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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/24/2026, with respect to the vertical axis rollers have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of Dini has been withdrawn. A second Non -Final is being issued herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dini (US 3,662,419) in view of Miner (US 4,021,877).
Regarding claim 1, Dini discloses a wrap around station of a car wash, comprising:
a cross piece comprising one or more cross beams (Item 31 and 32), the cross piece having a V shape with arms of the V shape;
a pair of roller assemblies (Item 26) disposed on the cross piece, each roller assembly comprising:
each of the one or more first and second rollers being arranged to rotate in contact with at least one of the one or more cross beams (Column 3 Lines 11-15);
a pair of linear actuators (Item 34a), each linear actuator configured to move a corresponding one of the roller assemblies along the cross piece; and
a first side brush and a second side brush (Item 13), each pivotally and rotatably attached to a corresponding one of the roller assemblies so that the first and second side brushes are moveable along the cross piece and pivotable relative to the cross piece and relative to one another.
Dini fails to disclose one or more first rollers with a substantially vertical axis of rotation; and one or more second rollers with a substantially horizontal axis of rotation AND, the rising to a maximum height of at least 0.25 inches AND at least one of the one or more first rollers or the one or more second rollers having a diameter of at least 1.5 inches.
Miner teaches a car wash system wherein one or more first rollers with a substantially vertical axis of rotation; and one or more second rollers with a substantially horizontal axis of rotation (Item 23-25 Column 2 Lines 44-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dini to include the vertical and horizontal rollers to support the roller assembly as taught by Miner. Such a modification would ensure the roller assembly would not collide with the cross piece as the brush experienced external forces (such as the vehicle or spinning or other scenarios). Having a bearing on each surface of the cross piece would ensure the roller assembly would stay centered on the cross piece.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heigh such that it was at least 0.25”from the midpoint to each column. Such a modification is a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Since vehicles are commonly approximately 6 feet wide, having a rise of ¼” over 3 ft would allow the roller assemblies to have enough slope to allow gravity to move them. The cross beams could be larger or smaller depending on what type of vehicle is intended to be cleaned (motorcycle, mini cooper, hummer, or semi truck). For reference, plumbing requires water ¼” per foot for proper drainage. Further in Paragraph 23 of the instant application, there is no criticality discussed for the claimed dimension.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter of the rollers to be at least 1.5”. Such a modification is a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Having a larger diameter wheel, makes an object roll with less resistance. Thus requiring less slope to affect the movement. Further in Paragraph 24 of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected result discussed for the claimed dimension.
Regarding claim 2, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 1, wherein the one or more second rollers comprise at least one pair of second rollers (Miner Figure 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 3, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 2, wherein the one or more cross beams comprise a plurality of cross beams (Dini Column 3 Lines 11-15; Items 31 and 32 are made up of multiple beams).
Regarding claim 4, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 3, wherein the at least one pair of second rollers are arranged to rotate in contact with one of the plurality of cross beams (Miner Figure 5/6 Column 2 Lines 44-56).
Regarding claim 5, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 3, wherein each second roller in the at least one pair of second rollers is arranged to rotate in contact with a corresponding one of the plurality of cross beams (Miner Figure 5/6 Column 2 Lines 44-56).
Regarding claim 6, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 3, wherein the one or more first rollers comprise at least one pair of first rollers (Miner Figure 5/6 Column 2 Lines 44-56).
Regarding claim 7, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 6, wherein each first roller in the pair of first rollers is arranged to rotate in contact with one of the plurality of cross beams (Miner Figure 5/6 Column 2 Lines 44-56).
Regarding claim 9, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 1, wherein the cross piece comprises an inner support structure (Dini Fig 12) and an outer support structure (Figure 11).
Regarding claim 10, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 9, wherein the pair of linear actuators are disposed on the outer support structure (Dini Figure 11).
Regarding claim 11, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 10, wherein the pair of roller assemblies are disposed on the inner support structure (Dini Figure 12).
Regarding claim 12 Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 9, wherein the inner support structure is rotatably mounted to the outer support structure (Dini Figure 11, pivots about 34b).
Regarding claim 13, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 1, further comprising lever arms that attach each linear actuator in the pair of linear actuators to a corresponding one of the roller assemblies in the pair of roller assemblies (Item 34).
Regarding claim 14, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 1, wherein the cross piece further comprises a center plate disposed between the roller assemblies (Dini Item 43).
Regarding claim 15, Dini discloses the wrap around station of claim 1, wherein the linear actuators are configured to move the first and second side brushes in a sequence of movements (Dini Column2 Line 70-Column 3 Line 10).
Regarding claim 16, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 15, wherein the sequence of movements comprises a first movement in which the first and side brushes are moved towards one another, a second movement in which the first and second brushes are moved away from one another, and a third movement in which the first and second brushes are again moved towards one another (Dini Column2 Line 70-Column 3 Line 10; Dini is capable of this movement).
Regarding claim 17, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 1. As discussed in claim 1, Dini fails to disclose a range in which the rise and fall of the v shape occurs and wherein the arms of the V shape rise to a maximum within a range of 0.25 inches to 4 inches. Dini adjusts the overall height of the beams to adjust the position of the brushes, thus at any instance the height may be 0 or it may be 3 inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heigh such that it was at least 0.25”from the midpoint to each column. Such a modification is a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Since vehicles are commonly approximately 6 feet wide, having a rise of ¼” over 3 ft would allow the roller assemblies to have enough slope to allow gravity to move them. The cross beams could be larger or smaller depending on what type of vehicle is intended to be cleaned (motorcycle, mini cooper, hummer, or semi truck). For reference, plumbing requires water ¼” per foot for proper drainage. Further in Paragraph 23 of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected result discussed for the claimed dimension.
Regarding claim 18, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 1. As discussed in claim 1, Dini fails to disclose wherein the at least one of the one or more first rollers or the one or more second rollers have a diameter within a range of 1.5 inches to 7 inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter of the rollers to be at least 1.5-7 inches. Such a modification is a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Having a larger diameter wheel, makes an object roll with less resistance. Thus requiring less slope to affect the movement. Further in Paragraph 24 of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected result discussed for the claimed dimension.
Regarding claim 19, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 1. Dini fails to disclose wherein a total length of the wrap around station as measured in a vehicle travel direction is a maximum of 6 feet. The overall vehicle travel length to clean the vehicle depends on the vehicle in which is being cleaned. While a small vehicle such as a golf cart might be able to be cleaned within 6 feet. But a truck is definitely longer than 6 feet. Regardless, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the overall length of Dini (the length of the rails in which the station is mounted on), to be the same length as the vehicle in which its intended to clean. The length can also be considered to be the length of the washing station excluding the rails, which makes the length considerably shorter, roughly the diameter of the brushes. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). In the instant application Paragraph 47 fails to disclose any criticality or unpredictable result by the claimed dimension, since the overall dimension of Figure 1 is much larger than 6 feet.
Regarding claim 20, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 9, wherein the inner support structure and the outer support structure form a unitary construction (Figure 10 shows a unitary cleaning component).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dini (US 3,662,419) in view of Miner (US 4,021,877) in view of Belanger (US 4,424,602).
Regarding claim 8, Dini in view of Miner disclose the wrap around station of claim 1. Dini fails to explicitly disclose wherein the linear actuators comprise pneumatic piston assemblies.
Belanger teaches a car washing assembly wherein the linear actuators comprise pneumatic piston assemblies (Item 67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the hydraulic actuator for a pneumatic actuator. Both hydraulic and pneumatic actuators are known in the art. Pneumatic actuators have the benefit of being able to vent the used fluid into the air instead of having to recycle the fluid back into the system. Both systems would lead to the predictable result of the brush being properly articulated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723