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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the amendment.
Applicant’s argument that the amendment overcomes the prior art is not persuasive. The amendments incorporate the language from dependent claims 3, 5, and 9. These claims were addressed in the previous action and taught by the cited prior art. The arguments do not highlight as to why the prior art fails to teach the limitations of these previously presented claims. There is no discussion as to how it overcomes or differentiates over the prior art. Regarding these limitations, Swirniak teaches wherein the rinse nozzle comprises a housing (120) defining a fluid flow channel (125) (fig 4 and 5B) from a first end to a second end along the axis A (para 0025), and wherein the telescopic mechanism comprises two or more telescopic arms (130 and 180) in a telescopic configuration within the housing (para 0022-0023) and wherein the rotary head comprises a rotary head base (140) and a plurality of rotary head arms (left and right portions of base 140) extending substantially axially from the base (fig 3), each rotary head arm comprising a fluid channel (200) and one or more apertures (200) for the spray of fluid from the fluid channel (para 0024).
Applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to teach the new limitation of the rotary head arms extending substantially axially along an outer side of the housing is not persuasive. There is no discussion as to how it overcomes the art. The arms (140) taught by Swirniak are part of the nozzle head that extend along outside of housing (120) as show in figs 4-5 and para 0022. The limitation does not differentiate over swirniak and is broadly interpreted. Thus, it is taught by the prior art.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “biasing means” and “means for applying rinse fluid” in claim 1. The corresponding structures for these limitations interpreted under 112(f) seem to be present in the drawings and/or specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swirniak (PG Pub U.S 2023/0381836).
9. Regarding claim 1, Swirniak teaches a rinse arrangement for cleaning an interior volume of a tank (abstract; figs 3-5B), the arrangement comprising: a rinse nozzle (200) having a rotary head (140) via which rinse fluid is sprayed as the head rotates about a rinse nozzle axis A (x-axis) (para 0016), wherein the rinse nozzle comprises a housing (120) defining a fluid flow channel (125) (fig 4 and 5B) from a first end to a second end along the axis A (para 0025), a telescopic mechanism (130,180) attached to the rotary head movable between a retracted position (A1) and an extended position (A2) along the rinse nozzle axis A (para 0022); and wherein the telescopic mechanism comprises two or more telescopic arms (130 and 180) in a telescopic configuration within the housing (para 0022-0023); a biasing means (190) to bias the telescopic mechanism to the retracted position (fig 4) (para 0023); means for applying rinse fluid to the rinse nozzle alternately at a low pressure and a high pressure (para 0020), the low pressure the fluid to spray from the rotary head and causing rotation of the rotary head around the axis due to the force of the spraying of the fluid (para 0017-0020), but the low pressure being insufficient to overcome the bias (para 0020), and the high pressure overcoming the bias and causing the telescopic mechanism to move to the extended position and to cause rotation of the rotary head around the axis due to the force of the spraying of the fluid (para 0020); wherein the rotary head comprises a rotary head base (140) and a plurality of rotary head arms (left and right portions of base 140) extending substantially axially from the base (fig 3) and along an outer side of the housing (seen by figs 4-5 and para 0022), each rotary head arm comprising a fluid channel (200) and one or more apertures (200) for the spray of fluid from the fluid channel (para 0024).
10. Regarding claim 2, Swirniak teaches wherein the biasing means is a spring (190) (para 0023).
11. Regarding claim 4, Swirniak teaches wherein the rinse nozzle defines a fluid flow channel (125) to the rotary head (fig 4).
12. Regarding claim 6, Swirniak teaches further comprising: wherein the two or more telescopic arms include a first telescopic arm (130) and a second telescopic arm (180) (para 0022), the second telescopic arm located radially inwards of the first telescopic arm (fig 4) and being attached at a second end to the rotary head to cause linear movement of the rotary head along axis A as the second telescopic arm extends relative to the housing (para 0026).
13. Regarding claim 12, Swirniak teaches a tank defining an interior volume to be cleaned (claim 8, para 0016 and 0020), the tank comprising: a rinse fluid inlet port between an exterior of the tank and the interior (claim 8, para 0016 and 0020); and a rinse arrangement as claimed in claim 1 located in the inlet port such that the rotary head extends into the interior of the tank (claim 8, para 0016 and 0020).
14. Regarding claim 14, Swirniak teaches a method of cleaning an interior of a tank (abstract) comprising: mounting a rinse arrangement as claimed in claim 1 to an inlet port of the tank (claim 8 and para 0020); and applying the rinse fluid alternately at low pressure and high pressure (para 0020).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swirniak (PG Pub U.S 2023/0381836) and further in view of Jonsson. (PG Pub U.S 2005/0011545).
18. Regarding claim 7, Swirniak teaches an attachment of the second telescopic arm to the rotary head (para 0029) but fails to teach a clip attaching the second telescopic arm to the rotary head. However, Jonsson also teaches a system for cleaning a tank wherein it is known to connect an arm to a cleaning head using a clip (para 0013) in order to achieve the predictable result of securing the arm to the head. 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 Swirniak such that there is a clip attaching the second telescopic arm to the rotary head as suggested by Jonsson in order to achieve the predictable result of securing the arm to the head.
19. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swirniak (PG Pub U.S 2023/0381836).
20. Regarding claim 8, Swirniak fails to specifically teach wherein the rotary head comprises four rotary head arms. However, another embodiment of Swirniak teaches that it is known for the rotary head to have a number of nozzles (15; reads on head arms) (para 0016) in order to provide enhanced spraying coverage in the tank. 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 Swirniak such that wherein the rotary head comprises four rotary head arms in order to provide enhanced spraying coverage in the tank.
21. Regarding claim 15, Swirniak fails to specifically teach applying rinse fluid alternately at low pressure and high pressure for multiple cycles. However, depending on the cleanliness of the tank after the first cycle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat the cycle of low and high pressure spraying in order to increase the cleanliness of the tank.
22. Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swirniak (PG Pub U.S 2023/0381836) and further in view of Kohl et al. (U.S Patent 6,227,262).
23. Regarding claim 10, Swirniak teaches a liquid supply/hose connected to the rinse arrangement but fails to specially teach wherein the means for applying rinse fluid comprises a pulse valve. However, Kohl teaches it is known to include a pulse valve to supply liquid to the tank in order to maintain a liquid level in the tank (claim 8). 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 Swirniak such that the means for applying rinse fluid comprises a pulse valve as taught by Kohl in order to maintain a liquid level in the tank.
24. Regarding claim 11, the present combination of Swirniak and Kohl teaches wherein the pulse valve is connected to the rinse nozzle by a connector tube (hose) (para 0022-0023 of Swirniak).
25. Regarding claim 13, Swirniak fails to teach a drain port for draining the fluid from the tank. However, Kohl teaches it is known for a tank to include a drain port for draining the fluid from the tank in order to prevent overflow and maintain a liquid level in the tank (col 4 lines 12-17). 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 Swirniak such that there is a drain port for draining the fluid from the tank as taught by Kohl in order to prevent overflow and maintain a liquid level in the tank.
Conclusion
26. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADHUMAN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1633. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kaj Olsen can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P.P/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights