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 Amendment
The amendment filed July 6th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, and 7-16 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 4th, 2026.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Engdahl, Jr. et al. (US Patent 4,022,382, herein referenced to as Engdahl).
Regarding claim 1, Engdahl discloses a spray device (entire structure, Fig. 1), comprising:
a first tubular body (27, 29, Fig. 1) having a length in a first direction (shown in Fig. 1) and defining an interior volume (internal surface of tube segments 27, 29, shown in Fig. 1), the first tubular body (27, 29, Fig. 1) having a plurality of holes (45, Fig. 1) formed therein and adjoining the interior volume (nozzles 45 are inserted into tube segments 27, 29, Col. 2, Ln. 22-23), the plurality of holes (45, Fig. 1) being located along not more than an upper half of the first tubular body (top half of tube segments 27, 29, shown in Fig. 1);
a second tubular body (31, 33, Fig. 1) defining an interior volume (internal surface of tube segments 31, 33, shown in Fig. 1), the second tubular body (31, 33, Fig. 1) having a plurality of holes (45, Fig. 1) formed therein and adjoining the interior volume of the second tubular body (nozzles 45 are inserted into tube segments 31, 33, Col. 2, Ln. 22-23), the plurality of holes (45, Fig. 1) in the second tubular body (31, 33, Fig. 1) being located along not more than an upper half of the second tubular body (top half of tube segments 31, 33, shown in Fig. 1);
a first foot (47, Fig. 1) connected to the first tubular body (27, 29, shown in Fig. 1) and configured to maintain the first tubular body (27, 29, Fig. 1) in an upright orientation (shown in Fig. 1);
a second foot (47, Fig. 1) connected to the second tubular body (31, 33, shown in Fig. 1) and configured to maintain the second tubular body (31, 33, Fig. 1) in an upright orientation (shown in Fig. 1); and
a first coupling (26, Fig. 1) mounted on an upstream end of the first tubular body (upstream end of tube segment 27, shown in Fig. 1) and in fluid communication with the interior volume of the first tubular body (internal surface of tube segments 27, 29, shown in Fig. 1), the first coupling (26, Fig. 1) being configured to be fluidly coupled to a source of water (17, 23, Col. 1, Ln. 65 to Col. 2, Ln. 2);
a second coupling (25, Fig. 1) configured to connect and fluidly couple the second tubular body (31, 33, Fig. 1) to downstream end of the first tubular body (downstream end of tube segments 27, 29, shown in Fig. 1) to increase an overall length of the spray device (entire structure, Fig. 1) in the first direction (shown in Fig. 1);
wherein the first and second tubular bodies (27, 29, 31, 33, Fig. 1) are configured so that the water supplied to the first tubular body (27, 29, Fig. 1) by way of the first coupling (26, Fig. 1) can exit the spray device (entire structure, Fig. 1) by way of the plurality of holes (45, Fig. 1) in the first and second tubular bodies (27, 29, 31, 33, Fig. 1) in an upward and outward direction (shown in Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 4, Engdahl discloses the spray device of claim 1. Engdahl discloses a downstream end (right end of tube segments 31, 33, Fig. 1) of the second body (31, 33, Fig. 1) is sealed (shown in Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 7, Engdahl discloses the spray device of claim 4. Engdahl discloses an end cap (35, Fig. 1) configured to be positioned on the downstream end (right end of tube segments 31, 33, Fig. 1) of the second body (31, 33, Fig. 1) to thereby seal the downstream end (right end of tube segments 31, 33, Fig. 1) of the second body (31, 33, Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 16, Engdahl discloses the spray device of claim 1. Engdahl discloses the first body (27, 29, Fig. 1) and the second body (31, 33, Fig. 1) are rigid (tube segments are made of polyvinylchloride, which can be rigid, Col. 1, Ln. 61-64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engdahl, Jr. et al. (US Patent 4,022,382) in view of Zinski et al. (US Patent 7,208,051).
Regarding claim 8, Engdahl discloses the spray device of claim 1. However, Engdahl does not disclose a maximum height of the spray device is no greater than 5.5 inches.
Zinski teaches a spray device (5, Fig. 1) comprising a maximum height of the spray device is no greater than 5.5 inches (height of the spray device is 4 inches, Col. 6, Ln. 33-43).
Engdahl and Zinski are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the spray device taught in Zinski’s spray device to Engdahl’s spray device, to have a maximum height of the spray device is no greater than 5.5 inches. Doing so allows the spray device to fit under the average height of the vehicle underbody (Zinski, Col. 6, Ln. 33-43).
Regarding claim 9, Engdahl, as modified by Zinski, discloses the spray device of claim 8. Zinski further teaches the maximum height of the spray device is no greater than 4.0 inches (height of the spray device is 4 inches, Col. 6, Ln. 33-43).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engdahl, Jr. et al. (US Patent 4,022,382) in view of Zinski et al. (US Patent 7,208,051) as applied to claims 8-9 above, and further in view of Chan et al. (US Patent 5,707,014).
In regards to claim 10, Engdahl, as modified by Zinski, discloses the spray device of claim 9. However, Engdahl and Zinski do not teach the maximum height of the spray device is no greater than 3.0 inches.
Chan teaches the spray device (10, Fig. 1A) comprising the maximum height of the spray device is no greater than 3.0 inches (height of the frame 13 and spray head 11 are height adjustable, which can include the height is no greater than 3.0 inches, Col. 3, Ln. 66 to Col. 4, Ln. 21).
Engdahl, Zinski, and Chan are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the spray device taught in Chan’s spray device to Engdahl’s spray device, as modified by Zinski, to have the maximum height of the spray device is no greater than 3.0 inches. Doing so allows the spray device to be in closer proximity to the underside of the vehicle (Chan, Col. 4, Ln. 1-12).
With respect to claim 11, Engdahl, as modified by Zinski and Chan, discloses the spray device of claim 10. Chan further teaches the maximum height of the spray device is no greater than 2.0 inches (height of the frame 13 and spray head 11 are height adjustable, which can include the height is no greater than 2.0 inches, Col. 3, Ln. 66 to Col. 4, Ln. 21).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engdahl, Jr. et al. (US Patent 4,022,382) in view of Koshnick (US Patent 9,533,320).
Regarding claim 12, Engdahl discloses the spray device of claim 1. However, Engdahl does not disclose the spray device has a length of 37 inches.
Koshnick teaches a spray device (10, Fig. 2) comprising the spray device has a length of 37 inches (the preferred length of the device is 32 inches, but the length of the device may vary, Col. 3, Ln. 34-38, Col. 4, Ln. 39-52).
Engdahl and Koshnick are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the spray device taught in Koshnick’s spray device to Engdahl’s spray device, to have the spray device has a length of 37 inches. Doing so provides a simpler and more economical device (Koshnick, Col. 4, Ln. 39-52).
In regards to claim 14, Engdahl discloses the spray device of claim 1. However, Engdahl does not disclose the first and second bodies each have an inside diameter of 1.5 inch.
Koshnick teaches a spray device (10, Fig. 2) comprising the body has an inside diameter of 1.5 inch (the preferred inner diameter of the body is ½ inch, but the inner diameter can be different, Col. 3, Ln. 34-38, Col. 4, Ln. 39-52).
Engdahl and Koshnick are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the spray device taught in Koshnick’s spray device to Engdahl’s spray device, to have the body has an inside diameter of 1.5 inch. Doing so provides a simpler and more economical device (Koshnick, Col. 4, Ln. 39-52).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engdahl, Jr. et al. (US Patent 4,022,382) in view of Merritts (US Patent 6,079,640).
With respect to claim 13, Engdahl discloses the spray device of claim 1. However, Engdahl does not disclose each of the plurality of holes in the first and second tubular bodies has a diameter of 1/16-inch.
Merritts teaches a spray device (30, Fig. 1) comprising each of the plurality of holes in the first and second tubular bodies has a diameter of 1/16-inch (Col. 3, Ln. 41-55).
Engdahl and Merritts are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the holes taught in Merritt’s spray device to Engdahl’s spray device, to have each of the holes has a diameter of 1/16-inch. Doing so provides a device that is dependable and fully effective in accomplishing its intended purposes (Merritts, Col. 2, Ln. 36-39).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engdahl, Jr. et al. (US Patent 4,022,382) in view of Tracy (US Patent 1,962,263).
With respect to claim 15, Engdahl discloses the spray device of claim 1. However, Engdahl does not disclose the first foot and the second foot each has a V-shaped configuration.
Tracy teaches a spray device (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising the first foot and the second foot each (7, Figs. 1, 3) has a V-shaped configuration (shown in Fig. 3).
Engdahl and Tracy are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the at least one foot taught in Tracy’s spray device to Engdahl’s spray device, to have the at least one foot has a V-shaped configuration. Doing so ensures the spray device is positively held down on the ground (Tracy, Pg. 1, Ln. 34 to Ln. 62).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, and 7-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights