DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “outlet water” should be “water outlet”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN221109139U by Yan et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20240055838 by Kondrus et al.
As to claim 1, Yan teaches a water tank device comprising a circuit control unit 618 (fig. 4); a water tank body 612; a water pump 614 inside the water tank body, connected to a water outlet pipe (to hose 4, fig. 3) and extending out of the water tank body, wherein the pump is electrically connected to the control unit and the water outlet pipe is connected to a water outlet; and the water outlet is connected to a water pipe 4 (fig. 3) and fluid in the tank is pumped to a camera to spray onto a lens surface 2 (fig. 1).
Yan is silent as to the device’s wiring and whether the wiring is enclosed in conduit. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that using conduit for electrical wiring was very well-known and common in the art for the established purpose of protecting wiring. Thus, it would have been recognized as obvious for the pump to be connected to an electrical conduit that is connected to the control unit.
Yan also does not teach a base and an explosion-proof shield combined with the base to completely enclose the control unit, water tank body electrical conduit, and water outlet pipe. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to enclose the water tank device of Yan in an explosion-proof shield and base that form an enclosure. Kondrus recognizes that explosion-proof enclosures are known to be used in potentially explosive atmospheres to accommodate possible ignition sources, for example electrical and/or electronic devices (para. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus had motivation to arrange the water tank device of Yan inside an explosion-proof shield and base in order to accommodate possible ignition sources, in particular the electrical components of the water tank device.
Upon the obvious enclosure of the water tank device taught by Yan, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a water outlet of the base. The particular location of the water outlet, whether at the base or at another portion of the enclosure, would have been recognized as an obvious design choice because a different position of the outlet would not have modified the operation of the water tank device. See MPEP 21440.4(VI)(C)).
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 3, upon the obvious combination to have an explosion-proof water tank device, the base would have a bottom seat with one side connected to a vertical plate, and the opposite sides of the bottom seat and the vertical plate connected to side plates. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the water outlet being disposed on the side plate would have been an obvious design choice as discussed above.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN221109139U by Yan et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20240055838 by Kondrus et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20250289038 by Harasawa et al.
As to claim 2, Yan teaches that its device has an electronic water level gauge 615 in the tank body and connected to the control unit (para. 58). While Yan does not teach that the gauge is connected to a conduit, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that using conduit for electrical wiring was very well-known and common in the art for the established purpose of protecting wiring. Thus, it would have been recognized as obvious for the gauge to be connected to an electrical conduit that is connected to the control unit.
Yan also does not teach that the gauge is a buoy. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a buoy configured as a water level gauge. Float-type switches were well-known in the art (see e.g. Harasawa, para. 67), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to embody the gauge of Yan as a float switch based on its typical and established use.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 4, Yan is silent as to the material of its water tank body, but one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that at least metal was a common and established material for fluid tank bodies (see e.g. Harasawa, para. 55, noting that a metal such as stainless steel has advantages of excellent heat resistance and corrosion resistance).
Conclusion
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