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 Amendment
Examiner acknowledges applicants’ cancellation of claims 1-10 and addition of claims 11-20 in the Response dated June 16, 2025 to the Non-final Office Action dated March 19, 2025. However, it is acknowledged that claims 11-20 are new claims, not amended nor previously presented claims as explained below in the claim objection section. Claims 11-20 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
Examiner acknowledges applicants’ arguments and cancellation of claim 7 to resolve multiple dependency, which obviate the claim objection described in the Non-final Office Action dated March 19, 2025. Therefore, Examiner withdraws further objection.
Examiner acknowledges applicants’ arguments and amendments of claims 1 and 8 to resolve indefiniteness of the claims, which obviate the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) described in the Non-final Office Action dated March 19, 2025. Therefore, Examiner withdraws further rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, upon further consideration, Examiner sets forth below new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) against claim 18.
Examiner acknowledges that any arguments applicants have made with respect to the original claims 1-10 and new claims 11-20 in the Response dated June 16, 2025 are deemed moot in light of the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below for new claims 11-20 since Examiner could not have reasonably anticipated any rejection of new claims 11-20 in the Non-final Office Action dated March 19, 2025.
Drawing Objections
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 “liquid supply source” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The “liquid supply source” is supposed to be element #8 according to the first line of p. 9 of applicant’s specification but this feature does not appear anywhere in the figures. No new matter should be entered.
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.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the “liquid supply source” was not shown in the drawings as required. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-20 are objected for having the wrong status identifiers. The application was originally filed with claims 1-10. Those claims have been cancelled and claims 11-20 have been presented in their place, as such claims 11-20 are entirely new and the status identifier should be reflected as such. Further, there is no need to demonstrate amendments to new claims as these aren’t the claims that were presented previously. Lastly, having the wrong status identifier in this matter technically makes the response non-compliant. However in the interest of compact prosecution this objection will serve as a reminder to include the correct status identifiers in future responses.
Claim 18 is objected to for minor informalities, line 1 recites “The cleaning device for…” however as claim 18 appears to be independent, this should recite --A cleaning device for-- to demonstrate proper antecedence for the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “the liquid supply source” in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As claim 18 is independent, it’s unclear as to which liquid supply source is being referred.
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.
Examiner sets forth new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) with respect to amended or new features as described below because each of the features of applicants claimed invention as newly added are anticipated by the prior art.
Claim(s) 11-16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub No 2005/0150982 A1 to Lopez et al.
Regarding claim 11, Lopez et al. show a cleaning device (Figs. 1 & 6) for cleaning a vehicle element, comprising:
- a liquid supply source (100),
- a spray nozzle unit (33/38) and
- a housing (36/37) which encloses the spray nozzle unit at least in portions, wherein the spray nozzle unit is linearly movable relative to the housing (Figs. 6A & 6B), wherein the spray nozzle unit is connected (E) to the liquid supply source for the entry of a cleaning liquid, and wherein the spray nozzle unit is moved by means of pressure of the cleaning liquid when the cleaning liquid enters (paragraph 0063),
wherein the housing (36/37) comprises a first outer diameter section (36), a second outer diameter section (37) and a transition portion (32) between the first and second outer diameter sections, where the second outer diameter section (37) has a larger outer diameter than the first outer diameter section (36), wherein the transition portion (32) selectively forms at least one side fluid channel (see annotated figure) between the housing (36/37) and a closed end of a piston (38), wherein the at least one side fluid channel (30) is a selective fluid connection between the liquid supply source (100, through E) and the spray nozzle unit (33/38).
PNG
media_image1.png
558
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Lopez et al. show the housing (36/37) has an entry opening (see annotated figure) for the entry of the cleaning liquid, which entry opening (see annotated figure) is covered (Fig. 6A) by the spray nozzle unit (33/38) when the latter is in an idle state (Fig. 6A), wherein when the cleaning liquid enters, the spray nozzle unit is movable relative to the entry opening and away therefrom (paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 13, Lopez et al. show the spray nozzle unit (33/38) is arranged at a distance from the entry opening (see annotated figure) in a use state (Fig. 6B) and releases an inner space (see annotated figure) of the housing which is fluidically connected to the entry opening (see annotated figure).
Regarding claim 14, Lopez et al. show the spray nozzle unit (33/38) comprises a closed first end (see annotated figure) and a second end (33) provided with a nozzle opening (see annotated figure), wherein at least one inlet channel (see annotated figure) for the cleaning liquid is formed between the ends.
Regarding claim 15, Lopez et al. show the spray nozzle unit comprises, in the region of the closed first end (see annotated figure), a lateral inlet opening (30) for the entry of the cleaning liquid into the inlet channel (see annotated figure).
Regarding claim 16, Lopez et al. show the lateral inlet opening (30) is covered by an inner wall (wall of 36) of the housing (36/37) when the spray nozzle unit (33/38) is in the idle state (Fig. 6A) and is uncovered when the spray nozzle unit is in the use state (Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 18, Lopez et al. show the cleaning device (Figs. 1 & 6) for cleaning a vehicle element, comprising:
- a housing (36/37) which is arranged in a vehicle component (abstract),
- a spray nozzle unit (33/38) which is moved linearly relative to the housing and which is moved via the pressure of the cleaning liquid when a cleaning liquid enters (paragraph 0063), wherein
- the spray nozzle unit comprises at least one piston (38) and a spray nozzle (33) which is fluidically connected to the piston, and wherein
- the piston and/or the spray nozzle has at least one inlet opening (30) formed on the side for conveying the cleaning liquid from an inner space (see annotated figure) of the housing in the direction of a nozzle opening (see annotated figure) of the spray nozzle (33)
wherein the housing comprises a first outer diameter section (36), a second outer diameter section (37) and a transition portion (32) between the first and second outer diameter sections, where the second outer diameter section (37) has a larger outer diameter than the first outer diameter section (36), wherein the transition portion (32) selectively forms at least one side fluid channel (see annotated figure) between the housing (36/37) and a closed end (see annotated figure) of a piston (38), wherein the at least one side fluid channel (see annotated figure) is a selective fluid connection between the liquid supply source (100) and the at least one inlet opening (30) and the inner space (see annotated figure).
Regarding claim 19, Lopez et al. show the inlet opening (30) formed on the side is covered by an inner wall (wall of 36) of the housing (36/37) when the spray nozzle unit (33/38) is in an idle state (Fig. 6A) and is uncovered when the spray nozzle unit is in a use state (Fig. 6B).
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.
Examiner sets forth new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to amended or new features as described below because each of the features of applicants claimed invention as newly added are unpatentable or obvious over the prior art.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No 2005/0150982 A1 to Lopez et al.
Regarding claim 17, the embodiment of Lopez et al. relied upon discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach the spray nozzle unit comprises at least one check valve, which is arranged in the region of the closed first end and/or in the inlet channel.
However, the embodiment of Lopez et al. shown in figure 5 does show a spray nozzle unit comprising at least one check valve (24), which is arranged in the region of the closed first end and/or in the inlet channel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the embodiment of figure 6 of Lopez et al. also include a check valve as shown in the embodiment of figure 5 to prevent backflow while minimizing the consumption of cleaning liquid to effectively clean the corresponding surfaces (paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 20, the embodiment of Lopez et al. relied upon discloses all aspects of the claimed invention including the piston (38) forms an inlet channel (see annotated figure) for the cleaning liquid but does not teach at least one check valve arranged in the inlet channel.
However, the embodiment of Lopez et al. shown in figure 5 does show a spray nozzle unit comprising at least one check valve (24) arranged in the inlet channel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the embodiment of figure 6 of Lopez et al. also include a check valve as shown in the embodiment of figure 5 to prevent backflow while minimizing the consumption of cleaning liquid to effectively clean the corresponding surfaces (paragraph 0061).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTHUR O. HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. CT..
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 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.
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
