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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 07/01/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that claim 15 includes all the limitations of claim 1. This is not found persuasive because the respective subject matter searches of the different inventions are in two different class/subclasses. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the search for method claims requires the identification of processing steps, while the search for apparatus claims requires the identification of structural elements.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, figures 1 and 2 should be designed by a legend such as –Prior Art – since only that which is old is illustrated.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR2378577 to Fontana (hereinafter “Fontana”, presented in the IDS filed on 02/18/2025, see English translation filed on 02/18/2025) in view of DE 102013006822 to Linder (hereinafter “Linder”, presented in the IDS filed on 02/18/2025, see English translation filed on 02/18/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Fontana teaches a cleaning arrangement comprising a pneumatic distributor (figure 4, #16’) having a pneumatic fluid input (figure 4, #16, air pump) and a plurality of pneumatic fluid outputs (see figure 4), wherein each of the outputs are configured to provide fluid to an interior of the tank via a respective port in a wall of the tank (see figure 4), and fluid nozzles (air injection nozzles, figure 4, #13) fluidly connected to the end of the fluid outputs (see figure 4) (English translation, page 4, lines 162-172), wherein the fluid nozzles (air injection nozzles, figure 4, #13) can be subjected to individual and differential adjustment to obtain optimum distribution of the injected air (English translation, page 4, lines 169-172).
Fontana does not explicitly teach that the fluid outputs are configured to selectively route pneumatic fluid from the input to the outputs, wherein according to the selectively routed distribution of fluid a variable vortex in the tank interior is created.
Linder teaches a cleaning arrangement for cleaning a container (English translation [0001], and figure 3), the cleaning arrangement comprising an air supply, (figure 3, #52) including a plurality of outputs (figure 3, #54a, 54b, and 54c) wherein each of the outputs comprise a valve (figure 3, #56a, 56b, and 56c) for controlling the air supplied to a plurality of nozzles (see figure 3) (English translation [0041-0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Fontana wherein the fluid outputs are configured to selectively route pneumatic fluid from the input to the outputs, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Fontana teaches that the fluid nozzles (air injection nozzles, figure 4, #13 of Fontana) fluidly connected to the end of the fluid outputs can be subjected to individual and differential adjustment to obtain optimum distribution of the injected air (English translation, page 4, lines 169-172 of Fontana), and Linder teaches that a cleaning arrangement can comprise a plurality of outputs (figure 3, #54a, 54b, and 54c of Linder) for supplying air to the interior of a tank, wherein each of the outputs comprise a valve (figure 3, #56a, 56b, and 56c of Linder) for controlling the air supplied to a plurality of nozzles located in the interior of the tank (see figure 3 of Linder) (English translation [0041-0042] of Linder).
Fontana/Linder does not explicitly teach that according to the selectively routed distribution of fluid a variable vortex in the tank interior is created.
However, since the apparatus of the Fontana/Linder teaching includes the structural features of the claimed apparatus, it is the base presumption that the apparatus of the Fontana/Linder teaching is fully capable of being used for selectively routing the distribution of fluid to create a variable vortex of fluid in the interior of the tank.
Fontana/Linder does not explicitly teach that the cleaning arrangement is for cleaning the interior of a tank containing fluid.
However, since the apparatus of the Fontana/Linder teaching includes the structural features of the claimed apparatus, it is the base presumption that the apparatus of the Fontana/Linder teaching is fully capable of being used for cleaning the interior of a tank containing fluid.
Regarding claim 2, Fontana/Linder teaches that the distributer is configured to selectively vary the distribution of the pneumatic fluid between the outputs (English translation, page 4, lines 169-172 of Fontana, and English translation [0041-0042] of Linder).
Fontana/Linder does not explicitly teach that the distributer is configured to selectively vary the distribution of the pneumatic fluid between the outputs during a cleaning process to cause the generated vortex to move around the interior of the tank.
However, since the apparatus of the Fontana/Linder teaching includes the structural features of the claimed apparatus, and the combination of Fontana and Linder teaches that the distributer is configured to selectively vary the distribution of the pneumatic fluid between the outputs (English translation, page 4, lines 169-172 of Fontana, and English translation [0041-0042] of Linder), it is the base presumption that the apparatus of the Fontana/Linder teaching is fully capable of being used for varying the distribution of the pneumatic fluid between the outputs during a cleaning process to cause the generated vortex to move around the interior of the tank.
Regarding claim 3, Fontana/Linder further teaches a fluid nozzle (figure 3, #13 of Fontana) fluidly connected to each of the fluid outputs (see figure 4 of Fontana), each of the nozzles configured to extend through a respective one of the ports in the wall of the tank (see figure 4 of Fontana).
Regarding claim 7, Fontana/Linder further teaches a fill line (figure 4, #15 of Fontana) connected to the input of the distributer (see figure 4 of Fontana) and configured to be connected to a supply of pneumatic fluid (see figure 4 of Fontana).
Regarding claim 8, Fontana/Linder further teaches that the pneumatic fluid is air (English translation page 4, lines 62-64 of Fontana).
Regarding claim 10, Fontana/Linder further teaches a fluid conduit (figure 4, #14 of Fontana) connected to each of the outputs of the distributer (figure 4, #16’ of Fontana) and configured to be in fluid communication with a respective one of the ports in the wall of the tank (see figure 4 of Fontana).
Regarding claim 11, Fontana/Linder further teaches that the cleaning arrangement comprises four outputs of the distributer and four ports in the wall of the tank (see figure 4 of Fontana).
Regarding claim 12, Fontana teaches a tank defining an interior volume (see figure 4) comprising a cleaning arrangement including a pneumatic distributor (figure 4, #16’) having a pneumatic fluid input (figure 4, #16, air pump) and a plurality of pneumatic fluid outputs (see figure 4), wherein each of the outputs are configured to provide fluid to an interior of the tank via a respective port in a wall of the tank (see figure 4), and fluid nozzles (air injection nozzles, figure 4, #13) fluidly connected to the end of the fluid outputs (see figure 4) (English translation, page 4, lines 162-172), wherein the fluid nozzles (air injection nozzles, figure 4, #13) can be subjected to individual and differential adjustment to obtain optimum distribution of the injected air (English translation, page 4, lines 169-172).
Fontana does not explicitly teach that the fluid outputs are configured to selectively route pneumatic fluid from the input to the outputs, wherein according to the selectively routed distribution of fluid a variable vortex in the tank interior is created.
Linder teaches a cleaning arrangement for cleaning a container (English translation [0001], and figure 3), the cleaning arrangement comprising an air supply, (figure 3, #52) including a plurality of outputs (figure 3, #54a, 54b, and 54c) wherein each of the outputs comprise a valve (figure 3, #56a, 56b, and 56c) for controlling the air supplied to a plurality of nozzles (see figure 3) (English translation [0041-0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Fontana wherein the fluid outputs are configured to selectively route pneumatic fluid from the input to the outputs, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Fontana teaches that the fluid nozzles (air injection nozzles, figure 4, #13 of Fontana) fluidly connected to the end of the fluid outputs can be subjected to individual and differential adjustment to obtain optimum distribution of the injected air (English translation, page 4, lines 169-172 of Fontana), and Linder teaches that a cleaning arrangement can comprise a plurality of outputs (figure 3, #54a, 54b, and 54c of Linder) for supplying air to the interior of a tank, wherein each of the outputs comprise a valve (figure 3, #56a, 56b, and 56c of Linder) for controlling the air supplied to a plurality of nozzles located in the interior of the tank (see figure 3 of Linder) (English translation [0041-0042] of Linder).
Fontana/Linder does not explicitly teach that according to the selectively routed distribution of fluid a variable vortex in the tank interior is created.
However, since the apparatus of the Fontana/Linder teaching includes the structural features of the claimed apparatus, it is the base presumption that the apparatus of the Fontana/Linder teaching is fully capable of being used for selectively routing the distribution of fluid to create a variable vortex of fluid in the interior of the tank.
Regarding claim 13, Fontana/Linder further teaches that the distributer (figure 4, #16’) is mounted to an exterior of the tank (see figure 4 of Fontana).
Regarding claim 14, Fontana/Linder further teaches that the tank can contain water (English translation, page 4, lines 62-63). In addition, Fontana/Linder teaches that the tank is open at the top (see figure 4 of Fortana) (reads on “inlet”).
Fontana/Linder does not explicitly teach that the opening top of the tank (inlet) is a waste inlet.
However, since the apparatus of the Fontana/Linder teaching includes the structural features of the claimed apparatus, and Fontana teaches that the tank is open at the top (see figure 4 of Fortana), it is the base presumption that the tank of the Fontana/Linder teaching is fully capable of being used wherein the open top of the tank is used as a waste inlet.
Fontana does not teach that the tank comprises a drain.
However, Linder teaches a tank comprising a drain (see figure 3 of Linder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Fontana/Linder wherein the tank comprises a drain, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of facilitating the removal of fluid from the container.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR2378577 to Fontana (hereinafter “Fontana”, presented in the IDS filed on 02/18/2025, see English translation filed on 02/18/2025) in view of DE 102013006822 to Linder (hereinafter “Linder”, presented in the IDS filed on 02/18/2025, see English translation filed on 02/18/2025), and in further view of EP 4286283 to Swirniak et al. (hereinafter “Swirniak”, presented in the IDS filed on 02/18/2025).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Fontana/Linder does not teach that the nozzles are retractably mounted relative to the respective ports, wherein each nozzle is mounted within a housing and is biased by means of a spring to a retracted position within the housing, wherein the nozzle is forced to extend from the housing into the tank interior when the pressure of pneumatic fluid routed to that nozzle from the fluid distributor exceeds the force of the spring.
Swirniak teaches a device for cleaning a tank comprising a nozzle mounted within a housing (figure 4, #120, 130, and 180), wherein the nozzle is biased by means of a spring (figure 4, #190) to a retracted position within the housing (see figure 3), and the nozzle is forced to extend from the housing when the pressure of the fluid routed to the nozzle exceeds the force of the spring [0013-0015].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Fontana/Linder wherein the nozzles are retractably mounted relative to the respective ports, each nozzle mounted within a housing and biased by means of a spring to a retracted position within the housing, wherein the nozzle is forced to extend from the housing into the tank interior when the pressure of pneumatic fluid routed to that nozzle from the fluid distributor exceeds the force of the spring, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Swirniak teaches that it is effective to use a cleaning device comprising retractable nozzles for cleaning the interior surfaces of a tank ([0001 and 0013-0015] of Swirniak).
Regarding claim 6, Fontana/Linder/Swirniak further teaches a seal between the nozzle and the housing ([0015] of Swirniak).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR2378577 to Fontana (hereinafter “Fontana”, presented in the IDS filed on 02/18/2025, see English translation filed on 02/18/2025) in view of DE 102013006822 to Linder (hereinafter “Linder”, presented in the IDS filed on 02/18/2025, see English translation filed on 02/18/2025), and in further view of US 5,384,990 to Spears, Jr. (hereinafter “Spears”, presented in the IDS filed on 02/18/2025).
Regarding claim 9, Fontana/Linder does not teach that the pneumatic fluid comprises abrasive particles.
Spears teaches that abrasive blasting techniques have been used for cleaning a surface including dry blasting which involves directing the abrasive particles to the surface by means of pressurized air (column 1, lines 21-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Fontana/Linder wherein the pneumatic fluid comprises abrasive particles, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Spears teaches that abrasive blasting techniques have been widely used for cleaning a surface including dry blasting which involves directing the abrasive particles to the surface by means of pressurized air (column 1, lines 21-36 of Spears).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 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 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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights