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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 27, 2025 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 24,2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-11 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 limitation "flow" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “flow” in line 8. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “flow” recited in line 2.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "flow" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “flow” in line 8. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “flow” recited in line 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Maruyama (2004/0188541)..
Regarding claims 1-3 and 7, Maruyama discloses a fluid spraying device for cleaning a surface of a motor vehicle, the spraying device comprising a solenoid valve 18, 20, 22, 28 controlling flow of a fluid passing thru the solenoid valve to a spraying member 10, the solenoid valve includes a hydraulic portion 20, 22, 28 and an electromagnetic portion 18, the hydraulic portion includes at least one fluid distribution member 20, 22, 28 which has at least one fluid inlet endpiece 20, a circulation chamber 116, 124, 128, and a fluid outlet endpiece 28 in fluidic communication with the spraying member, the electromagnetic portion includes a piston controlling flow of the fluid passing through the circulation chamber by blocking the fluid from flowing from the circulation ;chamber to the fluid outlet endpiece, wherein the spraying member includes at least one coupling tube 32, 58 and a spray nozzle 66 which are formed in one piece, the coupling tube being directly fixed to the fluid outlet endpiece;
wherein the spraying member is fixed directly to the fluid outlet endpiece by reversible fixing means (barb at the upstream end of lower body 32 and the downstream end of hose 28);
wherein the reversible fixing means are borne respectively by the fluid outlet endpiece and by the coupling tube of the spraying member, at least one from among the fluid outlet endpiece and the coupling tube being able to take different positions by elastically deforming;
further comprising a poka-yoke device (barb at the upstream end of lower body 32).
Regarding claim 1 and 9, Maruyama discloses a fluid spraying device for cleaning a surface of a motor vehicle, the spraying device comprising a solenoid valve 18, 20, 22, 28, 32 controlling flow of a fluid passing thru the solenoid valve to a spraying member 66, the solenoid valve includes a hydraulic portion 20, 22, 28, 32 and an electromagnetic portion 18, the hydraulic portion includes at least one fluid distribution member 20, 22, 28, 32 which has at least one fluid inlet endpiece 20, a circulation chamber 116, 124, 128, and a fluid outlet endpiece 32, 96 in fluidic communication with the spraying member, the electromagnetic portion includes a piston controlling flow of the fluid passing through the circulation chamber by blocking the fluid from flowing from the circulation chamber to the fluid outlet endpiece, wherein the spraying member includes at least one coupling tube 58 and a spray nozzle 66 which are formed in one piece, the coupling tube being directly fixed to the fluid outlet endpiece;
wherein the spraying member has a conveying duct 74, which extends within the spraying member continuously from the coupling tube to the spray nozzle, and in which is inserted the fluid outlet end piece 32, 96, the conveying duct having a shoulder (shoulder of hole 64) arranged between two segments of the conveying duct that have different passage cross sections, the shoulder forming an end stop for an insertion of the fluid outlet endpiece in the spraying member (shoulder forms a stop for spring 88).
In figure 5, Maruyama shows a pump 18 in the shape of a piston pump. Even if pump 18 is not explicitly shown as a piston pump, a piston pump is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized a piston pump in the device of Maruyama to reduce cost by using known parts.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Han et al. (2014/0217194).
Han et al. disclose a system for cleaning a surface of a motor vehicle, comprising a pump 128 conveying a cleaning fluid through a duct (fluid lines, paragraph 0117) to a least one solenoid valve 202, 206 of a spray device, the solenoid valve controlling flow of a fluid onto the surface via a spraying member 116, with the solenoid valve having a hydraulic portion 202 and an electromagnetic portion 206, the hydraulic portion including at least one fluid distribution member which has at least one fluid inlet endpiece (inlet of fluid line to heating element 202), a circulation chamber (chamber of heating element 202), and a fluid outlet endpiece (fluid line to nozzles 116) in fluidic communication with the spraying member, the electromagnetic portion includes a piston (portion moved by controller sub-system 201) controlling flow of the fluid through the circulation chamber by blocking the fluid from flowing from the circulation chamber to the fluid outlet endpiece, wherein the spraying member includes at least one coupling tube (inlet tube of nozzle 116) and a spray nozzle (outlet of nozzle 116) which are formed in one piece, the coupling tube being directly fixed to the fluid outlet endpiece.
Even if Han et al. do not explicitly disclose that the valve 206 includes a piston, a valve having a piston element is well known. For example, a spool valve has a piston. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized a valve having a piston in the device of Han et al. to reduce cost by using known parts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the “piston” was addressed during the interview conducted on October 14, 2025 (Interview Summary mailed on October 17, 2025).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK