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 .
Election/Restrictions
This application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of claims 11-16 directed to an invention non-elected without traverse. Accordingly, claims 11-16 have been cancelled.
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.
Claims 1, 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zilai et al. (US20170173617).
Regarding claim 1, Zilai et al. teaches an apparatus for cleaning a tank (see abstract, paragraph [0007]), comprising: a fluid for washing the tank (see abstract, paragraph [0058]); a manifold 2 with a first actuatable valve 71 and a second actuatable valve 71 in communication with the fluid (see figure 8A, paragraph [0088]); a first nozzle assembly 7 coupled by a first hose (see paragraph [0084]) to the first actuatable valve 71 and a second nozzle assembly 7 coupled by a second hose to the second actuatable valve 71, wherein the nozzle assemblies each have a nozzle head 53 that sprays the fluid from the hoses into the tank and rotates through an oscillation pattern (see paragraphs [0084], [0087]-[0092], figures 7A-11); and a computer 101 in communication with the manifold 2 to send control signals for operating the valves 71 (see paragraphs [0088], [0093], [0102], [0105]).
Regarding claim 2, Zilai et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zilai et al. also teaches in paragraphs [0058], [0092] that each of the nozzle assemblies 71 may rotate through the oscillation pattern using some of the fluid from the hoses diverted from the nozzle head 53 (see hydraulic rotation of the nozzles).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilai et al. (US20170173617) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Sugino (JP3175984U).
Regarding claim 8, Zilai et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zilai et al. teaches in paragraph [0106] that sensors may be used to monitor system and nozzle parameters and connected to the computer 101. Zilai et al. does not explicitly teach a camera. Sugino teaches a tank cleaning system (see abstract) and that a camera may be disposed in the tank and in connection with the computer to send images of inside the tank displayed on the computer, so as to guide the nozzle and the cleaning operation (see page 3 of the translation). Since both Zilai et al. and Sugino teach tank cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a camera may be included in the system by Zilai et al. so as to allow for monitoring and guidance of the nozzle and cleaning operation, as shown to be known and conventional by Sugino.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Zilai et al. (US20170173617). Zilai et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claims 3-7, 9-10 and independent claim 17, including the following limitations of claim 14: “…a toggle assembly with a slider moveable between first and second positions for switching flow of the portion of the fluid between two ports of a drive assembly; an impeller in the drive assembly operatively connected to rotate the nozzle head clockwise and counterclockwise based on which of the two ports receive the portion of the fluid from the toggle assembly; and toggle switch actuators coupled to the nozzle head to rotate with the nozzle head and contact the slider of the toggle assembly resulting in rotational direction of the nozzle head being switched”. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights