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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 6/6/2024, 6/20/2024, 1/16/2025, 6/9/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2008/024910 by Nino et al. (“Nino”).
As for claim 14, Nino discloses a chemical level sensing system, comprising:
a control unit (34 and inside 28, 30 in Figs. 2 and 3) containing a processor (34) and an optical time-of-flight sensor (part of 40) communicatively coupled to the processor, the control unit comprising a protective lens (74), wherein the sensor is arranged behind the lens such that the sensor is protected within an interior of the control unit (because lens 74 is between 40 and 16);
an elongated tube (32) coupled to the control unit and configured to be inserted vertically through an opening in a storage container (see Fig. 1); and
a float (84) arranged in the elongated tube and configured to be movable,
wherein the sensor configured to transmit signals through the lens to sense a distance between the sensor and the float arranged in the elongated tube when the elongated tube is arranged in the storage container containing a chemical solution undergoing egress therefrom such that a level of the liquid chemical solution within the elongated tube corresponds to a level of a liquid chemical solution in the storage container (page 5, lines 12-17 and page 7, lines 11-14 and Fig. 6), and
wherein based on a sensed distance between the sensor and the float, the processor is configured to calculate a level of a chemical present in the storage container during such egress (page 9, lines 4-18).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008/024910 by Nino et al. (“Nino”) in view of U.S. Patent 2010/0163567 by Chiang et al. (“Chiang”).
As for claim 1, Nino discloses an optical chemical level-sensing device, comprising:
an elongated tube (32) including a length greater than a height of a storage container configured to store a liquid chemical solution (see Fig. 1), wherein, during installation, the elongated tube is configured to be inserted into a hole in a top of the storage container until a bottom end rests at or near a bottom portion of the storage container with a portion of the elongated tube extending above the top of the storage container (see Fig. 1), wherein the elongated tube (32) is configured to allow liquid to flow into and out of the elongated tube while installed in the storage container such that a level of the liquid chemical solution within the elongated tube corresponds to a level of the liquid chemical solution in the storage container (see Fig. 6);
a float device (84) configured to be inserted into the elongated tube and to move vertically within the elongated tube in response to changes in the level of the liquid chemical solution (see Fig. 6), wherein the float device (84) includes a target surface (top of 84) facing toward the top of the storage container and vertically-positioned at a height within the elongated tube equal to or slightly above the level of the liquid chemical solution within the elongated tube (see Fig. 6), wherein the target surface is configured to reflect optical signals (page 8, lines 4-8); and
a sealed (page 7, lines 21-23) control unit (40) configured to be positioned on a top end (inside 30) of the elongated tube (see Fig. 1), wherein the sealed control unit comprises an optical time-of-flight sensor (page 5, lines 12-17) and a lens (74), wherein the lens is configured to provide a physical barrier between the liquid chemical solution and the optical time- of-flight sensor (because lens 74 is between the 40 and 16), while also allowing the optical signals to pass through, wherein the optical time- of-flight sensor is configured to emit optical signals through the lens toward the target surface of the float device and to measure a return time of reflections of the optical signals off of the target surface to determine the level of the liquid chemical solution within the storage container (page 5, lines 5-17).
Nino does not explicitly disclose that the bottom end of the elongated tube is configured to allow liquid to flow into and out of the elongated tube.
However, Chiang discloses a bottom end (11a) of an elongated tube (11) is configured to allow liquid to flow into and out of the elongated tube (11).
Nino and Chiang disclose each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the bottom end of Chaing with the elongated tube of Nino by creating an opening at the bottom of the elongated tube of Nino as suggested by Fig. 4 of Chiang, and that in combination, the opening of the bottom end of Chiang and the rest of the elongated tube of Nino merely perform the same function as each does separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the elongated tube of Nino to include the bottom end as disclosed by Chiang in order to achieve the predictable result of providing an inlet in which fluid can flow into the elongated tube.
The examiner notes that the recitation of a liquid chemical solution describes the intended use of the optical chemical level-sensing device and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
As for claim 2, Nino as modified by Chiang discloses that the target surface (Nino: top of 84) includes a shape defined by a top face of the float device (Nino: see Fig. 6).
As for claim 5, Nino as modified by Chaing discloses the optical chemical level-sensing device of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Nino as presently modified by Chaing does not disclose that the sealed control unit includes a processor as recited. Instead, Nino discloses a separate external processor (Nino: 34) configured to communicate with the optical time-of-flight sensor (part of 40) to receive time-of-flight data and to determine the level of the liquid chemical solution within the storage container based on the time-of-flight data (page 9, lines 4-18).
However, Chiang discloses a sealed control unit (Chiang: 20) that further includes a processor (Fig. 7) configured to communicate with a sensor to receive data and to determine a level of liquid chemical solution within a storage container based on the data (paragraph [0045]).
Because Nino and Chiang both disclose locations of processors that determine a level of liquid, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the location of the processor in a sealed control unit of Chiang for the separate external processor location of Nino to achieve the predictable result of providing a processor that determines a level of liquid.
As for claim 9, Nino as modified by Chiang discloses that the optical time-of- flight sensor includes a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor (Nino: page 1, lines 6-8).
As for claim 11, Nino discloses a chemical level sensing system, comprising:
a processor (34);
an optical time-of-flight sensor (part of 40) communicatively coupled to the processor;
a control unit (inside 28, 30; Figs. 2 and 3) containing at least the sensor (part of 40), the control unit comprising a protective lens (74), wherein the sensor (80) is arranged behind (i.e. above 74 in Fig. 3) the lens (74) such that the sensor is protected within an interior of the control unit (because lens 74 is between the 40 and 16);
an elongated tube (32) coupled to the control unit and configured to be inserted vertically through an opening in a storage container (see Fig. 1); and
a float device (84) arranged in the elongated tube and configured to be movable,
wherein the sensor is configured to transmit signals through the lens to sense a distance between the sensor and the float arranged in the elongated tube when the elongated tube is arranged in the storage container containing a liquid chemical solution (page 5, lines 12-17 and page 7, lines 11-14), wherein the elongated tube is configured to allow liquid ingress and egress while installed in the storage container such that a level of the liquid chemical solution within the elongated tube corresponds to a level of the liquid chemical solution in the storage container (see Fig. 6), and
wherein based on a sensed distance between the sensor and the float, the processor is configured to calculate a level of the liquid chemical solution present in the storage container (page 9, lines 4-18).
Nino does not explicitly disclose that the bottom end of the elongated tube is configured to allow liquid to flow into and out of the elongated tube.
However, Chiang discloses a bottom end (11a) of an elongated tube (11) is configured to allow liquid to flow into and out of the elongated tube (11).
Nino and Chiang disclose each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the bottom end of Chaing with the elongated tube of Nino by creating an opening at the bottom of the elongated tube of Nino as suggested by Fig. 4 of Chiang, and that in combination, the opening of the bottom end of Chiang and the rest of the elongated tube of Nino merely perform the same function as each does separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the elongated tube of Nino to include the bottom end as disclosed by Chiang in order to achieve the predictable result of providing an inlet in which fluid can flow into the elongated tube.
The examiner notes that the recitation of a liquid chemical solution describes the intended use of the optical chemical level-sensing device and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008/024910 by Nino et al. (“Nino”) in view of U.S. Patent 2010/0163567 by Chiang et al. (“Chiang”) as applied to claim 2, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0083515 by Lansing et al. (“Lansing”).
As for claim 3, Nino as modified by Chiang discloses the optical chemical level-sensing device of claim 2 (see the rejection of claim 2 above) and that the float device (Nino: 84) includes a body portion (Nino: middle of 84) extending between the target surface (Nino: top of 84) and a base (Nino: bottom of 84).
Nino as modified by Chaing does not disclose that the base defines a star shape.
However, Lansing discloses a base that defines a star shape (paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the base of the float device of Nino and Chiang to define a star shape as disclosed by Lansing in order to avoid tilting of the float (Lansing: paragraph [0027]).
Nino as modified by Chiang and Lansing does not disclose that a diameter of the body portion is smaller than the target surface and the base.
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form a diameter of the body portion of the Nino-Chiang-Lansing combination to be smaller than the target surface and base because Applicant has not disclosed that providing a smaller diameter provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the float of the Nino-Chiang-Lansing combination and applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the diameter disclosed by the Nino-Chiang-Lansing combination or the claimed smaller diameter because both diameters would perform the same function of preventing the float from tilting in the elongated tube.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the Nino-Chiang-Lansing combination to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of the Nino-Chiang-Lansing combination.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008/024910 by Nino et al. (“Nino”) in view of U.S. Patent 2010/0163567 by Chiang et al. (“Chiang”) as applied to claims 2 and 1, further in view of U.S. Patent 11,486,755 issued to Dam-Huisman (“Dam-Huisman”).
As for claim 4, Nino as modified by Chiang discloses the optical chemical level-sensing device of claim 2 (see the rejection of claim 2 above).
Nino as modified by Chaing does not disclose that the float device includes an outer portion adjacent the target surface having external ribs configured to interleave with elongated grooves formed vertically in inner sidewalls of the elongated tube to control rotation of the float device as it moves within the elongated tube.
However, Dam-Huisman discloses a float device (160) that includes an outer portion (174) adjacent a target surface (top of 162) having external ribs (174) configured to interleave with elongated grooves formed vertically in inner sidewalls of an elongated tube to control rotation of the float device as it moves within the elongated tube (col. 6, lines 58-61).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the float device and elongated tube of Nino and Chiang to have ribs and grooves as disclosed by Dam-Huisman in order to limit rotation of the float device (Dam-Huisman: col. 6, lines 58-61).
As for claim 10, Nino as modified by Chiang discloses the optical chemical level-sensing device of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Nino as modified by Chaing does not disclose that the float device includes a splined device with sidewalls including vertical ribs and grooves.
However, Dam-Huisman discloses a float device (160) that includes a splined device (174) with sidewalls including vertical ribs and grooves (see Fig. 4B).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the float device of Nino and Chiang to include a splined device with sidewalls including vertical ribs and grooves as disclosed by Dam-Huisman in order to limit rotation of the float device (Dam-Huisman: col. 6, lines 58-61).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008/024910 by Nino et al. (“Nino”) in view of U.S. Patent 2010/0163567 by Chiang et al. (“Chiang”) as applied to claim 5, further in view of U.S. Patent 9,389,114 issued to Rietsch, Jr. et al. (“Rietsch”).
As for claim 6, Nino as modified by Chiang discloses the optical chemical level-sensing device of claim 5 (see the rejection of claim 5 above).
Nino as modified by Chaing does not disclose that the processor is further configured to wirelessly communicate the level of the liquid chemical solution to an external computing device.
However, Rietsch discloses a processor (58) that is further configured to wirelessly communicate a level of a liquid chemical solution to an external computing device (col. 2, lines 50-52).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the processor of Nino and Chiang to wirelessly communicate as disclosed by Rietsch in order to allow a remote user to see the liquid level data.
Claims 7, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008/024910 by Nino et al. (“Nino”) in view of U.S. Patent 2010/0163567 by Chiang et al. (“Chiang”) as applied to claims 5 and 11, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0180937 by Frith et al. (“Frith”).
As for claim 7, Nino as modified by Chiang discloses the optical chemical level-sensing device of claim 5 (see the rejection of claim 5 above).
Nino as modified by Chaing does not disclose that the processor is further configured to adjust the determined level of the liquid chemical solution based on an orientation of the optical time-of-flight sensor relative to the surface of the liquid chemical solution in the storage container.
However, Frith discloses a processor that is further configured to adjust a determined level of a liquid chemical solution based on an orientation of an optical time-of-flight sensor relative to a surface of the liquid chemical solution in a storage container (paragraphs [0017], [0026], [0081]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the processor of Nino and Chiang to adjust a determined liquid level as disclosed by Frith in order to compensate for any tilting of the device.
As for claim 8, Nino as modified by Chiang and Frith discloses that the sealed control unit further includes a position sensor (Frith: paragraph [0081]) configured to detect the orientation of the optical time-of-flight sensor relative to the surface of the liquid chemical solution in the storage container (Frith: paragraph [0081]).
As for claim 12, Nino as modified by Chiang discloses the optical chemical level-sensing device of claim 11 (see the rejection of claim 11 above).
Nino as modified by Chaing does not disclose that the processor is further configured to adjust the calculated level of the liquid chemical solution present in the storage container based on an orientation of the optical time-of-flight sensor relative to a surface of the liquid chemical solution within the storage container.
However, Frith discloses a processor that is further configured to adjust a calculated level of a liquid chemical solution present in a storage container based on an orientation of an optical time-of-flight sensor relative to a surface of the liquid chemical solution within the storage container (paragraphs [0017], [0026], [0081]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the processor of Nino and Chiang to adjust a calculated liquid level as disclosed by Frith in order to compensate for any tilting of the device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008/024910 by Nino et al. (“Nino”) in view of U.S. Patent 2010/0163567 by Chiang et al. (“Chiang”) as applied to claim 11, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0185092 by Makinen et al. (“Makinen”).
As for claim 13, Makinen discloses a solution delivery system comprising a chemical level sensing system (15) and a dilution control system (Fig. 1), wherein the dilution control system integrates a processor of the chemical level sensing system into a single assembly (see Fig. 1).
Makinen does not disclose that the chemical level sensing system is the chemical level sensing system of claim 11. Instead, Makinen discloses that chemical level sensing system is a conductive static measuring stick to measure that measures a liquid level (paragraph [0013]).
However, Nino as modified by Chiang discloses the chemical level sensing system of claim 11 (see the rejection of claim 11 above). Nino as modified by Chiang discloses that the chemical level sensing system measures a liquid level (Nino: Abstract).
Because Nino and Makinen both disclose chemical level sensing systems that measure a liquid level, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application so substitute the chemical level sensing system of Nino and Chiang for the chemical level sensing system of Makinen to achieve the predictable result of providing a system that measures a liquid level.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008/024910 by Nino et al. (“Nino”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0185092 by Makinen et al. (“Makinen”).
As for claim 15, Makinen discloses a chemical level sensing system (15), wherein a processor or another processor of the chemical level sensing system causes a rate of the egress of the liquid chemical solution to be adjusted based on a target level of chemical delivery (the rate of egress becomes zero when the target level is reached; paragraph [0013]).
Makinen does not disclose that the chemical level sensing system is the chemical level sensing system of claim 14. Instead, Makinen discloses that chemical level sensing system is a conductive static measuring stick to measure that measures a liquid level (paragraph [0013]).
However, Nino discloses the chemical level sensing system of claim 14 (see the rejection of claim 14 above). Nino discloses that the chemical level sensing system measures a liquid level (Nino: Abstract).
Because Nino and Makinen both disclose chemical level sensing systems that measure a liquid level, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application so substitute the chemical level sensing system of Nino for the chemical level sensing system of Makinen to achieve the predictable result of providing a system that measures a liquid level.
As for claim 19, Makinen discloses a solution delivery system (Fig. 1) comprising a chemical level sensing system (15).
Makinen does not disclose that the chemical level sensing system is the chemical level sensing system of claim 14. Instead, Makinen discloses that chemical level sensing system is a conductive static measuring stick to measure that measures a liquid level (paragraph [0013]).
However, Nino discloses the chemical level sensing system of claim 14 (see the rejection of claim 14 above). Nino discloses that the chemical level sensing system measures a liquid level (Nino: Abstract).
Because Nino and Makinen both disclose chemical level sensing systems that measure a liquid level, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application so substitute the chemical level sensing system of Nino for the chemical level sensing system of Makinen to achieve the predictable result of providing a system that measures a liquid level.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008/024910 by Nino et al. (“Nino”) in view of U.S. Patent 7,121,140 issued to Lo (“Lo”).
As for claim 16, Nino discloses the chemical level-sensing system of claim 14 (see the rejection of claim 14 above).
Nino does not disclose an end cap installed at a lower end of the elongated tube, wherein the end cap is configured to block the float from leaving the tube while allowing the liquid chemical solution to enter and exit the tube.
However, Lo discloses an end cap (23) installed at a lower end of an elongated tube (21), wherein the end cap (23) is configured to block a float (22) from leaving the tube while allowing the liquid chemical solution to enter and exit the tube (see Fig. 4).
Nino and Lo disclose each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the end cap of Lo with the elongated tube of Nino by attaching the end cap to the bottom of the elongated tube of Nino as suggested by Figs. 2 and 4 of Lo, and that in combination, the end cap of Lo and the elongated tube of Nino merely perform the same function as each does separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the elongated tube of Nino to include the end cap as disclosed by Lo in order to achieve the predictable result of providing an inlet in which fluid can flow into the elongated tube.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008/024910 by Nino et al. (“Nino”) in view of U.S. Patent 8,887,743 issued to Molitor et al. (Molitor”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0022607by Flood (“Flood”).
As for claim 17, Nino discloses the chemical level sensing system of claim 14 (see the rejection of claim 14 above).
Nino does not disclose that the processor or another processor is communicably coupled to a metering device as recited.
However, Molitor discloses a processor or another processor (101) that is communicatively coupled to a metering device (126) configured to adjust the rate of egress of a chemical (col. 5, lines 3-8), the metering device comprising a chemical inlet (172) of an eductor (126) configured to receive the chemical and a motive fluid in a mixing chamber thereof (see Fig. 5a).
Nino and Molitor disclose each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the chemical level sensing system of Nino with the metering device of Molitor by connecting the level sensing system to the metering device as suggested by col. 7, lines 7-14 of Molitor, and that in combination, the metering device of Molitor and the chemical level sensing system of Nino merely perform the same function as each does separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the chemical level sensing system of Nino with the metering device of Molitor in order to achieve the predictable result of providing a car wash chemical system that can deliver a required amount of chemical.
Nino as modified by Molitor does not disclose that a size of an orifice supplying the chemical to the chemical inlet is adjusted to reach a target level of chemical delivery.
However, Flood discloses that a size of an orifice supplying a chemical to a chemical inlet is adjusted to reach a target level of chemical delivery (at least paragraphs [0076] and [0077].
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the processor or another processor of Nino and Molitor to adjust an orifice as disclosed by Flood in order to automatically control the delivery of a chemical as needed.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008/024910 by Nino et al. (“Nino”) in view of U.S. Patent 8,887,743 issued to Molitor et al. (Molitor”).
As for claim 18, Nino discloses the chemical level sensing system of claim 14 (see the rejection of claim 14 above).
Nino does not disclose that the processor or another processor is communicatively coupled to a metering device configured as a positive displacement pump, the positive displacement pump configured to impinge on a chemical delivery tube of the metering device, and wherein a rate of displacement of the chemical from the chemical delivery tube is adjusted to reach the target level chemical delivery.
However, Molitor discloses a processor or another processor (101) that is communicatively coupled to a metering device (130) configured as a positive displacement pump (col. 4, lines 45-53), the positive displacement pump configured to impinge on a chemical delivery tube of the metering device, and wherein a rate of displacement of the chemical from the chemical delivery tube is adjusted to reach the target level chemical delivery (col. 5, lines 9-21).
Nino and Molitor disclose each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the chemical level sensing system of Nino with the metering device of Molitor by connecting the level sensing system to the metering device as suggested by col. 7, lines 7-14 of Molitor, and that in combination, the metering device of Molitor and the chemical level sensing system of Nino merely perform the same function as each does separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the chemical level sensing system of Nino with the metering device of Molitor in order to achieve the predictable result of providing a car wash chemical system that can deliver a required amount of chemical.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 4,938,590 issued to Ishida (“Ishida”) is cited for all that it discloses including a liquid level sensor that includes a float and a time-of-flight sensor.
U.S. Patent 7,872,610 issued to Motzer et al. (“Motzer”) is cited for all that it discloses including a liquid level sensor that includes a lens that seals a space.
U.S. Patent 7,399,985 issued to Mruk et al. (“Mruk”) is cited for all that it discloses including a liquid level sensor that includes a lens that seals a space.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853