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
Claims 1 & 4-17 are pending on the application, of which claims 1, 4-5, & 7 are amended, claims 12-17 are newly added, claims 6 & 8 are withdrawn, and claims 2-3 are cancelled.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous rejections are withdrawn in favor of the new ground of rejection presented below.
The objection to the title is withdrawn.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new references utilized to meet the amended limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 10-11, & 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (US20030047621A1) in view of Frederick (US20190001934A1), Ackerman (DE10038810A1), and Tani (US20180201231A1).
As to claim 1, Fukushima discloses a spraying device for cleaning a surface (see Figs.4-6), comprising: a nozzle (Figs.4-5 refs 30/32); a holding arm (Figs.4-5 ref 146) that can move along an axis of movement; a control unit (Fig.4 ref 182); wherein the nozzle is designed to apply a cleaning fluid to the surface [0096]; wherein the nozzle is attached to the holding arm (see Fig.5); wherein the control unit is configured to independently set both a position of the holding arm along the axis of movement and a fluid output pressure at which the cleaning fluid is output from the nozzle (see Fig.4 pump ref 72 and ref 70 are controlled via controller ref 182, where pump ref 72 supplies fluid pressure to nozzle outlet and pump ref 70 supplies fluid pressure for extension of the nozzle, thus reading on being independently set by the controller; see [0111-0115]). Fukushima does not disclose simultaneously changing a position of the arm and the fluid pressure while discharging the fluid to the surface; however, such a feature would be obvious in view of Frederick and Ackerman.
Fukushima also does not disclose increasing fluid output pressure at an increasing distance of the nozzle from the surface. However, such a feature is logical to one of ordinary skill in the art as should the distance from the nozzle to the surface to be cleaned increases, a greater fluid pressure is required in order to reach the surface and achieve cleaning. Further, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Tani.
Frederick discloses an art related vehicle washing device (abstract), wherein it is known to allow a telescopic nozzles to achieve multiple different positions in order to allow for targeting of different areas to be cleaned with the nozzle [0038-0039].
Ackerman discloses an art related vehicle cleaning device (abstract), utilizing a telescopic nozzle [0003 & 0006-0007]. Ackermann further indicates that it is beneficial to allow for the telescopic nozzle to spray during extension to a working position in order to shorten cleaning time [0007] and provide optimal cleaning and reducing fluid consumption [0008-0009 & 0014].
Tani discloses an art related cleaning device (abstract) for a component of a vehicle [0002-0003], wherein it is known the pressure of a cleaning device is dependent upon a distance between the nozzle and the contaminant on the surface [0069]. It is understood that Tani indicates the pressure should be increased based on the distance from the nozzle to the contaminant on the surface (see [0069], “The controller 11 determines the predetermined amount, the predetermined period, the predetermined number of times, and the predetermined injection pressure based on at least one of the distance between the foreign substance and the injection nozzles, the size of the foreign substance, and the type of the foreign substance. The controller 11 causes the injection amount, the injection period, the number of injections, and an injection pressure to be large as the distance between the foreign substance and the injection nozzle is long.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Fukushima to tune the components and allow the control unit to simultaneously adjust the fluid pressure and the cleaning position during cleaning in order to allow for targeting of different areas, save time and fluid, while providing optimal cleaning (Frederick [0038-0039] & Ackerman [0008-0009 & 0014]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to modify the control unit of Fukushima to adjust the fluid output pressure based on a distance of the contaminant from the nozzle, such that an increased distance correlates to an increase in pressure (Tani [0069]) in order to effectively remove a contaminant located at a farther position.
As to claim 4, Modified Fukushima teaches the device of claim 1, further including a cleaning fluid line in which the cleaning fluid is present at the fluid output pressure (Fukushima Fig.5 ref 38, see also Fig.4 ref 176); a movement fluid line (Fukushima Fig.5 refs 22/23, see also Fig.4 ref 174) in which a movement fluid is present at a movement fluid pressure, wherein the cleaning fluid line is fluidically connected to the nozzle and the movement fluid line and the holding are configurated such that the position of the holding arm can be changed by the movement fluid pressure (see Fukushima Figs.4-5 & [0111-0115]), wherein the control unit is configured to set the movement fluid pressure and the fluid output pressure independently of one another (see Fukushima [0111-0115 & 0118-0119] and Figs.4-5 indicating different pumps and thus the pressures are independently set).
As to claims 5 & 13, Modified Fukushima teaches the device of claim 1 wherein further comprising a fluid pump (Fukushima Fig.4 ref 68) that is configured to build up the fluid output pressure (Fukushima Fig.4 ref 72) and build up and reduce the fluid movement pressure (Fukushima Fig.4 ref 70).
As to claim 7, Modified Fukushima teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the limitations of claim 7 are optional when the nozzle applies a cleaning fluid.
As to claims 10-11, Modified Fukushima teaches a vehicle (Fukushima [0019-0020]) having the device of claim 1, but does not disclose the control unit setting the fluid output pressure as a function of a condition of the surface. However, Tani discloses it is known that different contaminants require different fluid pressures in order to clean the component [0058 & 0069]. Thus, Tani indicates setting a fluid pressure based on a contaminant condition of the surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Fukushima to detect the type of contaminant adhered to the surface and adjust the fluid pressure based on the contaminant on the surface thereby allowing for removal of raindrops, mud, or other contaminant effectively (Tani [0058 & 0069]). It is noted that a condition of a surface of the component on the vehicle also reads on a condition of the vehicle based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification.
As to claim 14, Modified Fukushima teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising a spring (Fukushima ref 36) to bias the arm along the axis of movement.
As to claim 15, Modified Fukushima teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising a fluid pumping apparatus (Fukushima Fig.4 ref 68) that is configured to build up the fluid output pressure (Fukushima Fig.4 ref 72) and build up and reduce the fluid movement pressure (Fukushima Fig.4 ref 70). As the claim does not require that the same pump is a singular pump, the interpretation where a pumping apparatus reads on a pump meets the claim. If the claim were to indicate that a singular pump generates output pressure for the cleaning fluid and changing the position of the holding arm, then examiner would withdraw the rejection.
As to claim 16, Modified Fukushima teaches the device of claim 15, wherein the pump is a fluid pump (Fukushima Fig.4 & [0089]).
As to claim 17, Modified Fukushima teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the position of the nozzle is set via fluid (e.g., see Fukushima Fig.5 showcasing that fluid flow moves and sets the position of the nozzle).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (US20030047621A1) in view of in view of Frederick (US20190001934A1), Ackerman (DE10038810A1), and Tani (US20180201231A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Zernicke (US20140263707A1).
As to claim 9, Modified Fukushima teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the spray pattern is changed based on the fluid output pressure (see Fukushima [0115]; i.e., a spray pattern when pressurized fluid when the fluid is discharged vs. the spray pattern as the decay of pressure occurs when the pump is turned off; also see Ackerman [0008 & 0013] indicating different spray patterns and pressures) However, assuming arguendo that Fukushima does not explicitly disclose changing a spray pattern based on fluid output pressure, such a feature is known in the art as seen by Zernicke..
Zernicke discloses an art related pressure dependent variable shape nozzle assembly for use with pressurized washing systems (abstract), wherein changing of pressure allows for various different spray patterns to be achieved without manipulation of the nozzle (abstract). The nozzle allows for fan sprays for light cleaning as well as linear spray patterns for stronger cleaning at targeting locations [0006 & 0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Fukushima to provide a nozzle which can change the shape of the cleaning fluid jet based on pressure in enable different spray patterns for different cleaning situations possibly experienced without needing to change a nozzle (Zernicke abstract & [0006 & 0038]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (US20030047621A1) in view of in view of Frederick (US20190001934A1), Ackerman (DE10038810A1), and Tani (US20180201231A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view Meier (DE102006061817A1) and Hummel (EP1970269A2).
As to claim 12, Modified Fukushima teaches the device of claim 4, but does not disclose the position of the arm changing in both directions without the use of a spring. However, a configuration for extending and retracting a piston without the use of a spring is a known alternative in the art, as seen by Meier and Hummel.
Meier discloses an art related vehicle component cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is shown that a known manner for extending and retracting a piston (ref 18) is through the use of a switching valve and fluid pressure [0028-0032]. Specifically, fluid pressure is utilized to extend the piston to its extended state via line ref 20, and a valve allows for switchover of fluid flow to line 21 in order to retract the piston into its retracted state.
Hummel discloses an art related telescopic nozzle for cleaning a vehicle component (abstract), wherein it is shown that a known manner of extending and retracting of a piston, without the use of a spring, is through fluid flow (see Figs.1-3). Specifically, one fluid inlet (outlet of ref 17 leading to ref 12) is provided at a portion above a movable partition (ref 13) in order to retract the piston, and another inlet (ref 9) is provided below the partition in order to move the piston to the extended state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Fukushima to utilize fluid pressure to extend and retract the piston, as such is a known alternative in the art (Meier [0028-0032] & Hummel Figs.1-3).It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known manner of extending and retracting a piston in place of another, with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights