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 .
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, 4-6, 9, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grether et al. (US Pub No 2020/0362981 A1).
Re claim 1, Grether et al. show a system for distributing washer liquid (Figs. 1, 3a & 3b), the system comprising:
at least one washer pump (310) connected to a reservoir (300) to pressurize the washer liquid;
at least one distributor (100) including at least one distribution unit (100a, 100b) and fluidly connected to the at least one washer pump (310);
a plurality of nozzles (210) fluidly connected to the at least one distribution unit (100a, 100b) included in the at least one distributor to face a cleaning target; and
a controller (paragraph 0105) configured to control opening or closing of the at least one distribution unit formed in the at least one distributor, and to control pressure of the at least one washer pump,
wherein each of the plurality of nozzles (210) is fluidly connected to the distribution unit (100a, 100b), and
wherein the distribution unit (100a) includes:
a housing (7/8) coupled to an adjacent distribution unit (100b) among the at least one distribution unit;
a path (2) passing through the housing and connecting the at least one distribution unit;
a cover (6) located at an outermost position of the housing to close the path; and
a valve unit (4) located at the path of the housing, and selectively opened or closed to distribute the washer liquid to the plurality of nozzles,
wherein the at least one distribution unit includes:
at least one main distribution unit (100a); and
at least one sub-distribution unit (100b) located adjacent to the at least one main distribution unit (100a), wherein the housing of the sub distribution unit (100b) fastened (paragraph 0052) to the housing of one or more main distribution units (100a) and the sub-distribution unit is fluidly connected (222) to the path defined within the housing (paragraphs 0052 & 0092) of the sub distribution unit and in the housing (paragraphs 0052 & 0092) of the one or more main distribution units (100a).
Re claim 4, Grether et al. show an inflow path (221) to which a washer pump (310) among the at least one washer pump and the distributor are coupled;
a sub-path (222) located between the distributor (100a) and another adjacent distributor (100b) among the at least one distributor; and
a discharge path (223) located between and directly connected to the distributor and the plurality of nozzles (210).
Re claim 5, Grether et al. show another adjacent distributor (100b) and the distributor (100a) are connected in series (Fig. 3a).
Re claim 6, Grether et al. show the distributor (100a) is connected to a predetermined number of the plurality of nozzles (210a) and another adjacent distributor (100b) is connected to a remaining number of the plurality of nozzles (210b, 210b’).
Re claim 9, Grether et al. disclose the cleaning target includes at least one of a windshield glass, a rear glass, a camera (paragraph 0003), a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), and a radar.
Re claim 15, Grether et al. show the at least one distributor includes at least two distributors (100a, 100b), and the at least two distributors are connected in parallel to each other (Fig. 3b).
Re claim 20, Grether et al. show a housing of the at least one main distribution unit (100a) and a housing of the at least one sub-distribution unit (100b) are connected to each other to form a single body (paragraph 0052), and wherein a discharge port (2) of one distribution unit among the at least one main distribution unit (100a) and the at least one sub-distribution unit (100b) is connected to an inlet port (1) of an adjacent other distribution unit (100b) among the at least one main distribution unit (100a) and the at least one sub-distribution unit (100b).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grether et al. (US Pub No 2020/0362981 A1).
Re claim 7, Grether et al. disclose the claimed invention with the exception of specific dimensions for the inflow path and sub-path. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a larger internal diameter for the inflow path since our reviewing courts have 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. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
Re claim 8, Grether et al. disclose the claimed invention with the exception of specific dimensions for the discharge path and sub-path. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a larger internal diameter for the sub-path since our reviewing courts have 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. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grether et al. (US Pub No 2020/0362981 A1) in view of Na et al. (US Pub No 2015/0090291 A1).
Re claim 10, Grether et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach the controller is configured to determine a contamination level of the cleaning target, and to control to distribute the washer liquid from the distributor to the cleaning target, when the contamination level is equal to or greater than a reference value.
However, Na et al. disclose a controller configured to determine a contamination level of the cleaning target, and to control to distribute the washer liquid from the distributor to the cleaning target, when the contamination level is equal to or greater than a reference value (abstract).
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 motivation to modify the controller of Grether et al. with the contamination measuring unit as taught by Na et al. to most effectively remove the contamination from the distance measuring sensor of the vehicle (Na – paragraph 0002).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that “Grether discloses a distributor configuration where the components are spaced apart from each other” and that “this is evident from the fact that the fluid distributor 100a and the second distributor 100b of Grether are connected by an intermediate conduit 222” and as such does not teach the required limitation “wherein the housing of the sub distribution unit fastened to the housing of one or more main distribution units and the sub distribution unit is fluidly connected to the path defined within the housing of the sub distribution unit and in the housing of the one or more main distribution unit” is unpersuasive. Applicant goes on to emphasize that the language “within the housing” of the sub distribution unit and “in the housing” of the one or more main distribution units. However, in no way does the claim specify how the distribution units are fastened together. The term “fasten” merely requires that one thing be fixed to another and does not specify how they are fixed together nor how close they must be in order to be fixed to one another. Further, while applicant’s specification (paragraph 0079) provides a non-exhaustive list of examples for different types of fastening, there is no special definition present. As such, the conduit 222 not only accomplishes this limitation but also provides a fluid connection to the path defined “within the housing” of the sub distribution unit and “in the housing” of the one or more main distribution units as conduit 222 is explicitly connected to both the outlet of one and the inlet of the other thus directly fluidly connecting the paths within the housing of the sub distribution unit and in the housing of the main distribution unit.
In light of these remarks, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights