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 § 102
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guenther et al. (DE 19812091, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 1: Guenther teaches a method of cleaning an HVAC coil unit located above a drain basin, said method comprising steps of:
providing a supply and collection assembly having a reservoir containing liquid cleaning solution (Fig. 1, water tank [0004]), a pump (Fig. 1, lower left) operative to output the liquid cleaning solution through a supply outlet, and a vacuum source (Fig. 1, upper left) operative to draw in used liquid cleaning solution through a collection inlet;
providing a nozzle device ((Fig, 2(a) or (b)) in fluid communication with the supply outlet, said nozzle device having a delivery face having a substantially planar surface for juxtaposition on a surface of the HVAC coil unit, a plurality of apertures being defined in said delivery face for passage of the cleaning solution;
providing a fluid return tool (Fig. 1, upper hose) in fluid communication with the collection inlet, and positioning the fluid return tool in the drain basin [0006];
providing a filter assembly between the fluid return tool and the collection inlet in the fluid return path (Fig. 1, [0006]); and
moving the delivery face of the nozzle device across the surface of the HVAC coil unit to deliver the cleaning solution into areas between fins thereof [0008].
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 (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.
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther et al. (DE 19812091) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3: Guenther teaches the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Guenther teaches moving the delivery face of the nozzle, but is silent as to moving the face across successive horizontal courses of the surface of the HVAC unit from top to bottom. However, 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 method of Guenther by moving the delivery face in horizontal courses from top to bottom in order to provide an efficient cleaning over the entire surface of the HVAC unit.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther et al. (DE 19812091) as applied above, and further in view of Turner (WO 2007/063452).
Regarding Claim 4: Guenther teaches the elements of Claim 1, as described above. Guenther teaches a filter assembly, but Guenther does not expressly disclose the filter assembly comprises a hydrocyclonic filter. However, Turner teaches a scavenging cleaning system comprising a hydrocyclonic filter assembly along return piping to filter the returning fluid (Fig. 1, element 80; pg. 16, ll. 9-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the hydrocyclonic filter of Turner with the filter in the apparatus of Guenther with a reasonable expectation of efficiently filtering the returning fluid, as taught by Turner.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther et al. (DE 19812091) and Turner (WO 2007/063452) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Jackson (US 2002/0170704).
Regarding Claim 5: Guenther and Turner teach the elements of Claim 4, as discussed above. Guenther is silent as to a flush valve. However, Jackson teaches it is well known to provide a flush valve (Fig. 2, element 40) in communication with a collection container of a filter and operative to open and close so as to empty the collection chamber [0055-56]. 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 Guenther with a flush valve in order to empty the collection chamber. Although not expressly disclosed by Jackson, it would have been further obvious to operate control circuitry as claimed in order to control the opening and closing the valve for evacuating the filter.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther et al. (DE 19812091) as applied above, and further in view of Kipp (US 2015/0129171).
Regarding Claim 6: Guenther teaches the elements of Claims 1 and 13, as described above, but do not expressly disclose introducing compressed air. However, Kipp teaches a cleaning apparatus for a heat exchanger wherein an air supply piping is configured to introduce compressed air into the cleaning solution in order to enhance the cleaning effect [0011, 0012]. Therefore, 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 method of Guenther by introducing compressed air in order to enhance the cleaning effect, as suggested by Kipp.
Regarding Claim 7: The prior art teach the elements of Claim 6, as described above. Kipp further teaches a controlled valve in the air supply piping operative to pulsate introduction of the air at a predetermined frequency [0012]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guenther by pulsating introduction of the compressed air at a predetermined frequency to enhance the cleaning effect.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther et al. (DE 19812091) and Kipp (US 2015/0129171) as applied to Claim 7 above, abnd further in view of Munoz et al. (US 9,233,404).
Regarding Claim 8: Guenther and Kipp teach the elements of Claim 7 as discussed above, but do not expressly disclose the range of the pulsing frequency. However, Munoz teaches the frequency of such pulses may range between 3-6 per second, and that such pulsing action of fluids increases the cleaning ability (col. 4, ll. 34-45). Therefore, 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 method of Guenther to provide pulsation within the claimed range in order to enhance the cleaning efficiency, as taught by Munoz.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther et al. (DE 19812091) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Balas et al. (US 2012/0260948).
Regarding Claim 9: Guenther teaches the elements of Claim 1, as discussed above but does not expressly disclose the upper and lower level switches. However, Balas teaches a cleaning method with a system recovery and supply tank, wherein upper (Fig. 1, element 180) and lower (element 190) level switches in the interior space of a reservoir (element 105) are operated to detect the level of cleaning solution therein [0015]. Balas further teaches that the upper level switch is operative to cut off power to the pump if a threshold upper level of the cleaning solution is reached [0023]. 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 method of Guenther by operating level switches within the reservoir and cutting off power to the pump when a threshold upper level is reached, as in Balas, in order to control pump operation and fluid flow.
Regarding Claim 10: The prior art teaches the elements of Claim 8, as discussed above, but does not expressly disclose the upper and lower level switches. However, Balas teaches a cleaning method with a system recovery and supply tank, wherein upper (Fig. 1, element 180) and lower (element 190) level switches in the interior space of a reservoir (element 105) are operated to detect the level of cleaning solution therein [0015]. Balas further teaches that the lower level switch is operative to open a liquid port if a threshold lower level of the cleaning solution is reached [0033]. Therefore, 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 method of Guenther by operating level switches within the reservoir and opening a fresh water supply port if a threshold lower level is reached, as suggested by Bala, in order to allow cleaning to continue efficiently.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther et al. (DE 19812091) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ellenbecker (US 2010/0025497).
Regarding Claim 11: Guenther teaches the elements of Claim 1, as described above, but does not expressly disclose the angle range as claimed. However, Ellenbecker teaches a cleaning device wherein orifices on a cleaning head are angled to achieve maximum coverage of the surface to be cleaned (Fig. 1, [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Guenther by providing a nozzle device having angled apertures within the claimed range in order to provide greater surface coverage of the cleaning solution on the surface to be cleaned, as suggested by Ellenbecker.
Regarding Claim 12: Guenther and Ellenbecker teach the elements of Claim 11 as discussed above. Ellenbecker does not expressly disclose the predetermined angle range as claimed. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (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 aperture angle to within the claimed range in order to enhance the surface coverage of the cleaning fluid across the HVAC surface.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,788,807 in view of Guenther et al. (DE 19812091).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 12: Claims 12-14 of US 11,788,807 recite the method of cleaning the HVAC coil unit as instant claims 1, 11, and 12, except for providing a filter assembly between the fluid return tool and the collection inlet in the fluid return path. However, providing a filter is taught by Guenther for the purpose of processing the cleaning fluid before reuse [0006]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claim by reciting the limitation of providing the filter in order to process the cleaning fluid before reuse, as taught by Guenther.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714