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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-16) and Species IV (Figs. 17-28) in the reply filed on November 30th, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 and Figs. 1-7, 31A-31E, 8-11, and 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group and Species Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 30th, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“plurality of” should be added before “holes” in ln. 3 and 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“plurality of” should be added before “holes” in ln. 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8-15 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.
The term “about” in claim 8, ln. 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to as the maximum height of the spray device is no greater than about 5.5 inches. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the maximum height of the spray device is no greater than 5.5 inches.
Claims 9-11 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 8.
The term “about” in claim 9, ln. 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to as the maximum height of the spray device is no greater than about 4.0 inches. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the maximum height of the spray device is no greater than 4.0 inches.
Claims 10-11 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 9.
The term “about” in claim 10, ln. 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to as the maximum height of the spray device is no greater than about 3.0 inches. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the maximum height of the spray device is no greater than 3.0 inches.
Claim 11 is rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 10.
The term “about” in claim 11, ln. 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to as the maximum height of the spray device is no greater than about 2.0 inches. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the maximum height of the spray device is no greater than 2.0 inches.
The term “about” in claim 12, ln. 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to as the spray device has a length of about 37 inches. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the spray device has a length of 37 inches.
The term “about” in claim 13, ln. 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to as each of the holes has a diameter of about 1/16-inch. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that each of the holes has a diameter of 1/16-inch.
The term “about” in claim 14, ln. 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to as the body has an inside diameter of about 1.5 inch. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the body has an inside diameter of 1.5 inch.
The term “substantially” in claim 15, ln. 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to as the at least one foot has a substantially V-shaped configuration. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the at least one foot has a V-shaped configuration.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bell (US 20200216040 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bell discloses a spray device (10, 14, Figs. 1, 3-4), comprising:
a tubular body (54, body of manifold 14, shown in Figs. 1, 3-4) defining an interior volume (62, there is a longitudinal bore creating a volume extending through the entire length of body 54 of manifold 14, Figs. 3-4, Paragraph 0018), the body (54, Figs. 3-4) having a plurality of holes formed therein (64, 66, 70, 72, shown in Figs. 3-4) and adjoining (interpreting as touching or bounding at a point or line, Merriam-Webster Dictionary) the interior volume (62, the outlet apertures 64, 66, 70, 72 touch the longitudinal bore 62 at a point or line, Figs. 3-4), the holes (64, 66, 70, 72, Figs. 3-4) being located along not more than an upper half of the body (interpreting as the plurality of holes being located on an upper half of the body, the outlet apertures 64, 66, 70, 72 are located on the upper half of the body and Fig. 3 is a top view of the body 54 of manifold 14, shown in Figs. 1, 3);
at least one foot (26, 28, Fig. 1) connected to the body (54, body of manifold 14, shown in Fig. 1) and configured to maintain the body (54, body of manifold 14, shown in Figs. 1, 3-4) in an upright orientation (wheels 26 and 28 are mounted to provide mobility and maintain the manifold 14 above the ground at a given distance, and apparatus 10 can stand upright during use, Paragraphs 0014, 0022-0023); and
a coupling (12, 46, Fig. 1) mounted on an upstream end of the body (54, body of manifold 14, tube 12 connects to the upstream end of the manifold 14 and connects to the connector 46, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0016, 0024) and in fluid communication with the interior volume (62, Figs. 3-4) of the body (54, body of manifold 14, valve 52 controls water to flow from connector 46 through tube 12 and to manifold 14, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0016-0017), the coupling (12, 46, Fig. 1) being configured to be fluidly coupled to a source of water (“a source of water”, connector 46 is connected to a source of water through the garden hose, Paragraph 0024);
wherein the body (54, body of manifold 14, shown in Fig. 1) is configured so that the water supplied to the body (54, body of manifold 14, shown in Fig. 1) by way of the coupling (12, 46, Fig. 1) can exit the spray device (10, 14, Figs. 1, 3-4) by way of the holes (64, 66, 70, 72, Figs. 3-4) in an upward and outward direction (water is sprayed upwardly and out of the nozzles 16-24 of apertures 64, 66, 70, 72, shown in Figs. 1, 3-4).
Regarding claim 2, Bell discloses the spray device of claim 1. Bell further discloses the body (54, body of manifold 14, Figs. 1, 3-4) is a first body (54, body of manifold 14, shown in Figs. 1, 3-4);
the spray device (10, 14, Figs. 1, 3-4) further comprises a second body (38, shown in Fig. 1); and
the second body (38, Fig. 1) is configured to be connected to, and fluidly coupled to the first body (54, body of manifold 14, Figs. 1, 3-4) to increase an overall length of the spray device (10, 14, valve 52 controls water to flow from connector 46 through segment 38 of tube 12 and to body 54 of manifold 14, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0016-0017).
In regards to claim 4, Bell discloses the spray device of claim 1. Bell further discloses a downstream end (58, 60, Figs. 3-4) of the body (54, body of manifold 14, Figs. 1, 3-4) is sealed (sides 58 and 60 serve as bases of the cylinder, and axle members close and seal off ends of the bore 62 at sides 58 and 60, shown in Figs. 3-4, Paragraphs 0017, 0022).
In regards to claim 5, Bell discloses the spray device of claim 4. Bell further discloses the downstream (58, 60, Figs. 3-4) of the body (54, body of manifold 14, Figs. 1, 3-4) is flattened (shown in Figs. 3-4).
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 3, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (US 20200216040 A1) in view of Koshnick (US Patent 9,533,320).
With respect to claim 3, Bell discloses the spray device of claim 2. Bell further discloses the coupling (12, 16, Fig. 1) is a first coupling (shown in Fig. 1). However, Bell does not disclose the spray device further comprises a second coupling, and the second coupling is configured to mechanically connect the first body to the second body. Koshnick teaches a spray device (10, Fig. 2) comprising a first coupling (14, Fig. 3) and a second coupling (12, Fig. 3), and the second coupling (12, Fig. 3) is configured to mechanically connect the first body (body of conduit 16, shown in Fig. 3) to the second body (body of container 22, shown in Fig. 3).
Bell 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 second coupling taught in Koshnick’s spray device to Bell’s spray device, to have the spray device further comprises a second coupling, and the second coupling is configured to mechanically connect the first body to the second body. Doing so allows the first body and the second body to be securely connected to each other (Koshnick, Col. 3, Ln. 44 to Col. 4, Ln. 19).
Regarding claim 12, Bell discloses the spray device of claim 1. However, Bell does not disclose the spray device has a length of about 37 inches. Koshnick teaches a spray device (10, Fig. 2) comprising the spray device has a length of about 37 inches (the preferred length of the device is about 32 inches, but the length of the device may vary, Col. 3, Ln. 34-38, Col. 4, Ln. 39-52).
Bell 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 Bell’s spray device, to have the spray device has a length of about 37 inches. Doing so provides a simpler and more economical device (Koshnick, Col. 4, Ln. 39-52).
In regards to claim 14, Bell discloses the spray device of claim 1. However, Bell does not disclose the body has an inside diameter of about 1.5 inch. Koshnick teaches a spray device (10, Fig. 2) comprising the body has an inside diameter of about 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).
Bell 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 Bell’s spray device, to have the body has an inside diameter of about 1.5 inch. Doing so provides a simpler and more economical device (Koshnick, Col. 4, Ln. 39-52).
Regarding claim 16, Bell discloses the spray device of claim 1. However, Bell does not disclose the body is rigid. Koshnick teaches a spray device (10, Fig. 2) comprising the body (body of conduit 16, Fig. Fig. 3) is rigid (Col. 4, Ln. 47-52).
Bell 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 substitute the body taught in Koshnick’s spray device to Bell’s spray device, to have the body is rigid. Doing so provides a more economical and lower manufacturing and retail costs (Koshnick, Col. 4, Ln. 39-46).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (US 20200216040 A1) in view of Kang (US 20220016456 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Bell discloses the spray device of claim 5. However, Bell does not disclose a resilient material located within the downstream end of the body, wherein the resilient material is configured to be compressed by the downstream end of the body to thereby seal the downstream end of the body. Kang teaches a spray device (entire system, Fig. 3) comprising a resilient material (interpreting as a material that is capable of withstanding shock without permanent deformation or rupture, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 57a, 57b, 58, pads 58 formed between caps 57a and 57b and ends of body 52 are formed of an elastic material, Fig. 9, Paragraph 0168) located within the downstream end (ends of body 52, shown in Fig. 9) of the body (52, Fig. 9), wherein the resilient material (57a, 57b, 58, Fig. 9) is configured to be compressed by the downstream end (ends of body 52, shown in Fig. 9) of the body (52, Fig. 9) to thereby seal the downstream end of the body (ends of body 52, shown in Fig. 9) of the body (52, pads 58 seal the gaps between the caps 57a and 57b and ends of the body 52 are adhered to the inner surfaces of the caps 57a and 57b, which apply a compressing force on the pads 58, Fig. 9, Paragraph 0168).
Bell and Kang 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 resilient material taught in Kang’s spray device to Bell’s spray device, to have a resilient material located within the downstream end of the body, wherein the resilient material is configured to be compressed by the downstream end of the body to thereby seal the downstream end of the body. Doing so prevents leakage of the fluid traveling through the device (Kang, Paragraph 0168).
In regards to claim 7, Bell discloses the spray device of claim 4. However, Bell does not disclose an end cap configured to be positioned on the downstream end of the body to thereby seal the downstream end of the body. Kang teaches a spray device (entire system, Fig. 3) comprising an end cap (57a, 57b, 58, Fig. 9) configured to be positioned on the downstream end (ends of body 52, shown in Fig. 9) of the body (52, Fig. 9) to thereby seal the downstream end (ends of body 52, shown in Fig. 9) of the body (52, pads 58 seal the gaps between the caps 57a and 57b and ends of the body 52 are adhered to the inner surfaces of the caps 57a and 57b, Fig. 9, Paragraph 0168).
Bell and Kang 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 end cap taught in Kang’s spray device to Bell’s spray device, to have an end cap configured to be positioned on the downstream end of the body to thereby seal the downstream end of the body. Doing so prevents leakage of the fluid traveling through the device (Kang, Paragraph 0168).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (US 20200216040 A1) in view of Zinski et al. (US Patent 7,208,051).
Regarding claim 8, Bell discloses the spray device of claim 1. However, Bell does not disclose a maximum height of the spray device is no greater than about 5.5 inches. Zinski teaches a spray device (5, Fig. 1) comprising a maximum height of the spray device is no greater than about 5.5 inches (height of the spray device is 4 inches, Col. 6, Ln. 33-43).
Bell 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 Bell’s spray device, to have a maximum height of the spray device is no greater than about 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, Bell, 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 about 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 Bell (US 20200216040 A1) 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, Bell, as modified by Zinski, discloses the spray device of claim 9. However, Bell and Zinski do not teach the maximum height of the spray device is no greater than about 3.0 inches. Chan teaches the spray device (10, Fig. 1A) comprising the maximum height of the spray device is no greater than about 3.0 inches (height of the frame 13 and spray head 11 are height adjustable, which can include the height is no greater than about 3.0 inches, Col. 3, Ln. 66 to Col. 4, Ln. 21).
Bell, 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 Bell’s spray device, as modified by Zinski, to have the maximum height of the spray device is no greater than about 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, Bell, 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 about 2.0 inches (height of the frame 13 and spray head 11 are height adjustable, which can include the height is no greater than about 2.0 inches, Col. 3, Ln. 66 to Col. 4, Ln. 21).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (US 20200216040 A1) in view of Merritts (US Patent 6,079,640).
With respect to claim 13, Bell discloses the spray device of claim 1. However, Bell does not disclose each of the holes has a diameter of about 1/16-inch. Merritts teaches a spray device (30, Fig. 1) comprising each of the holes has a diameter of about 1/16-inch (Col. 3, Ln. 41-55).
Bell 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 Bell’s spray device, to have each of the holes has a diameter of about 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 Bell (US 20200216040 A1) in view of Tracy (US Patent 1,962,263).
With respect to claim 15, Bell discloses the spray device of claim 1. However, Bell does not disclose the at least one foot has a substantially V-shaped configuration. Tracy teaches a spray device (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising the at least one foot (7, Figs. 1, 3) has a substantially V-shaped configuration (shown in Fig. 3).
Bell 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 Bell’s spray device, to have the at least one foot has a substantially V-shaped configuration. Doing so ensures the spray device is positively held down on the ground (Tracy, Pg. 1, Ln. 34 to Ln. 62).
Conclusion
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
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752