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 .
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. In this combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang, since the sub-controller is connected via the slip ring 74 to the “main” controller, the multiplexed signal provided to the sub-controller is considered to be provided across and through the movement mechanism (as discussed above, the combination of said slip ring 74 and said carriage 24 reads on applicant’s movement mechanism).
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 and 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 the carriage 24 (reads on support structure of the movement mechanism; 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 a 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.
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 a first operational state and in response to an external force pivots away from the breakaway knuckle sensors.
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 the breakaway knuckle sensors 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 13-14 of applicant’s arguments, applicant discusses the Belanger, McGovern, and Yang references individually and explains how these references – as individual references – fail to teach the claimed invention. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 15 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues the following:
Even in view of each of these prior art references, and to the extent their teachings would suggest to a person of a skill in the art a modification of Belanger’s system, the result would at most be the use of additional controllers that receive wireless signals form the main controller.
This line of argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s assertion that the reference’s would necessarily lead to wireless communication between the main controller and any sub-controller is simply applicant’s opinion and conjecture, and this opinion and conjecture is not persuasive. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, for example, 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). Applicant expands on the argument by arguing that “McGovern’s teaching of a wired or wireless connection between different controllers does not provide a teaching for how this could be achieved across Belanger’s movement mechanism”. This is not persuasive. Belanger (the primary reference) expressly teaches that a slip ring 74 provides electrical service to any electrical devices carried on the spray arm 26 (Par. 0040 and 0041). A slip ring is well-known to be a device for allowing wired electrical service to go from a stationary structure to a rotating structure without wiring becoming tangled. This slip ring of Belanger – combined with McGovern’s concept of using wired connection between a carwash controller and a carwash component – helps provide a path to the wired connection between the “main” controller and the sub-controller in the examiner’s combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang. Applicant’s assertion that wireless (instead of wired) controller communication is the only logical outcome of combining the three references is simply as assertion and not a persuasive one.
On page 15 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues the following:
The examiner acknowledges that the prior art does not disclose or suggest the physical location of the sub-controller on the other side of the movement mechanism from the main controller. The Examiner relies on “Rearrangement of Parts” to support a rejection here, without identifying a reference that suggests this. Indeed, there is no reference to suggest this because such an arrangement is far more complicated than a mere rearrangement of parts. Placing a sub-controller on the arm itself is not obvious, because the additional communication and wiring through the movement mechanism as in Belanger would not be possible without the disclosure of the present application.
Indeed, the prior art does not disclose or suggest the arrangement provided by Applicant’s present disclosure because of this difficulty.
This line of argument is not persuasive. Belanger (the primary reference) expressly teaches that a slip ring 74 provides electrical service to any electrical devices carried on the spray arm 26 (Par. 0040 and 0041). A slip ring is well-known to be a device for allowing wired electrical service to go from a stationary structure to a rotating structure without wiring becoming tangled. Placing a sub-controller on the spray arm 26 itself is thus not an inventive feat. The slip ring 74 provides a clear way for arranging a sub-controller on the spray arm. The examiner sincerely does not see an inventive spark in placing a sub-controller on the spray arm. The examiner considers his obviousness rejection of claim 1 to be a legitimate use of “rearrangement of parts” reasoning because having a sub-controller is a known concept in the carwash art and the slip ring of the primary reference (Belanger) provides a clear conceptual path for how a wired connection could be formed between a “main” controller and a sub-controller arranged on the spray arm.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
On page 15 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that “Yang’s sub-controller, even if placed on the spray arm, would use the same wireless communication provided by Yang”. This line of argument was addressed above. As discussed above, Belanger (the primary reference) expressly teaches that a slip ring 74 provides electrical service to any electrical devices carried on the spray arm 26 (Par. 0040 and 0041). A slip ring is well-known to be a device for allowing wired electrical service to go from a stationary structure to a rotating structure without wiring becoming tangled. This slip ring of Belanger – combined with McGovern’s concept of using wired connection between a carwash controller and a carwash component – helps provide a path to the wired connection between the “main” controller and the sub-controller in the examiner’s combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang. Applicant’s assertion that wireless (instead of wired) controller communication is the only logical outcome of combining the three references is simply as assertion and not a persuasive one.
On pages 16 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues the following:
The multiplexed communication across [and] through the movement mechanism to an arm-mounted sub-controller is not disclosed or otherwise suggested by Belanger’s non-multiplexed non-sub-controller based activation of the LEDs.
This line of argument is not persuasive. The examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is not based on Belanger alone but on the examiner’s combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang. The multiplexed signal limitation of claim 1 is addressed in the following way in claim 1:
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.
On page 16 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues the following:
Sub-controllers could hypothetically be placed on spray arms, if a motivation to do so were present, using a wire harness connection from the main controller, but such a wire harness would inherently not be provided across and through the movement mechanism itself.
This line of argument is not persuasive. The examiner’s combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang does not rely on using a wire harness. As discussed above, Belanger (the primary reference) expressly teaches that a slip ring 74 provides electrical service to any electrical devices carried on the spray arm 26 (Par. 0040 and 0041). A slip ring is well-known to be a device for allowing wired electrical service to go from a stationary structure to a rotating structure without wiring becoming tangled. This slip ring of Belanger – combined with McGovern’s concept of using wired connection between a carwash controller and a carwash component – helps provide a path to the wired connection between the “main” controller and the sub-controller in the examiner’s combination of Belanger in view of McGovern in view of Yang. Applicant’s assertion that a “wire harness” would be necessary is simply an assertion and not a persuasive one.
At the end of page 16 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that, even with the hindsight construction, the examiner’s rejection doesn’t teach the invention recited in claim 1. This argument is not persuasive. The examiner’s rejection of claim 1 carefully articulates how the various limitations of applicant’s claim 1 are addressed.
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 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
Prosecution Insights