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
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on August 18, 2026. Claims 1-9 have been canceled. Claims 10 and 15 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10 and 15 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al. (US 7,878,421 B2) in view of Andreasson (US 4,628,188).
With regard to claim 10, Hofmann discloses a nozzle system (Fig. 3) for cleaning a vehicle part of a motor vehicle, comprising: at least one nozzle body (10) having a nozzle (28) for applying a cleaning liquid to the vehicle part; a fluid line arrangement (12) which is configured for connection to a fluid-based cleaning system of the motor vehicle in order to conduct the cleaning liquid to the nozzle body (Fig. 3); and an electrically conducting heating wire (14) which runs through the fluid line arrangement and through the nozzle body (Fig. 3).
Hofmann does not disclose that wherein the heating wire has a first portion with a first cross section extending continuously into a second portion with a second cross section, wherein the heating wire is electrically conductive through the entire first cross section and the entire second cross section, and wherein the first cross section is larger than the second cross section.
Andreasson teaches an electrically conducting heating wire (Fig. 1), wherein the heating wire has a first portion (10) with a first cross section extending continuously into a second portion (11) with a second cross section (Fig. 1), wherein the heating wire is electrically conductive through the entire first cross section and the entire second cross section (Fig. 1), and wherein the first cross section is larger than the second cross section (Col. 2 lines 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hofmann, by replacing the heating wire of Hofmann with the heating wire including the first portion (10) and second portion (11) as taught by Andreasson, doing it would provide different resistances, so the wire in the two sections 10 and 11 will be heated and as the temperature increases, less energy will be accumulated in thinner section (Col. 2 lines 4-15).
With regard to claim 11, the device of Hofmann as modified by Andreasson discloses the invention as disclosed in claim 10 above. Hofmann in view of Andreasson further discloses that the second cross section (11 of Andreasson) is disposed within the nozzle body (Fig. 3 of Hofmann) and the first cross section (10 of Andreasson) is disposed in a region of the fluid line arrangement that is outside of the nozzle body (Fig. 3 of Hofmann).
With regard to claim 12, the device of Hofmann as modified by Andreasson discloses the invention as disclosed in claim 10 above. Hofmann further discloses that the fluid line arrangement comprises a plurality of portions (Fig. 3) which connect a plurality of nozzle bodies (Fig. 3) which are spaced apart from one another to one another and wherein the plurality of portions of the fluid line arrangement (12) and the plurality of nozzle bodies (10) form a continuous fluid channel in which the heating wire (14) continuously extends (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 13, the device of Hofmann as modified by Andreasson discloses the invention as disclosed in claim 12 above. Hofmann further discloses that the fluid line arrangement (Fig. 3) is formed by a hose system and wherein the plurality of nozzle bodies (10) are connected by individual hose portions(12, Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 14, the device of Hofmann as modified by Andreasson discloses the invention as disclosed in claim 11 above. They do not disclose that a diameter of the second portion of the heating wire is less than 1/5 of a diameter of the first portion of the heating wire.
It is noted by the Examiner that the specification is devoid to provide any evidence indicating such ratio between the first and second portions of the heating wire is critical. On the other hand, the specification, in paragraph [0041] states “the diameter of the heating wire 18 in the region of the nozzle bodies 13 or in the respective portion 28 is advantageously less than 1/5, preferably less than 1/10, and particularly preferably less than 1/20, of its diameter in the regions 26 of the fluid line arrangement 15.” Hence, the claiming ratio is a matter of routine optimization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heating wire of Hofmann to exhibit the diameter of the second portion of the heating wire is less than 1/5 of the diameter of the first portion of the heating wire, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the diameter of the second portion is less than 1/5 of the diameter of the first portion which achieves the recognized result of optimizing the heat transfer between the nozzles and the heating wire, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).15.
With regard to claim 15-17, Since Hofmann in view of Andreasson discloses all structure of the claimed invention in claims 10-14, in its use, the device of Hofmann as modified by Andreasson will inherently perform all the method steps of claims 15-17.
With regard to claim 18, the device of Hofmann as modified by Andreasson discloses the invention as disclosed in claim 10 above. Hofmann further discloses that a motor vehicle (title) comprising the cleaning system as recited in claim 10.
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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-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 HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
