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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 14, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure, as originally filed, does not disclose that the distribution block including several valves having flow rates between 0%-5% of one another among the several valves as amended in claim 1. In fact, the only section that discloses the term “5%” is in paragraph [044] of the Applicant’s disclosure. However, paragraph [044] discloses “…the valves 8 have flow rates that differ from one another by 5% at most...” The concept of “flow rates that differ from one another by 5%” is not the same as what is recited in the amended limitation in claim 1. Clarification is respectfully requested.
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 1-10 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.
In claim 1, lines 9-10, the recitation “a distribution block including several valves having flow rates between 0%-5% of one another among the several valves” rendering the claim indefinite because the recitation appears to be idiomatically and/or grammatically incorrect. It is unclear if the recitation requires: a. “the flow rates of the several valves differ from one another by 0%-5%,” or b. “one flow rate of a valve is 0%-5% of another valve” or c. “a plurality of several valves having a plurality of respective flow rates are 0%-5% of the other plurality of several valves having another plurality of respective flow rates?” Furthermore, it is unclear if the “flow rates,” in line 9, refers to the “flow rates” of the (singular) distribution block of the (plurality of) several valves? Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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) 1-10 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 Cosby et al. (WO2020210450. Cosby hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Cosby discloses a method (Figs. 1-12) for cleaning motor vehicle surfaces (camera/sensor) using a cleaning device (camera/sensor washing system) comprising:
a reservoir ([00045]) of cleaning liquid,
a nozzle (52 and the outlet at the camera/sensor) for spraying the cleaning liquid,
a fluid distribution circuit (passages from the reservoir to the camera/sensor) designed to convey the cleaning liquid from the reservoir to the nozzle and
a pump ([00045]) designed to inject the cleaning liquid from the reservoir into the fluid distribution circuit, the fluid distribution circuit including
a distribution block (10, 10’) including several valves (20) having flow rates between 0%-5% of one another among the several valves (Cosby discloses same size injectors with same size, if not identical, valve assembly and same diameter fluid passages. When two valves are in fully closed position, they both have exactly the same flow rate which is zero, thus the two valves will have 0% difference between the two flow rates), the nozzle being connected to the several valves of the distribution block, with the following steps:
commanding an operation of the pump (from the controller. not shown) configured to (capable of) inject the cleaning liquid from the reservoir to an extent of the distribution block,
commanding an opening of the several valves connected to the nozzle according to a desired pressure at an outlet of the nozzle when a pressure at an inlet of the distribution block reaches a predetermined pressure (since volume expansion assembly 30 is technically a built-in pressure regulator), and
spraying cleaning liquid from the nozzle onto a cleaning surface (of the camera/sensor).
Alternatively, Cosby fails to specifically disclose the several valves having flow rates within about 5% between one another. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the several valves having flow rates within about 5% between one another, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 2, Cosby discloses wherein a number of valves (all of the valves) opened is dependent on a distance (of allowable and flowable passage) between the nozzle connected to the several valves and the distribution block.
With respect to claim 3, Cosby discloses wherein the number of valves opened is dependent on a surrounding temperature ([00035]).
With respect to claim 4, Cosby discloses wherein all valves are opened upon a command to open the several valves connected to the nozzle (by the controller. not shown).
With respect to claim 5, Cosby discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further including:
activating the pump (by starting the engine), with the valves closed (before the activation or after the activation of the camera/sensor washing system), and
opening the valves (during the activation of the camera/sensor washing system).
With respect to claim 6, Cosby discloses wherein a control unit (the controller. not shown) is connected to the distribution block and is configured to (capable of) command an opening and a closing of a set of valves.
With respect to claim 7, Cosby discloses wherein the control unit commands an opening of the set of valves that differs according to a desired pressure at an outlet of the nozzle (Fig. 10 and [00040]- [00042]).
With respect to claim 8, Cosby discloses wherein each nozzle is connected to a set of (two) valves; including a command to open several valves (one or two) of each set of valves after a commanding operation of the pump in order to inject the cleaning liquid from the reservoir as far as the distribution block (Fig. 10 and [00040]- [00042]).
With respect to claim 9, Cosby discloses the cleaning method as claimed in claim 1, except for wherein the valves are configured to have an outlet metric flow rate of between 0.12 and 0.15 m3/h (cubic meter per hours).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the valves configured to have an outlet metric flow rate of between 0.12 and 0.15 m3/h, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 10, Cosby discloses wherein the several valves are solenoid valves (moveable armature which moves in response to an electromagnetic force . [00028]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Cosby does not disclose the distribution block including several valves having flow rates between 0%-5% of one another among the several valves as amended in claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the newly amended limitation violates the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph requirements. See detailed 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections elaborated above. Second, the newly amended limitation recites “…the distribution block including several valves having flow rates between 0%-5% of one another among the several valves.” As shown in Cosby’s reference, Cosby discloses several injectors 20 with same size, if not identical, valve assembly with the same diameter fluid passages. These features are clearly shown in the drawings provided by Cosby. Therefore, Cosby discloses the claimed limitation. Alternatively, when two of Cosby’s valves 20 are set in fully closed position, then both of the valves 20 would have exactly the same flow rate which is zero, thus the two valves will have 0% difference between the two flow rates. Third, the claimed limitation is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cosby. See detailed 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection elaborated above. With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the Applicant argues “…valves will fail to properly operate and will be damaged unless flow rates are maintained within the specifically indicated "0.12 and 0.15 m3/h (cubic meter per hour)" margin…” However, it is unclear what reference discloses the “valves” and the "0.12 and 0.15 m3/h (cubic meter per hour)" margin,” argued by the Applicant. Cosby’s reference does not disclose “the valves will fail to properly operate and will be damaged unless flow rates are maintained within the specifically indicated "0.12 and 0.15 m3/h (cubic meter per hour)" margin,” as argued by the Applicant. The applicant has not provided any convincing showing that these are nothing more than optimum or workable values as asserted by the examiner. Applicant has not provided any showing that such limitations are “critical”. In re Cole, 140 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1964); In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); In re Davies, 177 USPQ 381 (CCPA 1973). Mere arguments by counsel cannot take the place of evidence. In re Cole, 236 F.2d 769, 773, 140 USPQ 230, 233 (CCPA 1964); In re Walters, 168 f.2d 79, 80, 77 USPQ 609, 610 (CCPA 1948); et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 April 4, 2026