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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second spraying head in claim 3, ln. 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference characters "1" and "2" have both been used to designate the same feature in Figs. 1-6
Reference characters "20" and "30" have both been used to designate the same feature in Figs. 3-4
Reference characters "16" and "36" have both been used to designate the same feature in Fig. 3
Reference characters "40" and "50" have both been used to designate the same feature in Fig. 3
Reference characters "43", “32”, “53”, and "22" have both been used to designate the same feature in Figs. 3-4
Reference characters "44", “12”, “54”, and "52" have both been used to designate the same feature in Figs. 3 and 5
Reference characters "10" and "30" have both been used to designate the same feature in Figs. 3 and 5
Reference characters "45" and "55" have both been used to designate the same feature in Fig. 3
Reference characters "13" and "63" have both been used to designate the same feature in Fig. 5
Reference characters "14" and "64" have both been used to designate the same feature in Fig. 5
Reference characters "16" and "66" have both been used to designate the same feature in Fig. 5
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. 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 § 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, 4-5, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burdsall et al. (US 20060255183 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Burdsall discloses a spraying device (10, Fig. 1) for a pressure cleaning device, the spraying device (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a base body (14, Fig. 1);
a spraying head (32, Fig. 1) with a spraying opening (shown in Fig. 1) through which cleaning fluid can be sprayed (Paragraph 0015);
a lance (12, Fig. 1) capable of being arranged between the base body (14, Fig. 1) and the spraying head (32, Fig. 1);
a base connection device (52, 150, Fig. 2) by which the lance (12, Figs. 1-2) can be detachably connected to the base body (14, shown in Fig. 2); and
a head connection device (152, 154, Fig. 1) by which the lance (12, Fig. 1) can be detachably connected to the spraying head (32, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024),
wherein the cleaning fluid is conveyed from the base body (14, Fig. 1) to the spraying opening (shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0015),
wherein the base connection device (52, 150, Fig. 2) is configured to be detached with a base detachment force (pole 12 is installed on handle 14 by sliding first section 150 of pole 12 coaxially over forward end portion 52 of handle 14, and would require a force to detach Paragraph 0025),
wherein the head connection device (152, 154, Fig. 1) is configured to be detached with a head detachment force (pole 12 has a screw-threaded fitting 154 which, as known in the art, can be loosened to permit movement of the second section 152 telescopically within the first section 150, and tightened to retain the second section 152 in a selected position for a selected length of the pole 12, and would require a force to detach, Paragraph 0024), and
wherein the base detachment force and the head detachment force are of different magnitude (52 and 150 are different connectors than 152 and 154, which would have different magnitudes of forces, shown in Figs. 1-2, Paragraphs 0024-0025).
In regards to claim 4, Burdsall discloses the spraying device according to claim 1, wherein the base connection device (52, 150, Fig. 2) comprises a base element (52, Fig. 2) on the base body (14, Fig. 2) and a base lance element (150, Fig. 2) on the lance (12, Fig. 2), and
wherein the head connection device (152, 154, Fig. 1) comprises a head element (152, Fig. 1) on the spraying head (32, Fig. 1) and a head lance element (154, Fig. 1) on the lance (12, Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 5, Burdsall discloses the spraying device according to claim 1. Burdsall discloses the spraying head (32, Fig. 1) is capable of being fastened directly to the base body (14, Fig. 2) without interposition (interpreting as to place in an intervening position, Merriam-Webster Dictionary) of the lance (12, nozzle assembly 32 and nozzle 176 connect directly to handle 14 through extension hose 30, shown in Figs. 1, 4, 6, Paragraphs 0015-0016).
Regarding claim 15, Burdsall discloses a pressure cleaning device (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising a spraying device (10, Fig. 1) according to claim 1.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdsall et al. (US 20060255183 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Burdsall discloses the spraying device according to claim 1. Burdsall discloses all aspects of the claimed invention except for the head detachment force is smaller than the base detachment force.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the head detachment force is smaller than the base detachment force. Relative dimensions are generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In addition, since there is only a finite number of solutions to modify the head detachment force is smaller than the base detachment force, with a reasonable expectation of success, a person of ordinary skill would have a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdsall et al. (US 20060255183 A1) in view of Hahn et al. (US 7854398).
Regarding claim 3, Burdsall discloses the spraying device according to claim 1. However, Burdsall does not disclose a second spraying head.
Hahn teaches a second spraying head (420, Fig. 6), wherein the spraying device (entire structure, Fig. 6) is configured to be used with either the spraying head (410, Fig. 6) or the second spraying head (420, Fig. 6), and wherein the spraying head (410, Fig. 6) and the second spraying head (420, Fig. 6) have different properties (Col. 13, Ln. 1-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the second spraying head taught in Hahn’s spraying device to Burdsall’s spraying device, to have the motivation to have different types of fluid flow for different uses (Hahn, Col. 13, Ln. 1-25).
Claims 6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdsall et al. (US 20060255183 A1) in view of Fischer (EP 2922637).
With respect to claim 6, Burdsall discloses the spraying device according to claim 1. However, Burdsall does not disclose the base connection device and/or the head connection device comprises a bayonet catch.
Fischer teaches the base connection device (50, Fig. 1) comprises a bayonet catch (Paragraph 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the base connection device taught in Fischer’s spraying device to Burdsall’s spraying device, to yield the predictable result of having the base connection device and/or the head connection device comprises a bayonet catch. Doing so provides a connection device that has specific rotational positioning for locking (Fischer, Paragraph 0013).
Regarding claim 13, Burdsall discloses the spraying device according to claim 1. However, Burdsall does not disclose the base connection device is designed for it to be visible from outside whether the base connection device is in a closed state or in an open state, and/or wherein the head connection device is designed for it to be visible from outside whether the head connection device is in a closed state or in an open state.
Fischer teaches the base connection device (50, Figs. 1-4) is designed for it to be visible from outside whether the base connection device is in a closed state or in an open state (spring arms 79 and 81 project into recesses 78 and 80 of bayonet coupling part 50 which indicates a closed state from the outside, Figs. 1-4, Paragraph 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the base connection device taught in Fischer’s spraying device to Burdsall’s spraying device, to yield the predictable result of having the base connection device is designed for it to be visible from outside whether the base connection device is in a closed state or in an open state, and/or wherein the head connection device is designed for it to be visible from outside whether the head connection device is in a closed state or in an open state. Doing so provides a connection device that has specific rotational positioning for locking (Fischer, Paragraph 0013).
In regards to claim 14, Burdsall discloses the spraying device according to claim 1. However, Burdsall does not disclose the base connection device and/or the head connection device comprises a bayonet catch, wherein the bayonet catch has a male part and a female part, and wherein a window is provided on the female part so that it is visible from outside whether the male part is located inside the female part in the closed state.
Fischer teaches the base connection device (50, Figs. 1-4) comprises a bayonet catch (Paragraph 0031),
wherein the bayonet catch (50, Figs. 1-4) has a male part (79, 81, Figs. 1-4) and a female part (78, 80, Figs. 1-4), and
wherein a window (concave edge of bayonet coupling part 50, shown in Figs. 1-4) is provided on the female part (78, 80, Figs. 1-4) so that it is visible from outside whether the male part (79, 81, Figs. 1-4) is located inside the female part (78, 80, Figs. 1-4) in the closed state (spring arms 79 and 81 project into recesses 78 and 80 of bayonet coupling part 50 which indicates a closed state from the outside, Figs. 1-4, Paragraph 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the base connection device taught in Fischer’s spraying device to Burdsall’s spraying device, to yield the predictable result of having the base connection device and/or the head connection device comprises a bayonet catch, wherein the bayonet catch has a male part and a female part, and wherein a window is provided on the female part so that it is visible from outside whether the male part is located inside the female part in the closed state. Doing so provides a connection device that has specific rotational positioning for locking (Fischer, Paragraph 0013).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdsall et al. (US 20060255183 A1) in view of Hartmann (EP 2505899).
Regarding claim 7, Burdsall discloses the spraying device according to claim 1. However, Burdsall does not disclose wherein the spraying device comprises a base securing element for securing the base connection device against detachment and/or wherein the spraying device comprises a head securing element for securing the head connection device against detachment.
Hartmann teaches the spraying device (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprises a base securing element (56, Fig. 2) for securing the base connection device (2, Figs. 1-3) against detachment (Paragraphs 0016, 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the base securing element taught in Hartmann’s spraying device to Burdsall’s spraying device, to have the motivation to have a connection device that easily connects and disconnects hydraulic lines, while preventing leaks when disconnected (Hartmann, Paragraph 0002).
In regards to claim 8, Burdsall, as modified by Hartmann, discloses the spraying device according to claim 7. Hartmann teaches wherein the base securing element (56, Fig. 2) is a first spring (Paragraph 0021), and
wherein the head securing element (54, Fig. 2) is a second spring (Paragraph 0021).
With respect to claim 9, Burdsall, as modified by Hartmann, discloses the spraying device according to claim 8. Hartmann teaches a spring hardness of the first spring and a spring hardness of the second spring are of different magnitude (spring force of spring 54 is smaller than spring force of spring 56, which results in different magnitudes of spring hardness, Paragraph 0021, and as extrinsically evidenced by NPL Phys.org, which describes force is proportional to spring stiffness).
With respect to claim 10, Burdsall, as modified by Hartmann, discloses the spraying device according to claim 9. Hartmann teaches the spring hardness of the first spring is greater than the spring hardness of the second spring (spring force of spring 54 is smaller than spring force of spring 56, which results in the spring hardness of the first spring is greater than the spring hardness of the second spring, Paragraph 0031, and as extrinsically evidenced by NPL Phys.org, which describes force is proportional to spring stiffness).
Regarding claim 11, Burdsall, as modified by Hartmann, discloses the spraying device according to claim 7. Burdsall discloses the lance (12, Fig. 1) extends in a longitudinal direction (shown in Fig. 1) from the base body (14, shown in Fig. 1) to the spraying head (32, shown in Fig. 1).
Hartmann teaches the base securing element (56, Fig. 2) act in a longitudinal direction (shown in Figs. 1, 3, Paragraph 0021).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdsall et al. (US 20060255183 A1) in view of Hartmann (EP 2505899) as applied to claims 7 and 11 above, and further in view of Fischer (EP 2922637).
In regards to claim 12, Burdsall, as modified by Hartmann, discloses the spraying device according to claim 11. Hartmann teaches the base securing element (56, Fig. 2) presses the base body (housing 18 of plug 2, Figs. 1, 3) and the lance (housing 18 of sleeve 4, Figs. 1, 3) apart with respect to the longitudinal direction (shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0021).
However, Burdsall and Hartmann do not teach the base connection device and/or the head connection device comprises a bayonet catch.
Fischer teaches the base connection device (50, Fig. 1) comprises a bayonet catch (Paragraph 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the base connection device taught in Fischer’s spraying device to Burdsall’s spraying device, as modified by Hartmann, to yield the predictable result of having the base connection device and/or the head connection device comprises a bayonet catch. Doing so provides a connection device that has specific rotational positioning for locking (Fischer, Paragraph 0013).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
