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
Examiner had contacted Applicant on 4/21/2025 regarding clarification of the restriction election (see attached interview summary). Applicant elected Species 1a & 2c.
Examiner considers currently presented claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, & 12 to read on the elected species.
Claim Status Identifier
Examiner notes that Applicant should replace the claim status identifier of claim 10 from “Not Currently Amended” to either “Original” or “Previously Presented” depending on whether the claim had been amended in the past.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/440246 (published as US 20200391228), fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claim 10’s diameter range does not appear to be supported by the parent application 16/440246.
Examiner further notes the following pertaining to priority support for other claimed features:
Applicant’s claim 1 recites “pressurizing ambient air using a blower”. Examiner considers parent application 16/440246 to support this step of using a blower, as the parent application has support for an air source, as well as visually depicts a blower/fan in Figure 5 (see parent application’s Figure 5, compressed air device 506).
Applicant’s claim 1 recites “activating a valve to direct liquid into the pressurized air to create a liquid-air stream”. Examiner considers parent application 16/440246 to support this step, as the parent application has support for an air intake valve. Applicant’s elected Species 1a (Figure 1a embodiment) relies on the venturi effect, such that the air intake valve can be attributed as performing said functionality by triggering said venturi effect via admission of air.
Examiner has also identified more general support for Applicant’s claims 4 & 9, but appear to lose criticality due to narrowing of the values/ranges. Regarding claim 4, the parent application discloses various relative velocities/ranges (see parent’s [0081], [0091]), but does not appear to disclose criticality to the claimed range of more than 90%. Regarding claim 9, the parent application discloses a broader range (see parent’s [0090]), such that claim 9’s range is narrower and does not appear critical.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 1, remove “the steps of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: in the last step/clause, relace “with sufficient velocity to dislodge particular mattter from a vehicle surface” with “at a velocity which dislodges particular matter from a surface of the vehicle”. Examiner emphasizes that “matter” must be corrected. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 3, amend “the velocity” to “a velocity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 5, amend “the velocity” to “a velocity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 3, “the adjustment” should be “an adjustment”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 3, “he” must be corrected. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 1, amend “the velocity” to “a velocity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 1, amend “the outlet” to “an outlet”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 1, amend “the mean diameter” to “a mean diameter”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, & 12 is/are 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 1 recites “the liquid-air conduit” on the second-to-last line, but antecedent basis was established for “a gas conduit” and “a liquid-air stream”. Claim 9 also recites this term.
Claim 1 recites “a vehicle” on the second-to-last line, but “a vehicle” had already been introduced in the preamble.
Claim 3 recites “the injecting of a liquid stream into an air stream”. Examiner requires clarification, as: 1) no antecedent basis has been established for “the injecting” step, and 2) whether these are referring back to the same liquid and/or liquid-air stream of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “the injection of a liquid into an air stream”. Similar to claim 3 issue, Examiner requires clarification, as: 1) no antecedent basis has been established for “the injection” step, and 2) whether these are referring back to the same liquid and/or liquid-air stream of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “the liquid stream”, but no antecedent basis has been established for this term. Claim 1 introduces “a liquid-air stream”.
Claim 5 recites “he liquid and air streams”, but no antecedent basis has been established for these terms. Claim 1 introduces “a liquid-air stream”.
Claim 10 recites “the droplets”, but no antecedent basis has been established for this term
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(s) 1, 3-5, 8-9, & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (US 20020030122, “Barnes”) in view of Schmidt et al. (US 20180272998, “Schmidt”).
Barnes teaches a method for generating water spray comprising the following of claim 1 except where underlined:
For Claim 1:
A method for washing a vehicle, the steps of the method comprising:
pressurizing ambient air using a blower and forcing said pressurized air into a gas conduit (see Figure 1, air mover 4, delivery conduit 12. [0028]-[0029]);
activating a valve to direct liquid into the pressurized air to create a liquid-air stream; and
expelling the liquid-air stream from the liquid-air conduit onto a vehicle with sufficient velocity to dislodge particular matter from a vehicle surface (see [0002]).
Regarding the valve, Examiner considers the use of a flow control valve with a pressurized air source to be conventional in the art and refers to Schmidt (see Figure 2, Venturi valve 235, hose 270, air source 295. [0047]). Using a flow control valve in association with a pressurized air source as taught by Schmidt for Barnes’ air mover 4 would yield a predictable variation thereof resulting in the selective supply of compressed/pressurized air (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”).
Modified Barnes also teaches the following:
For Claim 3:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising the injecting of a liquid stream into an air stream at a controlled velocity which is less than the velocity of the air stream prior to liquid injection in the gas conduit (see Barnes’ [0009]-[0012]).
For Claim 4:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising the injection of a liquid into an air stream such that the liquid stream is accelerated to a velocity that is more than 90% of the velocity of the air stream prior to liquid injection (see Barnes’ [0009]-[0012]). Barnes teaches a velocity ratio of gas to water to be in the range of 0.5 to 2, which is overlapping ranges (see MPEP 2144.05, “Overlapping Ranges”) and also constitutes result-effective variables which would undergo routine experimentation/optimization (see MPEP 2144.05, “Routine Optimization”).
For Claim 5:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising the adjustment of the relative velocities of he liquid and air streams such that a predetermined size of liquid particles within the resulting liquid-air stream is obtained (see Barnes’ [0010]).
For Claim 8:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the liquid consists of one of potable water, purified water, liquid cleaning mixtures, liquid-wax mixtures, and liquid-surface protectant mixtures (see Barnes’ [0002]).
For Claim 9:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the velocity of the liquid-air stream is 50 to 500 feet per second as measured at the outlet of the liquid-air conduit prior to coming into contact with the vehicle surface (see Barnes’ [0014], [0038]. refer to Table 3). Barnes teaches various velocity parameters, such as water droplet speed and air and water velocities, such that Examiner considers Barnes to establish either of these velocities as a result-effective variable to be optimized (see MPEP 2144.05, “Routine Optimization”).
For Claim 12:
The method of Claim 1, wherein multiple liquid-air conduits are used such that the vehicle surface is exposed uniformly to a desired level of coverage with the liquid-air stream (see Schmidt’s Figure 4, Venturi valve 235, nozzles 250a & 250b. [0058]). Examiner considers branching out Barnes’ delivery conduit 12 so as to supply multiple outlets to be an obvious duplication of parts in view of Schmidt’s teaching to communicate a Venturi valve with multiple nozzles (see MPEP 2144.04, “Duplication of Parts”).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pittner (US 20200391228).
Examiner has determined that Pittner would not qualify as prior art for claim 1 due to support found in the parent application, but would qualify as prior art for claim 10 (see Priority section above).
Examiner is technically not rejecting claim 1 under Pittner, but illustrating that Pittner teaches claim 10 and by virtue also teaches the limitations of claim 1 (which claim 10 depends upon and would include):
Pittner teaches a nozzle assembly and method for delivery of adjustably-sized droplets in a spray comprising the following:
For Claim 1:
A method for washing a vehicle, the steps of the method comprising:
pressurizing ambient air using a blower and forcing said pressurized air into a gas conduit (see Figures 1 & 5, air source 102a, compressed air device 506. refer to fan-like compressed air device 506 to read on the blower). Examiner notes that if Applicant argues compressed-air device 506 being a blower, then this would be arguing the priority date Examiner had credited to claim 1 and support for the “blower” by the parent application (see Priority section above);
activating a valve to direct liquid into the pressurized air to create a liquid-air stream (see [0057]. refer to ambient air intake valve). Pittner teaches associating an air intake valve with the gas source(s); and
expelling the liquid-air stream from the liquid-air conduit onto a vehicle with sufficient velocity to dislodge particular matter from a vehicle surface (see [0006]).
Pittner does not explicitly teach the following:
For Claim 10:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the mean diameter of the droplets is between 20 and 190 microns.
Examiner however, considers Pittner establishes droplet size as a result-effective variable to be optimized including reducing size depending on the purpose (e.g. fogging, pressure washing, abrasive treatment) (see Pittner’s Figure 8, method 800. [0038]-[0041], [0062], [0086]-[0089]) (see MPEP 2144.05, “Routine Optimization”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC LORENZI whose telephone number is (571)270-7586 and fax number is (571)270-8586. The examiner can normally be reached from 9-5 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Gordon Baldwin at 571-272-5166. 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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MARC LORENZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718