DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Line 1 recites “the tube frame” and there is no antecedent basis for that element.
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, 5-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitch (US 4,129,919) in view of Rickey (US 2019/0009309), McKenney (US 5,231,726), and Liu (US 2020/0055102).
As to claim 1, Fitch discloses a firehose cleaning apparatus comprising:
a housing (36, 38) defining a washing chamber (The space within them); a hose inlet (40) on one side of the housing and a hose outlet (42) on an opposite side of the housing; a first rotating brush (48) spaced from a second rotating brush (82) within the washing chamber (column 4, lines 43-47 and column 63-68); a water inlet configured to be connected to a water source (A water inlet is inherently required to provide water to the pair of hoses 46); at least a first nozzle (A first element 46) spaced from a second nozzle (A second element 46) within the washing chamber, the first nozzle being positioned above a firehose being fed through the washing chamber, the second nozzle being positioned below a firehose being fed through the washing chamber (column 4, lines 34-40), the first nozzle and the second nozzle being in fluid communication with the water inlet (It is inherent).
Fitch does not include the housing as portable, the washing chamber having a generally circular configuration, the hose inlet and hose outlet for feeding a firehose through the washing chamber, wherein the first rotating brush and the second rotating brush are positioned to contact opposite sides of a firehose being fed through the hose inlet and out through the hose outlet, a power source for rotating the first rotating brush and the second rotating brush, and a water outlet for discharging liquid from the washing chamber.
Liu includes a cleaning apparatus with a washing chamber (104) having a generally circular configuration (para 16). A cleaning tool (160) is inside of the chamber (Fig. 1B). Liu teaches that 104 may have a circular shape, a quadrilateral shape, or others (para 16).
Rickey includes a cleaning apparatus having a power source (battery 30) [para 30].
McKenney includes a water outlet (110) for discharging liquid from a washing chamber (12) [column 5, lines 47-49, and Fig. 2].
Making the housing portable, which involves shrinking it down in size, would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization, and the size may be changed to carry the apparatus more easily to the extent needed.
The space between the rotating equipment appears too low to allow hoses to be placed between two of them and so the following item is not shown: the hose inlet and hose outlet for feeding a firehose through the washing chamber, wherein the first rotating brush and the second rotating brush are positioned to contact opposite sides of a firehose being fed through the hose inlet and out through the hose outlet. It would been an obvious matter of routine optimization to have increased the total space in order to allow a hose to fit.
It would have been obvious to modify the washing chamber of Fitch to have a generally circular configuration instead of a quadrilateral shape, as taught by Liu, in order to reduce the difficulty in cleaning its interior, and provide a more solid structure (no damage to the corners).
It would have been obvious to have modified Fitch to have a power source, as taught by Rickey, in order to have on board power, thereby eliminating the need for a power outlet.
It would have been obvious to have modified Fitch to have a water outlet for discharging liquid from the washing chamber, as taught by McKenney, in order to allow spent liquid to drain out of the washing chamber.
As to claim 3, Fitch does not include wherein the apparatus is powered by a rechargeable battery removably held in the housing.
Rickey includes a cleaning apparatus is powered by a rechargeable battery (30) removably held in a housing (22) [para 30].
It would have been obvious to have modified the power source of Fitch to be powered by a rechargeable battery removably held in the housing, as taught by Rickey, the ability of recharge saving the customer money because no new battery is bought.
As to claim 5, Fitch does not include wherein the water outlet is positioned at the bottom of the washing chamber.
McKenney includes a water outlet (110) positioned at the bottom of a washing chamber (12) [column 5, lines 47-49, and Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to have modified the water outlet of Fitch to positioned at the bottom of the washing chamber, as taught by McKenney, in order to allow spent liquid to drain out of specifically the bottom of the washing chamber, helping liquid drain out successfully.
As to claim 6, Fitch is silent to the first nozzle and the second nozzle emitting water at a pressure from about 60 psi to about 110 psi.
It would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization for a person of ordinary skill to choose any water pressure for the first nozzle and the second nozzle, and for instance the pressure range claimed, so that cleaning happens optimally without more wash pressure than necessary to save costs.
As to claim 7, Fitch is silent to wherein the first rotating brush and the second rotating brush have a rotational speed from about 100 rpm to about 2000 rpm.
It would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization for a person of ordinary skill to choose any rotational speed for the first rotating brush and the second rotating brush, and for instance the rotational speed range claimed, so that cleaning happens optimally without more rotational speed than necessary to save costs.
As to claim 8, Fitch is silent to wherein the first rotating brush and the second rotating brush have a rotational speed from about 300 rpm to about 1000 rpm.
It would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization for a person of ordinary skill to choose any rotational speed for the first rotating brush and the second rotating brush, and for instance the rotational speed range claimed, so that cleaning happens optimally without more rotational speed than necessary to save costs.
As to claim 9, Fitch is silent to wherein the first rotating brush and the second rotating brush each have a plurality of brush bristles from about 2 inches to about 6 inches in length.
It would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization for a person of ordinary skill to choose any brush bristle length for the first rotating brush and the second rotating brush, and for instance the bristle length range claimed, so that cleaning happens optimally without more brush bristle length than necessary to save costs.
As to claim 10, Fitch is silent to wherein the brush bristles are each from about 1/120 inches to about 3/10 inches in diameter.
It would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization for a person of ordinary skill to choose any brush bristle diameter for the first rotating brush and the second rotating brush, and for instance the bristle diameter range claimed, so that cleaning happens optimally without more brush bristle diameter than necessary to save costs.
As to claim 16, Fitch does not include wherein the housing comprises a rotatably mounted wheel enabling the user to move the apparatus.
McKenney includes a housing comprising a rotatably mounted wheel (28) enabling the user to move the apparatus (column 3, lines 65-67).
It would have been obvious to have modified the housing to have a rotatably mounted wheel enabling the user to move the apparatus, as taught by McKenney, giving a greater ease of movement for the housing.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitch (US 4,129,919) in view of Rickey (US 2019/0009309), McKenney (US 5,231,726), and Liu (US 2020/0055102), and further in view of Larson (US 2003/0217429).
As to claim 4, Fitch does not include wherein the washing chamber further comprises a third nozzle and a fourth nozzle.
Larson includes a washing chamber comprising first (A first jet 22), second (A second jet 22), third (A first jet 22a), and fourth (A second jet 22a) nozzles (para 25).
It would have been obvious to have modified the water outlet set of Fitch to have a third nozzle and a fourth nozzle, as taught by Larson, thereby providing enhanced wash cleaning power.
Claim 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitch (US 4,129,919) in view of Rickey (US 2019/0009309), McKenney (US 5,231,726), and Liu (US 2020/0055102), and further in view of Harwood (US 2017/0164564).
As to claim 2, Fitch does not include wherein the first rotating brush and the second rotating brush are positioned to apply a force to a firehose being fed through the washing chamber to automatically advance a firehose through the washing chamber.
Harwood includes wherein a first rotating brush (12) and a second rotating brush (14) are positioned to apply a force to a firehose being fed through the washing chamber to automatically advance equipment through a washing chamber (36) [para 36].
It would have been obvious to have modified Fitch to have the first rotating brush and the second rotating brush being positioned to apply a force to equipment, such as a firehose, being fed through the washing chamber to automatically advance a firehose through the washing chamber, as taught by Harwood, thereby reducing the total load on each motor powering rotation of the rotating equipment.
As to claim 11, Fitch does not include wherein the brush bristles are comprised of nylon, polyester, or a combination thereof.
Harwood includes a cleaning apparatus with brush bristles comprised of polyester (para 50).
It would have been obvious to have modified the brush bristles Fitch to be comprised of polyester, as taught by Harwood, giving a low cost bristle material.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitch (US 4,129,919) in view of Rickey (US 2019/0009309), McKenney (US 5,231,726), and Liu (US 2020/0055102), and further in view of Peterson (US 2,925,689).
As to claim 12, Fitch does not include wherein the washing chamber is shaped as an octagon.
Peterson includes a washing chamber (The chamber of 1 & 2, or 23) shaped as an octagon (The shape is an octagon or hexagon; Fig. 1, and column 1, lines 70-72 and column 2, lines 1-11).
It would have been obvious to have substituted the washing chamber for an equivalent washing chamber shaped as an octagon, as taught by Peterson, giving a different design option, and based on the shape being of greater durability.
As to claim 13, Fitch does not include the tube frame extends further out than the washing chamber.
Peterson includes a housing (23) is connected to a tube frame (1, 2), and the tube frame extends further out than the washing chamber [Fig. 1, and column 1, lines 70-72 and column 2, lines 1-11].
It would have been obvious to enclose the housing within a tube frame with the tube frame extending further out than the washing chamber, as taught by Peterson, giving the overall structure of the apparatus more solidity.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitch (US 4,129,919) in view of Rickey (US 2019/0009309), McKenney (US 5,231,726), and Liu (US 2020/0055102), and further in view of Randall (US 5,299,587).
As to claim 14, Fitch does not include wherein the housing comprises a retractable handle.
Randall includes a housing comprising a retractable handle (20, 22, 24) [Fig. 1, and column 5, lines 62-67].
It would have been obvious to add a retractable handle to the housing, as taught by Randall, making the housing more easily lifted.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitch (US 4,129,919) in view of Rickey (US 2019/0009309), McKenney (US 5,231,726), and Liu (US 2020/0055102), and further in view of Hicks (US 2019/0344205).
As to claim 15, wherein the housing comprises an at least one extendable stabilizer.
Hicks includes a housing (105, 115) comprising an at least one extendable stabilizer (110, 112) [para 40 and Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to add an at least one extendable stabilizer to the housing, as taught by Hicks, thereby permitting the housing to rest above the floor, in order to allow the housing to rest on a variety of surface types.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitch (US 4,129,919) in view of Rickey (US 2019/0009309), McKenney (US 5,231,726), and Liu (US 2020/0055102), and further in view of Ostler (US 2020/0215581).
As to claim 17, Fitch includes the method of connecting the apparatus to a water source (column 4, lines 34-40).
Fitch does not include the method of feeding a firehose through the washing chamber; washing a firehose with water emanating from the first nozzle and the second nozzle; and simultaneously removing the firehose contaminants with the first rotating brush and the second rotating brush.
Ostler includes (Fig. 2) the method of feeding a firehose (220; Fig. 47) through a washing chamber (110A-110D); washing a firehose with water emanating from a first nozzle (130A) and a second nozzle (130D) [para 59-60].
It would have been obvious to add the method of feeding a firehose through the washing chamber, and washing a firehose with water emanating from the first nozzle and the second nozzle, as taught by Ostler, in order to allow a user to clean a firehouse using the cleaning apparatus. The combination provides the feature of simultaneously removing the firehose contaminants with the first rotating brush and the second rotating brush.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitch (US 4,129,919) in view of Rickey (US 2019/0009309), McKenney (US 5,231,726), Liu (US 2020/0055102), and Ostler (US 2020/0215581), and further in view of Kapor (DE 102004048491 A1).
As to claim 18, Fitch does not include the method of presoaking a firehose with a cleaning composition prior to feeding a firehose through the washing chamber.
Kapor includes the method of presoaking a firehose (12) with a cleaning composition prior to feeding a firehose through a washing chamber (14; Fig. 2) [machine translation, para 24].
It would have been obvious to add the method of presoaking a firehose with a cleaning composition prior to feeding a firehose through the washing chamber, as taught by Kapor, in order to enhance the overall cleaning process.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitch (US 4,129,919) in view of Rickey (US 2019/0009309), McKenney (US 5,231,726), and Peterson (US 2,925,689).
Claim 19 is rejected for the reasons discussed in claim 1. However, Fitch is combined with Peterson (replacement of Liu) by substituting the washing chamber for an equivalent washing chamber shaped as an octagon, as taught by Peterson, giving a different design option, and based on the shape being of greater durability. That combination provides the feature of wherein the vertex angles of the washing chamber are greater than the vertex angles of a square (An octagonal washing chamber meets that limitation).
Claim 20 is rejected for the reasons discussed in claims 5-7 and 9-10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW A. HORTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/ANDREW A HORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights