DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/26 have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks directed to new limitations are moot as they do not apply to the current rejections made in view of the amendments. The amended claims would have been obvious, as discussed below.
Applicant asserts that Suguira does not disclose the claimed battery holder located on a heat-dissipation air path in the claimed sequence. However, Suguira discloses an air path that flows adjacent to the battery holder (see fig. 7), and it being a “heat dissipation” air path would have been expected, or at least capable of functioning as a heat dissipation air path.
As to Applicant’s remarks regarding claim 5, the batteries of Suguira would have been recognized as “vertical” by one of ordinary skill in the art despite a slight incline. The present disclosure does not define “vertical” to mean absolute vertical.
Applicant asserts that Suguira does not disclose a partition portion in the middle of its battery holder. However, any structure between the batteries may be interpreted as a “partition portion,” and Suguira discloses various structures within with battery compartment. Applicant also states that the battery interfaces are not opposite each other. However, any side of the batteries may be interpreted as an “interface.”
As to claim 9, Applicant asserts that Suguira does not disclose a downward-facing air inlet. However, the inlet 28h disclosed by Suguira has a downward component.
Applicant further asserts that a modification to Suguira to have air outlets disposed as required by claims 10 and 13. However, as previously stated, the particular location of the outlets would have been an obvious design choice. There has been no evidence set forth that the particular claimed design and arrangement is a criticality or serves a non-obvious purpose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have used mere routine skill to modify the air outlet disclosed by Suguira to be located as desired.
Response to Amendments
The rejections of claims 1, 5-7, and 9 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claims 2-4, 8, and 10-20 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.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, 5-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210323033 by Suguira.
As to claim 1, Suguira teaches a pressure washer comprising a housing formed with a battery holder 30 defining a battery accommodating space (fig. 2) and a drive compartment (comprising pump 60 and motor 56, fig. 7); battery packs 38a, 38b in the battery accommodating space; a control board 52 in the housing (fig. 7); a drive assembly in the drive compartment and comprising a pump 60 and an electric motor 56 for driving the pump (fig. 7); and a water gun 18 connected to the pump through a water pipe 14 (fig. 1); wherein the housing has an air inlet 28h and an air outlet 28j (fig. 7), a heat dissipation air path is formed between the inlet and outlet (fig. 7, note arrows), the path is inside the housing, and the battery holder and the control board are in the path in sequence (fig. 7).
Suguira does not teach that the air inlet is higher than a center point of the battery pack in an up-down direction when the battery pack is mounted in the pressure washer. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the claimed spatial arrangement of the parts would have been an obvious design choice since the operation of the pressure washer would not have been modified and the washer would operate as intended (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). Merely relocating the air inlet of Suguira does not result in patentable significance.
As to claim 5, Suguira teaches a top cover 24 on a top of the housing that is used for opening and closing the battery holder, and the battery packs are vertically inserted into the holder (figs. 2 and 6).
As to claim 6, Suguira teaches that a partition portion is in the middle of the holder and divides the holder into two sub-holders, two battery packs 38a, 38b are provided in the holders, and interfaces of the packs are opposite to each other and face the partition portion (fig. 6).
As to claim 7, Suguira teaches that two battery packs 38a, 38b are provided and are arranged in parallel (fig. 6).
As to claim 8, Suguira teaches that its battery packs are located above the motor and pump (fig. 7), but does not teach that any two of the battery pack, the electric motor, and the pump do not overlap each other when observed along a front-rear direction. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the claimed spatial arrangement of the parts is an obvious design choice since the operation of the pressure washer would not have been modified and the washer would operate as intended (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
As to claim 9, Suguira teaches that an opening of the air inlet 28h faces a lower side of the pressure washer (fig. 7).
As to claim 10, Suguira does not explicitly teach that its air outlet is opened on a left or right side of the housing. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the claimed spatial arrangement of the parts is an obvious design choice since the operation of the pressure washer would not have been modified and the washer would operate as intended (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 13, Suguira does not teach that two groups of air outlets are provided and located on left and right sides of the housing. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the claimed spatial arrangement of the parts is an obvious design choice since the operation of the pressure washer would not have been modified and the washer would operate as intended (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210323033 by Suguira in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190388923 by Giacalone et al.
As to claim 2, Suguira does not teach a power management board and that the battery holder, power management board, and the control board are on the air path in sequence. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a power management board and the claimed air path sequence. Giacalone teaches that a power management board was known to be used in a pressure washer in order to control the flow of electricity and perform AC/DC conversion (paras. 16, 23, 26). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have a power management board for its established purpose as evidenced by Giacalone. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to dispose the power management board in the housing adjacent to the battery packs since it is intended to control the battery packs (note board 160 and battery packs 142 taught by Giacalone, fig. 1A). Upon disposing the board adjacent the battery packs, the air path would flow from the holder, power management board, and control board (see Suguira, fig. 7). Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 3, Suguira teaches two battery packs 38a, 38b (fig. 6). As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to locate the power management board adjacent the battery packs.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210323033 by Suguira in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20240198392 by Eschrich et al.
As to claim 4, Suguira does not teach a cooling fan on the control board. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a cooling fan. Eschrich teaches a power washing having a cooling fan adjacent to the housing of a control board for the purpose of circulating air to facilitate heat dissipation of the controller (para. 55). Upon this obvious modification, one of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized as obvious to have the claimed air path sequence (see Suguira, fig. 7). Neither Suguira nor Eschrich explicitly teaches a control board in front of a battery pack. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the claimed spatial arrangement of the parts would have been an obvious design choice since the operation of the pressure washer would not have been modified and the washer would operate as intended (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Claims 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210323033 by Suguira. in view of WO2019161995A1 by Maier et al.
As to claim 11, Suguira does not teach pull rods, pull rod mounting portions, and traveling wheels. However, Maier teaches a pressure washer with pull rods 162, 164, pull rod mounting portions, and wheels 20, 22, the mounting portion on a read side of a its housing, the pull rods on the mounting portion, and the wheel rotate when the pull rods are pulled (fig. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the claimed pull rod and wheel configuration in order to allow a user to easily move the washer along a floor surface (Maier, para. 18). Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 12, Suguira does not teach that the air inlet is on a bottom of a pull rod mounting portion and that the opening of the inlet faces downward. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the claimed spatial arrangement of the parts is an obvious design choice since the operation of the pressure washer would not have been modified and the washer would operate as intended (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 14, Suguira teaches front and rear housings (fig. 2), and Maier also teaches front and rear housings, as well as a gap between the rear housing and the pull rods which may form a storage space for a water pipe (fig. 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210323033 by Suguira. in view of WO2019161995A1 by Maier et al. as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20240198392 by Eschrich et al.
As to claim 15, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to store the water pipe in a hose reel on the rear housing, the axis of the reel parallel to a forward direction, the reel rotatable relative to the housing to retract and release the pipe. Eschrich teaches a pressure washer and storing a water pipe in a hose reel on a rear housing, the reel being rotatable and parallel to a forward direction of the washer (figs. 1A, 5A; para. 36). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have the claimed hose reel in order to improve convenience (see Eschrich, para. 326). Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210323033 by Suguira in view of WO2019161995A1 by Maier et al.
As to claim 16, Suguira teaches a pressure washer comprising a housing formed with a battery holder 30 (fig. 2) and a drive compartment (comprising pump 60 and motor 56, fig. 7); a battery packs 38a, 38b in the battery holder; a control board 52 in the housing (fig. 7); a drive assembly in the drive compartment and comprising a pump 60 and an electric motor 56 for driving the pump (fig. 7); and a water gun 18 connected to the pump through a water pipe 14 (fig. 1); wherein its battery packs are located above the motor and pump (fig. 7) and wherein the housing has an air inlet 28h and an air outlet 28j (fig. 7).
Suguira does not teach a traveling wheel coupled to the housing. However, Maier teaches a pressure washer with wheels 20, 22 (fig. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a traveling wheel in order to allow a user to easily move the washer along a floor surface (Maier, para. 18).
Suguira does not teach that the battery pack is located directly above the motor and pump, the control board is in front of the battery packs, the air inlet is higher than a center of the battery packs in an up-down direction when the battery packs are mounted in the washer, and that the air outlet is higher than the traveling wheel. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that the claimed spatial arrangement of the parts is an obvious design choice since the operation of the pressure washer would not have been modified and the washer would operate as intended (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
As to claim 20, Suguira teaches a top cover 24 on a top of the housing that is used for opening and closing the battery holder, and the battery packs are vertically inserted into the holder (figs. 2 and 6).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210323033 by Suguira in view of WO2019161995A1 by Maier et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190388923 by Giacalone et al.
As to claim 17, Suguira teaches that the housing has an air inlet 28h and an air outlet 28j (fig. 7), a heat dissipation air path is formed between the inlet and outlet (fig. 7, note arrows). Suguira does not teach a power management board and that the battery holder, power management board, and the control board are on the air path in sequence. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a power management board and the claimed air path sequence. Giacalone teaches that a power management board was known to be used in a pressure washer in order to control the flow of electricity and perform AC/DC conversion (paras. 16, 23, 26). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have a power management board for its established purpose as evidenced by Giacalone. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to dispose the power management board in the housing adjacent to the battery packs since it is intended to control the battery packs (note board 160 and battery packs 112 taught by Giacalone, fig. 1A). Upon disposing the board adjacent the battery packs, the air path would flow from the holder, power management board, and control board (see Suguira, fig. 7). Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 18, Suguira teaches two battery packs 38a, 38b (fig. 6). As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to locate the power management board adjacent the battery packs.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210323033 by Suguira in view of WO2019161995A1 by Maier et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190388923 by Giacalone et al. as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20240198392 by Eschrich et al.
As to claim 19, Suguira does not teach a cooling fan on the control board. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a cooling fan. Eschrich teaches a power washing having a cooling fan adjacent to the housing of a control board for the purpose of circulating air to facilitate heat dissipation of the controller (para. 55). Upon this obvious modification, one of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized as obvious to have the claimed air path sequence (see Suguira, fig. 7). Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
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
