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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 8 and 9 are amended.
Claims 10-15 previously cancelled.
Claims 20-25 are added.
Claims 1-9 and 16-25 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application JP2021-107660, filed on 06/29/2021.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
Applicant argues
“Rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 127 S.Ct. at 1741 (2007). “
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Further clarity is in the revised 103 below. Examiner would like to point out that; 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.
Examiner believes that obviousness rejection has been achieved in the 103 rejection below.
Applicant further argues:
Claims 1, 2, and 6-17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over TAKEMURA Kazuaki et al. (JP 2020179709, hereinafter "Kazuaki") in view of Anthony GORSICK (US 20020140387). Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections. Solely for the purpose of expediting prosecution, claim 1 is amended to recite, among other things, the processor, in response to estimating that the dirtiness degree of a region of the vehicle is greater than that of other regions of the vehicle, carries out advance car washing prior to the execution of the car washing…
The applied art of records at the cited portions does not teach or suggest the above- mentioned features. Therefore, claim 1 is patentable over the applied art of record at the cited portions. Solely for the purpose of expediting prosecution, each of claims 8 and 9 recites similar features to those recited in claim 1 and distinguishes over the applied art at the cited portions for reasons analogous to those set forth above…
Claims 3-5, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuaki in view of GORSICK and KAKIZAWA Ryochi (JP 2004210207). Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections. Ryochi does not rectify the deficiencies of the cited portions of Kazuaki and GORSICK. Therefore, claim 1 is patentable over the applied art of record at the cited portions. Each of dependent claims 3-5, 18, and 19 depending from claim 1 recites additional features and distinguishes over the applied art at the cited portions for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1 and/or for the additional features recite. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claims 3-5, 18, and 19, as being unpatentable over the applied art of record at the cited portions, are respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is primarily arguing the amendments and New Claims. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 16-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by applicant's amendments and new Claims.
Applicant is arguing very specific limitations but the Examiner is required to look at claims in their broadest reasonable interpretation. Note that under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. 2111.01 (I). See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'"2111.01 (II)
With respect to the interpretation of claim terms, MPEP 2111 states:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).(see MPEP 2111.01).
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (see PMEP 2111).
Accordingly, the claims herein will be interpreted in accordance with the MPEP 2111.
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, 2, 6-17, and 20-25 are rejected by Takemura Kazuaki et al. [JP 2020179709, now Kazuki]; in view of Anthony Gorsick [US20020140387, now Gorsick], further in view of Essenburg [US20120216835, now Essenburg].
Claim 1
Kazuaki discloses a car washing device [see at least Kazuki, ¶ 0001; 0002 (“a remote control system for an automatic car washer that operates the automatic car washer and pays a usage fee through a mobile phone. In this system, specifically, an instruction is sent to a computer of a service company or a database of a substitute service provider through a mobile phone of a user to operate a car washing machine and pay a usage fee.”)], comprising:
a processor [see at least Kazuki, ¶ 0006]:
acquire vehicle type information including at least information related to a vehicle type and an equipment of the vehicle, and a travel history from a vehicle; estimate dirtiness of the vehicle based on the vehicle type information and the travel history; predetermine a dirtiness degree indicating insufficiency of removal of dirt in washed portions of the vehicle prior to car washing based on the vehicle type information and the travel history [see at least Kazuki, ¶ 0006 (“Solution to Problem In order to solve the above-described problem and achieve the object, a car washing device according to the present invention includes a memory and a processor having hardware, wherein the processor calculates a next car washing time of a vehicle based on history data including a car washing history of the vehicle, and causes a terminal carried by an occupant of the vehicle to perform: The next car washing time is notified, the degree of contamination of the vehicle is estimated based on an image of the vehicle input from a car washing machine, a car washing menu corresponding to the degree of contamination is determined, the car washing machine is controlled, and the vehicle is washed based on the determined car washing menu.”); 0007 (“the car washing device can determine the next car washing timing of the vehicle based on the car washing history of the vehicle to be washed. In addition, in the car washing device, by estimating the car washing menu from the degree of soiling of the vehicle, it is possible to perform car washing according to the car washing menu that matches the degree of soiling of the vehicle.”); 0016]; and
execute the car washing corresponding the predetermined dirtiness degree [see at least Kazuki, ¶ 0025 (“The control unit 11 loads a program stored in the storage unit 13 into a work area of the main storage unit, executes the program, and controls each component or the like through the execution of the program, thereby realizing a function corresponding to a predetermined purpose. The control unit 11 functions as the vehicle washing management unit 111 through execution of the program. The details of the car wash management unit 111 will be described later.”)].
Kazuki does not specifically disclose but Gorsick does teach wherein in response to a window of the vehicle being open, the open window is caused to close, and in response to a door mirror of the vehicle being extended, the extended door mirror is caused to fold toward the vehicle [see at least Gorsick, Abstract; ¶ 0002; 0010 (“FIG. 1 illustrates one embodiment of a system 10 for preparing a vehicle (parts of which are shown in FIG. 1) for a car wash. As shown and described in the preferred embodiment, the vehicle includes at least one window 24 operated by at least one motor 26. As shown and described in this preferred embodiment, the vehicle also includes at least one windshield or window 30 having one or more wipers 32. These wipers are preferably of the type that are automatically activated when a rain sensor 36 senses moisture. The wipers 32 are operated by a motor 38. As shown and described in this preferred embodiment, the vehicle also includes side-mounted folding mirrors 40 operated by motors 44 and adjustable by an operator or driver (not shown) of the vehicle. As shown and described in this preferred embodiment, this vehicle also includes a sun roof 50 operated by a motor 52. Finally and as shown and described in this preferred embodiment, the vehicle also includes a radio 60 and a power antenna 62 operated by a motor 64. The vehicle may include additional or different parts not shown herein but contemplated to be prepared by system 10 for going through a car wash.”); 0016 (“At 116 the processor 80 determines whether the side mirrors 40 are folded. This can be done by sensors adjacent the mirror 40 or in the motor 44. If the processor 80 detects any projecting mirror(s) 40, then at 118 the processor causes the projecting mirrors 40 to fold toward the vehicle, for example by operating the motors 44. At 120 the processor 80 checks whether the radio 60 is in the "off" state. If the radio 60 has been switched to the "on" state, at 122 the processor 80 switches the radio 60 to the "off" state. At 124 the processor 80 determines whether the antenna 62 is retracted. If the antenna 62 is extended, then at 124 the processor 80 retracts the antenna 62. In another embodiment in which the antenna 62 is automatically retracted when the radio 60 is switched to the "off" state, the processor 80 does not perform the step shown at 124. When the vehicle parts 24, 36, 40, 50, 60 and 62 have been placed in their car-wash-ready states, at 128 the processor 80 switches a "car-wash ready" indicator (not shown) to an "on" state.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, “provide a car washing device, a car washing method, and a car washing program capable of washing a vehicle at an appropriate timing [0005] of Kazuki, with the “system that automatically performs the plurality of tasks involved preparing a vehicle for a car wash [0003]” Gorsick. Providing a more effective and efficient car wash system.
Neither Kazuki or Gorsick specifically discloses/teaches but Essenburg does teach wherein the processor, in response to estimating that the dirtiness degree of a region of the vehicle is greater than that of other regions of the vehicle, carries out advance car washing prior to the execution of the car washing. [see at least Essenburg, ¶ 0064 (“Optionally, the armature 20 and spray bar 60 can be moveable toward, or can chase and catch-up with a vehicle, to spray additional materials on the vehicle, particularly on excessively dirty regions. For example, the armature can be moved in a pendulum-like motion, where the spray bar first travels forward toward the front region 101 of the vehicle, then the bar 60 moves with the vehicle 103 (backwards, toward station 107), for a few feet, then up and over the vehicle, then catches up with and/or chases with the rearward region 102 of the vehicle for a preselected amount of time or movement. With this movable armature and bar, the station can apply more materials to a particularly dirty area, for example, the rear fenders and/or rear of the vehicle.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, “provide a car washing device, a car washing method, and a car washing program capable of washing a vehicle at an appropriate timing [0005]” of Kazuki, with the “system that automatically performs the plurality of tasks involved preparing a vehicle for a car wash [0003]” Gorsick, further with the ability to prepare a car by prewashing of Essenburg. Providing a more effective and efficient car wash system.
Claim 2
Kazuki, Gorsick and Essenburg disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Kazuki further discloses wherein the processor executes the car washing beginning from [[a]]the region having the estimated dirtiness degree greater than the other regions. [see at least Kazuki, ¶ 0025; 0046 (“the car wash management unit 111 estimates the degree of contamination of the car 2, for example, which part of the car 2 is contaminated to which extent, based on the image recognition processing result of the captured image (step S11). Subsequently, the vehicle washing management unit 111 determines a vehicle washing menu corresponding to the degree of contamination estimated in step S11 from a plurality of vehicle washing menus (vehicle washing courses) prepared in advance (step S 12). The "car wash menu" includes, for example, car wash with only water (flush car), car wash with shampoo (shampoo car wash), car wash with wax (wax car wash), and the like.”); 0048 (“[0048]According to the car washing method of the embodiment as described above, it is possible to wash the vehicle 2 at an appropriate timing by determining the next car washing timing of the vehicle 2 on the basis of the car washing history of the vehicle 2 to be washed. In addition, according to the car washing method of the embodiment, by estimating the car washing menu from the degree of contamination of the vehicle 2, it is possible to perform car washing according to the car washing menu that matches the degree of contamination of the vehicle 2.”)].
Claim 6
Kazuki, Gorsick and Essenburg disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Kazuki further discloses predetermine the dirtiness degree of the vehicle based on a car washing history of the vehicle in addition to the vehicle type information and the travel history, and execute car washing corresponding to the estimated degree of dirtiness [see at least Kazuki, ¶ 0006 (“car washing history…degree the degree of contamination is determined”); 0008 (“travel history”)].
Claim 7
Kazuki, Gorsick and Essenburg disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Kazuki further discloses a vehicle control device installed in the vehicle and connected to the car washing device by communication [see at least Kazuki, ¶ 0032 (“The control unit 21 integrally controls operations of various components mounted on the vehicle 2”); 0033 (“, the control unit 21 outputs the vehicle position information to the car wash server 1 through the network NW. For example, a method in which LiDAR ( Light Detection and Ranging, Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging ) and a three dimensional digital map are combined may be used as the method for detecting the vehicle-position information.”)].
Claim 8
Claim 8 has similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 8 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 9
Claim 9 is the non-transitory storage medium for the device of Claim 1 and has similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 9 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 16
Claim 16 has similar limitations to claim 10, therefore claim 16 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 10.
Claim 17
Claim 17 has similar limitations to claim 11, therefore claim 17 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 11.
Claim 20
Kazuki, Gorsick and Essenburg disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Kazuki further discloses in general terms a car wash [see at least 0001, 0004].
Neither Kazuki, Gorsick, or Ryochi disclosed/teaches but Essenburg does teach. wherein the processor carries out the advance car washing by operating a cleaning device to spray washing water onto the region to remove sand and dust from the region, spray a cleaning agent to the region, and carry out brushing to the region after spraying the cleaning agent [see at least Essenburg, ¶ 0004 (“most automated car wash systems are supplemented with a human attendant who manually scrubs or sprays off the dirtier areas of vehicles before the vehicle enters the automated car wash system. The preparation of the vehicle before it is actually washed in the automated portion of the system is time consuming for the attendant. This can be particularly problematic when there are multiple potential consumers at a car wash, and time is of the essence. Further, the spray apparatus may be cumbersome and difficult to handle for the attendants. For attendants that are of diminutive stature or lack strength, it can be an added burden.”); 0033 (“The construction of the preparation station 10 will now be described in more detail with reference to FIGS. 1-10. As noted above, the preparation station 10 can include a support structure 12 joined with a support member 14 to which the retractor 50 is joined. In general, the support structure 12 can be in the form of an arch that extends upwardly and over at least a portion of the pathway 100 on which the vehicle 103 travels toward a further automated car wash system 107. The preparation station 10 can be positioned adjacent an automated car wash station 107. The preparation station 10 can be configured to prewash, treat or otherwise prepare a vehicle traveling on a path 100 before it enters the automated car wash station 107. For example, the preparation station 10 can spray water, liquid cleaners and/or other chemicals on the car 103 before it enters the automated car wash station 107. Optionally, the car wash station 107 can include primary car wash equipment 109, which administers quantities of water, liquid cleaners and/or other chemicals to the car 103 during a primary washing operation. The car wash equipment can be automated and can include additional spraying apparatus, scrubbers, dryers and the like. Of course, although described in conjunction with an automated car wash station, the preparation station 10 can be used in conjunction with other types of stations in a car wash if desired.”); Note that a prewash is the same.].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, “provide a car washing device, a car washing method, and a car washing program capable of washing a vehicle at an appropriate timing [0005]” of Kazuki, with the “system that automatically performs the plurality of tasks involved preparing a vehicle for a car wash [0003]” Gorsick, further with the ability to prepare a car by prewashing of Essenburg. Providing a more effective and efficient car wash system.
Claim 21
Kazuki, Gorsick and Essenburg disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Kazuki further discloses in general terms a car wash [see at least 0001, 0004].
Neither Kazuki, Gorsick, or Ryochi disclosed/teaches but Essenburg does teach wherein the processor carries out the advance car washing only on the region, by operating a cleaning device to spray washing water onto the region to remove sand and dust from the region, spray a cleaning agent to the region, and carry out brushing to the region after spraying the cleaning agent [see at least Essenburg, ¶ 0004; 0033].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, “provide a car washing device, a car washing method, and a car washing program capable of washing a vehicle at an appropriate timing [0005]” of Kazuki, with the “system that automatically performs the plurality of tasks involved preparing a vehicle for a car wash [0003]” Gorsick, further with the ability to prepare a car by prewashing of Essenburg. Providing a more effective and efficient car wash system.
Claim 22
Claim 22 has similar limitations to claim 20, therefore claim 22 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 20.
Claim 23
Claim 23 has similar limitations to claim 21, therefore claim 23 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 21.
Claim 24
Claim 24 has similar limitations to claim 20, therefore claim 24 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 20.
Claim 25
Claim 25 has similar limitations to claim 21, therefore claim 25 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 21.
Claims 3-5, and 18 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura Kazuaki et al. [JP 2020179709, now Kazuki], in view of Anthony Gorsick [US20020140387, now Gorsick], in view of Essenburg [US20120216835, now Essenburg], further with Kakizawa Ryochi [JP2004210207, now Ryochi].
Claim 3
Kazuki, Gorsick and Essenburg disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Kazuki further discloses execute car washing [see at least Kazuki, ¶ 0014 (“a car washing method executed”)]..
Neither Kazuki or Gorsick specifically disclose/teach but Ryochi teaches acquires a cleaned state of the vehicle after the execution of the car washing, and in response to determining a further region of the vehicle in which removal of dirt is insufficient [see at least Ryochi, ¶ 0005 (“notifying means for notifying that the unwashed portion of the vehicle recognized in the step (1) is left unwashed.”); 0022 (“indicating that unwashed portions have occurred, and prompting a correction operation for the unwashed portions. In addition, the car wash brushes 3, 4.4, 4 detected during the vehicle shape detection process cannot be approached, and the lower portion of the rear spare tire is left unwashed, and an alarm prompting a correction work for the unwashed is issued. It is displayed (FIG. 6B).”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, “provide a car washing device, a car washing method, and a car washing program capable of washing a vehicle at an appropriate timing [0005]” of Kazuki, with the “system that automatically performs the plurality of tasks involved preparing a vehicle for a car wash [0003]” Gorsick, further with the car washing notification of unwashed areas of a car of Ryochi. Providing a more effective and efficient car washing system.
Claim 4
Kazuki, Gorsick and Essenburg disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Neither Kazuki or Gorsick specifically disclose/teach but Ryochi does teach the processor acquires a cleaned state of the vehicle after execution of the car washing, and in response to determining a region of the vehicle in which removal of dirt is insufficient, notifies a user that the removal of dirt is insufficient [see at least Ryochi, ¶ 0005; 0006; 0007 (“In addition, in order to solve the second problem, a car wash course for performing a vehicle shape detection process, a shampoo process, a wax process, and a blow process can be performed, so that the vehicle shape detected in the vehicle shape detection process causes unwashed portions. When the recognition means recognizes the fact, it is notified that there is a residue before the execution of the wax step. And selecting means for selecting whether or not to perform the notification of the remaining washing by the notification means. When the selection of the notification of the remaining washing is selected by the selecting means, the car wash is temporarily stopped before the wax process is performed. Informs that there is unwashed residue.”); 0009; 0015; 0016; 0019].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the car washing techniques of Kazuki, with the car wash ready system of Gorsick, further with the car washing notification of unwashed areas of a car of Ryochi. Providing a more effective and efficient car washing system.
Claim 5
Kazuki, Gorsick and Essenburg and Ryochi disclose/teach the device of Claim 3.
Neither Kazuki or Gorsick specifically disclose/teach but Ryochi does disclose the processor is configured to, in response to determining the further region of the vehicle in which removal of dirt is insufficient, correct the processor corrects logic that is configured to predetermine estimate the dirtiness degree of the vehicle. [see at least Kazuki, ¶ 0009; 0015; 0016; 0019].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the car washing techniques of Kazuki, with the car wash ready system of Gorsick, further with the car washing notification of unwashed areas of a car of Ryochi. Providing a more effective and efficient car washing system.
Claim 18
Kazuki, Gorsick and Essenburg and Ryochi disclose/teach the device of Claim 7.
Kazuki further teaches execution of car washing, the vehicle control device is configured to, in response to receiving the command requesting execution of car washing, determine (a) a state of a window of the vehicle and (b) a state of a door mirror of the vehicle, in response to determining the window being open, operate the open window to close, in response to determining the door mirror being extended, operate the extended door mirror to fold toward the vehicle, and upon confirming that the window is closed and the door mirror is folded toward the vehicle, transmit a wash permission notification to the processor of the car washing device, and the processor is configured to, in response to receiving the wash permission notification [see at least Kazuki, ¶ 0012-0013; Note, if can close a window can fold a door mirror, these are similar control operations.].
Ryochi more specifically teaches execute the car washing corresponding to the predetermined dirtiness degree washing [see at least Ryochi, ¶ 0005 (“notifying means for notifying that the unwashed portion of the vehicle recognized in the step (1) is left unwashed.”); 0022 (“indicating that unwashed portions have occurred, and prompting a correction operation for the unwashed portions. In addition, the car wash brushes 3, 4.4, 4 detected during the vehicle shape detection process cannot be approached, and the lower portion of the rear spare tire is left unwashed, and an alarm prompting a correction work for the unwashed is issued. It is displayed (FIG. 6B).”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the car washing techniques of Kazuki, with the car wash ready system of Gorsick, further with the car washing notification of unwashed areas of a car of Ryochi. Providing a more effective and efficient car washing system.
Claim 19
Claim 19 has similar limitations to claim 18, therefore claim 19 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 18.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lenz et al. [DE2919645]
The invention relates to a method for the machine washing of vehicles
in a car wash, in which the vehicle is sprayed in a pre-wash zone, cleaned in a wash zone by
means of brush units and rinsed with clean water in a post-wash zone [0003].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US Eastern time).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK KOPPIKAR, can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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 https://ppair-my.uspot.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Examiner, Art Unit 3667
(571) 270-7952