaning device is recited as actually having a discharge channel.
Claim 13 recites “the discharge channel of the respective cleaning device” (in lines 29-30 of claim 13). However, starting in line 3 of claim 13, applicant recites what “an individual cleaning device comprises”, including “a discharge channel” in line 15. Thus, in claim 13, applicant only explicitly recites that one of the cleaning devices comprises “a discharge channel”. Thus, a problem emerges when applicant recites “the discharge channel of the respective cleaning device” (of the plurality of cleaning devices) because only one cleaning device is recited as actually having a discharge channel.
Claim 13 recites “at the other end” (of “the at least one second stage hose”) in line 30. However, if “the at least one second stage hose” includes a plurality of hoses, it is not clear which “end” is being referred to by the phrase “at the other end”.
Claim 15 recites “the discharge channel of the respective cleaning device” (in lines 32-33 of claim 15). However, starting in line 3 of claim 15, applicant recites what “an individual cleaning device comprises”, including “a discharge channel” in line 15. Thus, in claim 15, applicant only explicitly recites that one of the cleaning devices comprises “a discharge channel”. Thus, a problem emerges when applicant recites “the discharge channel of the respective cleaning device” (of the plurality of cleaning devices) because only one cleaning device is recited as actually having a discharge channel.
Claim 15 recites “at the other end” (of “the at least one second stage hose”) in line 33. However, if “the at least one second stage hose” includes a plurality of hoses, it is not clear which “end” is being referred to by the phrase “at the other end”.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2018/199767 by Sivertsen in view of U.S. 2013/0263770 by Andersen.
With regard to claim 1, Sivertsen teaches a cleaning apparatus for cleaning an underwater surface, wherein the apparatus comprises a disk member 110 (in Figure 17) rotatable about a rotational axis, wherein the disk member comprises a first side facing away from the to-be-cleaned surface during cleaning operation and a second side facing towards said to-be-cleaned surface during cleaning operation, and wherein a plurality of vanes 111 protrude from said first side into a suction cavity (pages 11, 14, and 15). Sivertsen’s apparatus comprises a disk housing (comprising a “duct” as discussed on page 18 and comprising grille 10 in Figure), wherein the disk housing results in a gap (see Sivertsen’s discussion of “gap G” on page 18) formed between a radial periphery of the disk member and an inner wall of the duct of the disk housing (pages 11 and 18). A suction cavity is provided between the inner wall of the disk housing and the first side of the disk member, wherein liquid (and any entrained particles) is sucked (via rotation of disk member 110 such that liquid is forced through holes 103 in Figure 17) within the suction cavity and discharged through grille 10 (pages 11 and 15). In the apparatus of Sivertsen, the apparatus comprises a spindle 3d (in Figure 7) that is connected to the apparatus and is thus connected to the disk member of the apparatus, wherein the spindle 3d is driven by a rotary motor 34a providing rotational power to the spindle 3d (page 13). Sivertsen’s apparatus comprises a discharge channel, wherein the discharge channel is a passage through a grille opening at the outer periphery of the grille 10 illustrated in Figure 2, and wherein the entrance to the grille passage corresponds to applicant’s outflow opening (page 11). The grille passage allows for the ejection of liquid at a periphery of the grille 10 instead of near the center of the grille 10, and thus the discharge is considered to be radial discharge. In the apparatus of Sivertsen, the disk member comprises a nozzle 105 discharging pressurized cleaning liquid against the to-be-cleaned surface, wherein a nozzle conduit 106 establishes fluid communication from a cleaning liquid source outside the cleaning apparatus to the nozzle (pages 11, 14, and 15). In the apparatus of Sivertsen, since a gap is between a radial periphery of the disk member and an inner wall of the duct of the disk housing, some liquid is reasonably expected to pass through that gap into the suction cavity due to the fluid nature of liquid, and that liquid that passes through the gap passes entirely through the gap.
Sivertsen does not teach that the disk member’s second side (which is the side facing the to-be-cleaned surface) comprises a concave shape.
Andersen teaches that when using a rotating cleaning disk to clean underwater surfaces, the face of the disk facing a to-be-cleaned surface can advantageously comprise a concave shape in order to limit undesired suction from occurring between the disk and the to-be-cleaned surface, as such suction can undesirably inhibit rotation of the cleaning disk (Par. 0069-0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sivertsen by having the disk member’s second side (which is the side facing the to-be-cleaned surface) comprises a concave shape. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Andersen, who teaches that when using a rotating cleaning disk to clean underwater surfaces, the face of the disk facing a to-be-cleaned surface can advantageously comprise a concave shape in order to limit undesired suction from occurring between the disk and the to-be-cleaned surface, as such suction can undesirably inhibit rotation of the cleaning disk.
With regard to claim 2, in the combination of Sivertsen in view of Anderson, the entrance to the grille passage corresponding to applicant’s outflow opening is adjacent to the gap and is thus considered to be “arranged at the gap”.
With regard to claim 3, in the combination of Sivertsen in view of Anderson, the discharge channel of the grille can deflect (due to the physical nature of the grille) liquid flow such that liquid flow changes from having a radial flow (relative to an imaginary circle) to a having a flow in a second direction with an axial component (because the second direction is along an imaginary axis).
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Sivertsen in view of Anderson does not specify the ratio of the maximum diameter to the concave height of the cleaning disk. However, since the purpose of the concave shape is to create space to limit undesired suction (because such suction can inhibit rotation of the disk), the maximum height of the of the concave shape is considered to be a result-effective variable, as it affects how much space can exist between portions of the disk and the to-be-cleaned surface and thus affects how much undesired suction could potentially occur. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sivertsen in view of Anderson by optimizing the maximum height of the concave shape (and thus the above-mentioned ratio), as that maximum height is a result-effective variable.
With regard to claim 5, the apparatus of Sivertsen in view of Anderson comprises a plurality of nozzles 105 arranged at intervals around the radial periphery of the disk (pages 14 and 15 of Sivertsen). The combination of Sivertsen in view of Anderson does explicitly teach that the intervals of the nozzles are regular intervals. However, since the roles of the nozzles are to propel the disk and clean the targeted surface, it would have been obvious (in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Rearrangement of Parts) to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sivertsen in view of Anderson by having the nozzles arranged at regular intervals around the disk, as the nozzles could successfully perform their cleaning and propelling roles in such an arrangement.
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Sivertsen in view of Anderson does not teach what percentage of the second side of the disk member is set at a minimum distance to the to-be-cleaned surface. However, since the purpose of the concave shape is to create space to limit undesired suction (because such suction can inhibit rotation of the disk), the maximum height of the of the concave shape is considered to be a result-effective variable, as it affects how much space can exist between portions of the disk and the to-be-cleaned surface and thus affects how much undesired suction could potentially occur. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sivertsen in view of Anderson by optimizing the maximum height of the concave shape (and thus which portions of the disk are a minimum distance from the to-be-cleaned surface), as that maximum height is a result-effective variable.
With regard to claim 7, in the combination of Sivertsen in view of Anderson, the cleaning apparatus, rollers 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d (see Figure 7) are structurally positioned to maintain the offset distance of the disk member from the to-be-cleaned surface (page 13 of Sivertsen).
Other Claims
Claims 8-12 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Since the examiner can’t predict how applicant may amend the claims (or otherwise respond) in response to those 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the examiner isn’t yet ready to explicitly say that claim 8 is necessarily allowable. However, it is noted that the reviewed prior art does not teach or render obvious the subject matter recited by claim 8. With regard to claim 8, the most relevant prior art is the combination of Sivertsen in view of Anderson used above to reject claim 1. The combination of Sivertsen in view of Anderson fails to teach that the apparatus comprises a second stage pumping system, wherein the second stage pumping system comprises a motorized pump, a central liquid collector, and at least one second stage hose for each of the plurality of cleaning devices, wherein each of the at least one second stage hose is arranged in fluid communication with the central liquid collector at one end with the discharge channel of the respective cleaning device at the other end, and wherein the second stage pumping system is configured to pump the liquids from the suction cavity of the first stage pumping system and to the central liquid collector. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the apparatus of Sivertsen in view of Anderson to arrive at the invention recited by claim 8 without the use of an impermissible level of hindsight reasoning. Claims 9-12 depend from claim 8.
Claims 13-14 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Since the examiner can’t predict how applicant may amend the claims (or otherwise respond) in response to those 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the examiner isn’t yet ready to explicitly say that claim 13 is necessarily allowable. However, it is noted that the reviewed prior art does not teach or render obvious the subject matter recited by claim 13. With regard to claim 13, the most relevant prior art is the combination of Sivertsen in view of Anderson used above to reject claim 1. The combination of Sivertsen in view of Anderson fails to teach that the apparatus comprises a second stage pumping system, wherein the second stage pumping system comprises a motorized pump, a central liquid collector, and at least one second stage hose for each of the plurality of cleaning devices, wherein each of the at least one second stage hose is arranged in fluid communication with the central liquid collector at one end with the discharge channel of the respective cleaning device at the other end, and wherein the second stage pumping system is configured to pump the liquids from the suction cavity of the first stage pumping system and to the central liquid collector. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the apparatus of Sivertsen in view of Anderson to arrive at the invention recited by claim 13 without the use of an impermissible level of hindsight reasoning. Claim 14 depends from claim 13.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the reviewed prior art does not teach or render obvious the subject matter recited by claim 15. With regard to claim 15, the most relevant prior art is Sivertsen, which was discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. Sivertsen fails to teach that the apparatus used in the Sivertsen’s method comprises a second stage pumping system, wherein the second stage pumping system comprises a motorized pump, a central liquid collector, and at least one second stage hose for each of the plurality of cleaning devices, wherein the at least one second stage hose is arranged in fluid communication with the central liquid collector at one end with the discharge channel of the respective cleaning device at the other end, and wherein the second stage pumping system is configured to pump the liquids from the suction cavity of the first stage pumping system and to the central liquid collector. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the method of Sivertsen to arrive at the invention recited by claim 15 without the use of an impermissible level of hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714