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 .
The amendment filed on 7/9/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maiefski (US 4,433,795).
Regarding claim 1, Maiefski discloses A fluid dispensing system for a vehicle (fig.1-15) comprising: one or more pumps (12, col 4, ll.59-68 and col 5, ll.8-27), each of the one or more pumps including an inlet connected to a source of fluid and an outlet (see fig.1, inlet and outlet from 26 and 28, source 54); a plurality of fluid dispensers (“multiple” 41), each of the plurality of fluid dispensers being fluidically connected to the one or more pumps (see fig.1), the each of the plurality of fluid dispensers being configured to direct a stream of fluid towards a target surface (“glass”); a control circuit (10) operatively connected to each of the one or more pumps, the control circuit being configured to activate the one or more pumps to wash the at least one target surface (see connection of 10 to 12 and 18 in fig.1); a manifold (36 or 40) including one or more fluid inlets connected to each of the one or more pumps and a plurality of fluid outlets each connected to one or more of the plurality of fluid dispensers (see fig.1, inlet from 38 to 40 and outlet from 40 to 42); and at least one check valve configured to prevent backflow from the manifold to at least one or more pumps, the at least one check valve being one of: a first position arranged at the outlet of the corresponding one or more pumps and at a second position arranged between the one or more pumps and the manifold and at a third position integrated into the manifold (see col. 5, ll.59-68 and col. 6, ll.1-14, “check valves” are mounted to the manifold 40; and prevents backflow, col. 6, ll.51-61).
Regarding claim 2, Maiefski discloses the manifold includes a manifold chamber defined between the one or more fluid inlets and the plurality of fluid outlets, the at least one check valve being arranged in the manifold chamber (chamber of 40 and inlets from 38 and outlets to 42).
Regarding claim 3, Maiefski discloses the at least one check valve includes a check valve assembly including a frame, at least one movable portion being pivotally connected to the frame (operation structure of the check valve inherently includes a frame and movable portion).
Regarding claim 4, Maiefski discloses the manifold includes a housing having an inlet housing part supporting one or more fluid inlets and an outlet housing part supporting the plurality of fluid outlets, the frame being mounted between the inlet housing part and the outlet housing part (see fig.1, the frame is in between the couplings of the inlets and outlets to the housing 40).
Regarding claim 9, Maiefski discloses a ring circuit connected between at least two of the plurality of fluid outlets, the ring circuit supporting one or more of the plurality of fluid dispensers, wherein the manifold is a one-single device (see the ring at the outlet of 40).
Regarding claim 10, Maiefski discloses the control circuit is configured to receive or determine required fluid demands of the target surface to be delivered towards the target surface, and wherein the control circuit is configured to operate which pump or pumps has/have to be operated depending on the fluid demands (col 8, ll.3-55; see “operation mode” and “special mode”).
Regarding claim 11, Maiefski discloses at least one control valve configured to be actuated by the control circuit, wherein the at least one control valve is arranged between the manifold and at least one of the plurality of fluid dispensers, including in the manifold or in the at least one of the plurality of fluid dispensers (gun 18 includes a valves via switches 108, also, see fig.1, connection of 18 to 20 and 10).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Maiefski (US 4,433,795) in view of Westerberg (US 1,091,552).
Maiefski is silent in disclosing at least one of the plurality of fluid dispensers is a telescopic fluid dispenser being capable of extending from a rest position to an extended position and retracting from the extended position to the rest position, wherein the at least one control valve comprises a fluid inlet for receiving fluid from the source of fluid, a first fluid outlet for discharging the fluid into the telescopic fluid dispenser, and a second fluid outlet for allowing fluid to flow back away from the telescopic fluid dispenser when retracting from the extended position to the rest position. However, Westerberg teaches the commonality of having at least one of the plurality of fluid dispensers being a telescopic fluid dispenser capable of extending from a rest position to an extended position and retracting from the extended position to the rest position, wherein the at least one control valve comprises a fluid inlet for receiving fluid from the source of fluid, a first fluid outlet for discharging fluid into the telescopic fluid dispenser, and a second fluid outlet for allowing fluid to flow back away from the telescopic fluid dispenser when retracting from the extended position to the rest position (see fig.1-3, telescopic movement of valve 6 in A; page 1, ll.108-112 and ll.47-56). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the fluid dispenser of Maiefski to a telescopic one as taught by Westerberg, in order to improve efficiency and quality of the dispensing system.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Maiefski (US 4,433,795) in view of Tuyls (US 2013/0119089).
Maiefski is silent in disclosing one of the plurality of fluid outlets defines a fluid return path configured to carry excess fluid from the manifold back to the source of fluid. However, Tuyls teaches the commonality of having a dispensing system with
one of the plurality of fluid outlets defines a fluid return path configured to carry excess fluid from the manifold back to the source of fluid (see [0049] and [0057-58], return fluid from manifold 62 to supply line). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to add a fluid return line as taught by Tuyls to the manifold of Maiefski, in order to conserve the supply fluid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 21 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Maiefski (US 4,433,795) fails to disclose a manifold distributing fluid from shared inlets to multiple distinct outlets. Applicant is referred to limitation of claim 1: “a manifold including one or more fluid inlets connected to each of the one or more pumps and a plurality of fluid outlets each connected to one or more of the plurality of fluid dispensers; and at least one check valve configured to prevent backflow from the manifold to at least one or more pumps”. The limitation is silent in disclosing the manifold receiving fluid via its inlet and distributing the same fluid via its outlet. The manifolds 36 and 40 of Maiefski having fluid inlets to receive fluid from 38 and fluid outlets to transfer fluid to 42. Applicant also argues that claim 1 requires a "fluid dispensing system for a vehicle" and Maiefski is related to a distribution system of liquor for a bar, not relating to a vehicle at all. Examiner notes that the term “vehicle” is in the preamble of the claims and is not claimed positively in the body of the claims. Applicant further argues that Maiefski reference is silent with regard to "a target surface" and as explained in Applicant's specification, the target surface may be a vehicle sensor that is to be cleaned, such as a camera module, a lidar, a radar, etc. when they get dirty. The applicant’s argument would be better considered if the limitation “the target surface of a vehicle sensor that is to be cleaned, such as a camera module, a lidar, a radar, etc. when they get dirty” was positively defined in claim 1. In the absent of a defined target surface within the claim, Maiefski properly defines the glass (col 6, ll.22-25) as a target surface. Applicant also argues that the claim requires a plurality of fluid outlets each connected to one or more of fluid dispensers and Maiefski discloses only one gun 18 is connected to the outlet of 40. It is noted that the claim recites “one or more …….fluid dispensers”. Further, the buttons or switches 80 on 18 are actuators or dispensers for any particular fluid. Finally, applicant argues that, claim 1 requires a "check valve configured to prevent backflow from the manifold to at least one or more pumps" and Maiefski does not anticipate or suggest the claimed language. Examiner respectively disagrees with such an assessment. Maiefski recites the check valves provide one way flow of liquid toward the dispensing gun (see Maiefski, col 5, ll.28-42). The term “one way valve” indicates no flow is going back to the pump and fluid only travels toward the gun. Examiner believes the non-final office action dated 4/9/2026 properly addresses the claims limitation. Applicant is welcomed to have an interview to discuss the state of the prior arts, in order to advance the prosecution of this instant application.
State of the Prior Arts
Regarding claim 1, the prior arts to Zinsmeyer (US 5,018,645), Larkner (US RE40310 E) and Scipio (JP 2014077440 A) as cited in PTO-892, either individually or in combination are disclosing/teaching significant pertinent structures or features to the applicant’s claimed invention with regard to a fluid dispenser having pump, controller, manifold and one way valve. It appears that claim 1 does not provide any inventive concept over the cited prior arts.
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 Bob Zadeh whose telephone number is (571)270-5201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm E.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/BOB ZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights