DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that neither Boyer nor Choi teach the amended limitations of claim 1, which recite the subject matter previously recited in claim 9. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the claimed venturi pipe. Boyer teaches a guide pipe 538 having a lower portion (e.g. at 564) with a radius larger than the central portion of the venturi pipe, and a cone nozzle (see 520, 524, 526) with a radius larger than the radius of the central portion of the venturi pipe (fig. 25). Also, it was known that a radius may be smaller at an air inlet portion of a venturi pipe in order to form the necessary constriction (see U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220240747 by Geng et al., fig. 2).
Response to Amendments
The rejections of claims 1-14 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.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, 4, 5, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230100978 by Boyer et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140069469 by Choi et al.
As to claim 1, Boyer teaches a cup washing comprising a tub in which a cup is place (fig. 2); and a second spray nozzle (e.g. 520, fig. 25) connected to a feed pipe, the second spray nozzle comprising a guide pipe 538 in a lower portion of the tub and providing an upward flow path, and a cone nozzle 520 to spray water into the tub.
Boyer does not teach a venturi pipe connected to an upper end of the guide pipe and providing an air inlet in a constricted portion of the water flow path, the nozzle being connected to an upper end of the venturi (i.e. the venturi being along the guide pipe 538). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the washer taught by Boyer to have a venturi. Choi teaches a venturi 70 in a spray nozzle pipe, upstream of the nozzle, with an air inlet in a constricted portion of the water flow path (fig. 4, para. 54). Choi teaches that a venturi allows for enhanced washability by mixing water with air to increase the spray pressure without increasing the amount of water used (para. 49-50). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the washer of Boyer to have a venturi in its guide pipe so that washability may be enhanced without an increase in water usage, as taught by Choi.
In addition, Choi teaches an opening 172 on an outer surface of the venturi pipe, and that a distance from a center of the flow path to the opening is smaller than a radius of the venturi pipe and would be smaller than a radius of a lower portion of the nozzle upon the obvious modification discussed above (figs. 3 and 4).
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 4, Boyer teaches a rack in which a cup is placed upside down (fig. 26). Upon the obvious modification discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the air inlet would be outside an inlet of the cup (see Boyer, fig. 26).
As to claim 5, Boyer teaches that the cone nozzle is inside the inlet of the cup (fig. 27).
As to claim 10, Choi teaches that the venturi pipe has a concave groove on an outer surface and the opening of the air inlet is located inside the groove (figs. 3 and 4).
As to claim 11, Boyer teaches a first spray nozzle (e.g. 530, fig. 25) to spray water into the tub by pressure of a circulating pump (para. 61).
As to claim 12, Boyer teaches that the first spray nozzle is rotatably coupled outside the guide pipe and provides multiple spray ports 530, 532 (fig. 25).
As to claim 13, upon the obvious modification to have a venturi pipe, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that an upper end of the flow path in the guide pipe would have the same diameter as a lower end of the flow path in the venturi pipe (see Boyer, fig. 25; Choi, fig. 4; note a constant diameter of the pipes).
As to claim 14, upon the obvious modification to have a venturi pipe, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that an upper end of the flow path in the venturi pipe would have the same diameter as a lower end of the flow path in the cone nozzle (see Boyer, fig. 25; Choi, fig. 4; note a constant diameter of the pipes).
Claims 2, 3, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230100978 by Boyer et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140069469 by Choi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20150202579 by Richardson.
As to claims 2, 3, and 6, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the venturi pipe detachably connected to an upper end opening of a guide pipe. Richardson teaches a venturi pipe that is designed to be detachable from adjoining pipes and nozzle structures (fig. 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that making a venturi pipe detachable would have been desirable for reasons such as assembly, and thus it would have been obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)). It would also have been obvious to make a nozzle detachable for the same reason. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the venturi pipe detachable from the guide pipe, the cone nozzle detachable from the venturi pipe, and the cone nozzle detachably coupled to the guide pipe, which would have been an intended use configured upon removal of a venturi pipe with common connections on both ends (see Richardson, fig. 4).
As to claims 7 and 8, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a lower portion of the venturi pipe surrounding the upper end of the guide pipe, and a lower portion of the cone nozzle surrounding an upper end of the venturi pipe. Richardson teaches well-known pipe fittings such as barbs (fig. 3) and threads (fig. 4), each of which require one pipe end to surround the end of the pipe to which it is attached. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the venturi pipe and nozzle surrounding an adjacent pipe since it was well-known that common pipe fittings have one pipe portion surrounding another.
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