DETAILED ACTION
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 of Group I and Apparatus Species A in the reply filed on November 19, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
In applicant’s arguments dated 11/19/2025, applicant argues that claim 19 can be considered to belong to the elected Apparatus Species A. The examiner agrees with that argument by applicant. Claims 1-19 thus recite what applicant has elected.
In applicant’s claims dated 11/19/2025, the unelected method claims (claims 20-24) are presented as withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
On the IDS dated 7/24/2024, the document U.S. 2006/0277253 by Brent Kaiser has been marked as not considered by the examiner because no such document exists. Applicant must have made a typographical mistake when listing a reference. The examiner supposes that applicant may have intended to list U.S. 2006/0027253 by Brent Kaiser, and therefore, the examiner has considered this U.S. 2006/0027253 document and listed it on the attached Notice of Refences Cited form.
Note on Citation
In this office action, when the examiner cites applicant’s specification, the examiner is citing paragraph numbers from applicant’s pre-grant publication (U.S. 2024/0317188).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such a claim limitation is “a vehicle treatment device configured for movement” in claim 1, and this language is considered to refer, for example, to the spray arch discussed in Par. [0035] of applicant’s specification. Such a claim limitation is “a movement mechanism mechanically supporting the vehicle treatment device and configured for providing the movement of the vehicle treatment device”, and this language is considered to refer, for example, to the combination of slip ring, troller, and wash bridge discussed in Par. [0038] and [0041] of applicant’s specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objection
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality: applicant has made a typographical mistake by having claim 19 end with a semicolon mark immediately before a period mark. 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 1-19 are 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.
In claim 1, applicant recites “at least one sub-controller” in line 9 of claim 1. However, in line 17 of claim 1, applicant simply recites “the sub-controller”. In the situation where the language “at least one sub-controller” refers to a plurality of sub-controllers, it is thus not clear which of the plurality of sub-controllers is referred to by the phrase “the sub-controller”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the support structure". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant intended to write “a support structure” instead of “the support structure”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the sub-controllers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant recites “at least one sub-controller” in claim 13 (claim 14 depends from claim 13), but reciting “at least one sub-controller” is not the same thing as explicitly reciting the presence of a plurality of sub-controllers.
Claim 18 recites “the sensors” at the end of claim 18. However, it is not clear if this phrase “the sensors” refers to the “a plurality of proximity sensors” recited earlier in claim 18 or if it refers to the “at least one of the sensors” in the situation where “at least one of the sensors” refers to a plurality of sensors. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant intended to recite “the at least one of the sensors” at the end of claim 18 instead of “the sensors”
The term “normal” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” 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. In other words, someone reading claim 18 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to know if my operation qualifies as normal or not?”
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.
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.
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 1-3, 6-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0076366 by Belanger in view of U.S. 2022/0048478 by McGovern in view of CN206623821 by Yang.
With regard to claim 1, Belanger teaches a carwash comprising a main computer controller 32 configured to control operations of the carwash in an automated manner, wherein the main computer controller comprises a processor and software, and wherein the computer controller is configured to provide power and control signals for controlling components of the carwash (Par. 0029-0034 and 0044). Belanger teaches that the carwash comprises a spray arm 26 for spraying cleaning fluid onto a to-be-washed car, wherein the spray arm 26 corresponds to applicant’s vehicle treatment device and is configured for at least two degrees of freedom of movement due to a slip ring 74 allowing for rotational movement of the spray arm and a carriage 24 allowing for movement of the spray arm along longitudinal rails 20 and 22 (Par. 0026-0040). The combination of said slip ring 74 and said carriage 24 reads on applicant’s movement mechanism. Belanger teaches having LEDs on the spray arm 26 (Par. 0040, 0042, 0044, 0045, and 0056), and those LEDs on the spray arm 26 correspond to applicant’s at least one activatable component. Belanger teaches that the LEDs can be selectively activated by the controller to achieve different lighting effects such as having a different color displayed during each washing step of a carwash routine (Par. 0056).
As discussed, Belanger teaches using a main computer controller 32 to control operations of the carwash in an automated manner. Belanger doesn’t teach that automated control of the carwash also employs a sub-controller.
McGovern teaches that the computing control system of a carwash apparatus can comprise more than one controller modules (Par. 0076). McGovern teaches that a controller can be connected via wire or wireless connection to a component of the carwash apparatus (Par. 0077).
Yang teaches that a carwash apparatus can use successfully use a combination of a “main” controller and a connected sub-controller for controlling operations of the carwash apparatus (Abstract; page 5 of translation).
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 apparatus of Belanger by having the computer controller 32 separated into two computer controller modules – one still considered the “main” computer controller” located where Belanger has their controller 32 and a sub-controller that receives instructions and power from the “main” controller and is dedicated to controlling all electrical components on the spray arm 26, wherein the sub-controller receives its instructions and power from the “main” controller via wired connections. The motivation for dividing the computing control system into two computer modules was provided by McGovern, who teaches that the computing control system of a carwash apparatus can comprise more than one controller modules. Motivation for having one of the controller modules be a sub-controller of a main controller was provided by Yang, who teaches that a carwash apparatus can use successfully use a combination of a “main” controller and a connected sub-controller for controlling operations of the carwash apparatus. Motivation for having the instructions and power connections between the “main” controller and the sub-controller was provided by McGovern, who teaches that a controller can be connected via wire or wireless connection to a component of the carwash apparatus. Motivation for having the sub-controller dedicated to the task of controlling all electrical components on the spray arm 26 was provided by Belanger teaching that the spray arm comprises electrical components that are controlled by the control system (Par. 0040, 0042, 0045, and 0056) and by the fact that a sub-controller module could successfully be configured to govern such electrical components of the arm.
The combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang does not use the word “multiplexed” when describing how control signals go from the “main” controller to the sub-controller. However, in the art of transmitting signals across wiring, it is well known that a “multiplexed” communication connection can be successfully used to transmit signals. 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 apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang by having the control signals from the “main” controller to the sub-controller be “multiplexed” signals transmitted via a “multiplexed” communication connection, as it is well known – in the art of transmitting signals across wiring – that a “multiplexed” communication connection can be successfully used to transmit signals.
As discussed, in the combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, the “main” controller is located where Belanger has their controller 32 (see Figure 1). The combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang does not recite that the sub-controller is physically located on the other operable side of the combination of slip ring 74 and carriage 24 that reads on applicant’s movement mechanism. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Rearrangement of Parts, 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 apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang by having the sub-controller physically positioned on the arm who electronic components (such as the LEDs) it controls, and wherein the slip ring 74 allows the sub-controller to still be wired to the “main” controller while located on the arm. Motivation for performing such a rearrangement of the sub-controller’s position is simply that the computer sub-controller could successfully perform its control of the arm’s electronic components while itself being positioned on that arm.
The combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang does not explicitly recite that the sub-controller activates an electronic component on the arm in response to a multiplexed signal during the movement of the vehicle treatment device. However, in the combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, the spray arm is moved during cleaning of a vehicle in the carwash, and Belanger teaches that an intermittent lighting effect can occurring during a wash program step (Par. 0056 and 0060 of Belanger). 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 apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang such that, in response to a multiplexed control signal from the “main” controller, the sub-controller activates LEDs in an intermittent fashion to produce an intermittent lighting effect while the arm moves relative to the vehicle during washing.
With regard to claim 2, in the apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, the slip ring 74 of the movement mechanism includes multiple electrical contacts, including for power connection and signal transfer, wherein the electrical contacts move relative to each other an maintain electrical connection throughout the movement relative to the multiple degrees of freedom (Par. 0040 of Belanger).
With regard to claim 3, in the apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, the activatable components on the spay arm includes LEDs (read on light segments; Par. 0040, 0042, and 0056). The combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang teaches using the LEDs to achieve lighting effects during operation of the carwash (Par. 0040, 0042, and 0056). The combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang does not teach that the LEDs are individually controlled. However, in the art of using a plurality of computer-controlled lights to achieve lighting effects, it is well known that lighting effects can be successfully created by having the lights be individually controlled by the computer control system. 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 apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang by having the LEDs individually controlled by the sub-controller. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of using a plurality of computer-controlled lights to achieve lighting effects, it is well known that lighting effects can be successfully created by having the lights be individually controlled by the computer control system.
With regard to claim 6, in the combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, activatable components on the spray arm are a plurality of LED strips (Par. 0042 of Belanger).
The combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang does not teach that the plurality of LED strips have associated microchips.
However, in the combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, the LEDs are controlled to create different light effects for an observer (Par. 0042 and 0056). In the art of using LEDs to create lighting effects, it is well known that microchips can successfully be used in the automated control of LEDs. 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 apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang such that the plurality of LED strips have associated microchips, wherein the microchips facilitate the automated control of the LEDs. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of using LEDs to create lighting effects, it is well known that microchips can successfully be used in the automated control of LEDs.
With regard to claim 7, in the combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, the LEDs are protected inside a plastic protective casing 110 (Par. 0042 of Belanger). The combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang does not recite that the microchips used to facilitate control of the LEDs are also inside the protective casing 110. However, since a carwash is a wet environment, and since it is well known to protect electronic components from wet environments, 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 apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang by also having the microchips used to facilitate control of the LEDs also arranged inside the protective casing 110.
With regard to claim 8, in the apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, the LEDs are selectively activable to adjust color (Par. 0056 of Belanger).
With regard to claim 9, in the apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, green LEDs on the arm can be activated such that the arm serves a “rabbit” role of guiding a vehicle to move forward (corresponds to applicant’s go of claim 9) as the vehicle initially enters the carwash for cleaning (Par. 0045 of Belanger).
With regard to claim 10, in the apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, one of the degrees of movement includes rotation of the spray arm relative to a support structure (Par. 0040 of Belanger).
With regard to claim 11, in the apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, the movement mechanism includes a rotatable interface (comprising slip ring 74) for a spray manifold 62 (reads on shaft) of the spray arm, wherein the spray manifold 62 is supported for rotation by the support structure, wherein the support structure comprises a carriage housing (comprising plates 25A and 25B in Figure 2 of Belanger and corresponding to applicant’s trolley housing), wherein the carriage housing is translatable relative to a wash bridge that comprises rails 20 and 22, and wherein the multiple degrees of freedom thus include rotation and translation (Par. 0026-0030 and 0035 of Belanger).
With regard to claim 12, in the apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, the carriage housing is translatable in a fore-and-aft direction along rails 20 and 22 (in Figure 1 of Belanger; Par. 0026-0030 and 0035 of Belanger).
With regard to claim 13, in the developed apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, the movement mechanism comprises a slip ring 74 (in Figure 4 of Belanger), wherein a first portion of the slip ring is electrically connected to the “main” controller and a second portion of the slip ring is electrically connected to the sub-controller on the spray arm.
With regard to claim 14, in the developed apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, the first portion of the slip ring is fixed relative to the support structure of the movement mechanism, and the second portion of the slip ring is fixed relative to the spray arm, wherein the second portion of the slip ring and the sub-controller are connected via wiring, and wherein the second portion of the slip ring, said wiring, and the sub-controller move along with the spray arm relative to the first portion of the slip ring while maintaining multiplexed communication connection across the slip ring. The combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang does not teach that the apparatus comprises a plurality of sub-controllers on the spray arm for controlling the electronic components on the spray arm. However, McGovern teaches that a computing control system of a carwash apparatus can comprise more than one controller modules (Par. 0076), and in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Duplication of Parts, 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 apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang by having two computer-based sub-controllers on the spray arm configured to control the various electronic components of the spray arm, wherein each sub-controller has its own wired connection (through the slip-ring) to the “main” controller. McGovern teaches that a computing control system of a carwash apparatus can comprise more than one controller modules, and motivation for providing the modification was provided by the fact that two computing sub-controllers could successfully perform the task of controlling the electronic components of the spray arm.
With regard to claim 15, in the apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, the spray arm 26 (in Figures 1-4 of Belanger) corresponds to applicant’s spray arch, and the spray arm has a vertically aligned portion and is configured to eject washing and rinsing liquids during movement of the spray arm (Par. 0028, 0040, and 0048 of Belanger).
With regard to claim 16, in the apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, the spray arm 26 (in Figures 1-4 of Belanger) comprises a spray manifold 62 (reads on shaft) that is rotatable relative to the support structure and receives fluid from a fluid source through the movement mechanism (Par. 0028, 0038, and 39 of Belanger).
With regard to claim 17, in the developed apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, the spray arm 26 (in Figures 1-4 of Belanger) is structurally capable of being continuously rotatable via the movement mechanism more than 360 degrees, wherein the multiplexed communication is provided via a slip ring electrical connection between the spray arm and the “main” controller throughout a full rotational travel of the spray arm (Par. 0028, 0034, 0039, 0040 and 0048 of Belanger).
With regard to claim 19, in the developed apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, the “main” controller is not on the spray arm 26 (in Figures 1-4 of Belanger) and is thus considered to be disposed remote from the spray arm.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0076366 by Belanger in view of U.S. 2022/0048478 by McGovern in view of CN206623821 by Yang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. 2023/0356698 by Shi.
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang teaches that the spray arm carries a plurality of nozzles for spraying washing and rinsing fluids onto the vehicle cleaned by the carwash apparatus (Par. 0038, 0039, and 0045-0048).
The combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang does not teach that actuators provide select treatment from different sections of the spray arm.
Shi teaches that it is advantageous to have different sprayers of a carwash spray arm be individually controlled to open or closed, as temporary closing of some sprayers allows for advantageously increased pressure at sprayers that remain open, and wherein different sections of a vehicle can thus be selectively cleaned with increased pressure in a sequence (Par. 0050 and 0059).
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 apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang by having each nozzle comprise its own actuator such that the sub-controller can selectively control the opening/closing of each nozzle, and wherein the sub-controller selectively opens and closes nozzles in a sequence such that different vehicle sections are washed with increased pressure. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Shi, who teaches that it is advantageous to have different sprayers of a carwash spray arm be individually controlled to open or closed, as temporary closing of some sprayers allows for advantageously increased pressure at sprayers that remain open, and wherein different sections of a vehicle can thus be selectively cleaned with increased pressure in a sequence.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0076366 by Belanger in view of U.S. 2022/0048478 by McGovern in view of CN206623821 by Yang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. 2023/0356698 by Shi.
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang teaches that the spray arm carries a plurality of nozzles for spraying washing and rinsing fluids onto the vehicle cleaned by the carwash apparatus (Par. 0038, 0039, and 0045-0048).
The combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang does not teach that actuators and light segments are activated simultaneously.
Shi teaches that it is advantageous to have different sprayers of a carwash spray arm be individually controlled to open or closed, as temporary closing of some sprayers allows for advantageously increased pressure at sprayers that remain open, and wherein different sections of a vehicle can thus be selectively cleaned with increased pressure in a sequence (Par. 0050 and 0059).
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 apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang by having each nozzle comprise its own actuator such that the sub-controller can selectively control the opening/closing of each nozzle, and wherein the sub-controller selectively opens and closes nozzles in a sequence such that different vehicle sections are washed with increased pressure. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Shi, who teaches that it is advantageous to have different sprayers of a carwash spray arm be individually controlled to open or closed, as temporary closing of some sprayers allows for advantageously increased pressure at sprayers that remain open, and wherein different sections of a vehicle can thus be selectively cleaned with increased pressure in a sequence.
The combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang in view of Shi does not teach that selected LEDs and selected nozzle actuators are activated simultaneously. However, Belanger teaches that LEDs can be used to emit a different color for different steps of a carwash program (Par. 0056). 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 apparatus of McGovern in view of Yang in view of Shi, such that, as a washing step begins with selected nozzle actuators being activated, selected LEDs are simultaneously activated to emit a particular light color for that washing step. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Belanger, who teaches that LEDs can be used to emit a different color for different steps of a carwash program.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0076366 by Belanger in view of U.S. 2022/0048478 by McGovern in view of CN206623821 by Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN212738028 by Yang (hereafter referred to as “Yang_2” to avoid confusion with the other Yang reference).
With regard to claim 18, the combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang teaches that the spray arm comprises a four-way breakaway knuckle (item 78 in Figure 4 of Belanger) comprises “sensors” for detecting when the spray arm has been deflected from its normal operating orientation (Par. 0040 and 0041 of Belanger).
The combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang doesn’t provide much structural detail about the sensors for the breakaway knuckle, and the combination doesn’t teach that a flag activates at least one sensor during normal operation and in response to an external force pivots away from the at least one sensor.
Yang_2 teaches that when attempting to sense when a carwash component has been undesirably deflected, such sensing can be achieved with a sensor that senses displacement of a switch 8 relative to a sensor 4 due to said deflection, wherein the deflection generates a signal such that the car washing process can be halted due to the undesirable deflection (Abstract; Page 4).
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 apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang such that a plurality of switch-and-sensor combinations are arranged on the spray arm for detecting undesired deflection in the various deflection pathways that the four-way breakaway knuckle (item 78 in Figure 4 of Belanger) permits, wherein the switch of each switch-and-sensor combination normally activates the corresponding sensor of the switch-and-sensor combination to indicate to the “main” controller that no deflection has occurred, and wherein the switch of a switch-and-sensor combination can deflect away from its corresponding sensor when deflection along a knuckle deflection pathway occurs, thus indicating to the “main” controller that undesired deflection has occurred and the car washing should be halted. In this combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, the switch of each switch-and-sensor combination can be considered a flag. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Yang_2, who teaches that when attempting to sense when a carwash component has been undesirably deflected, such sensing can be achieved with a sensor that senses displacement of a switch 8 relative to a sensor 4 due to said deflection, wherein the deflection generates a signal such that the car washing process can be halted due to the undesirable deflection.
The combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang in view of Yang_2 does not teach that apparatus comprises a bracket. However, the switch of each switch-and-sensor combination has to be supported in space somehow, and it is well known that a bracket can successfully be used to support an object in space. 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 apparatus of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang in view of Yang_2 by having each switch of each switch-and-sensor combination supported in space by its own bracket, as it is well known that a bracket can successfully be used to support an object in space.
In this combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang in view of Yang_2, the switch-and-sensor combinations are considered to be disposed “about” a rotational axis of the rotatable spray arm because they are near that rotational axis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714