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, 6, 9, & 14-21 are pending on the application, of which claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 14, 16, & 19 are amended, and claims 5, 7-8, & 10-13 are cancelled.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous rejection is withdrawn in favor of the new ground of rejection presented below.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdraw in light of the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument is directed towards Shank and more specifically [0110] of Shank, in which applicant argues that the multiple reservoirs provided in series by Shank are the reservoirs ref 35 and not ref 103. Shank states the following in [0110]:
“Another embodiment could have a multiplicity of reservoir tanks connected in series or parallel combination. This would give increased available volume of heated fluid.”
Accordingly, when read in its totality, [0110] would suggest that multiple increased volume of heated fluid is provided by providing multiple tanks in series. As applicant has correctly pointed out, ref 103 serves a heating purpose (see pp.2 of applicant’s remarks). Thus, Shanks suggests providing multiple of the reservoir ref 103 in series and not only the reservoir ref 35. Further, the general teaching of [0110] of Shank is the provision of multiple tanks in parallel or series in order to increase the available fluid volume. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would glean from Shank that providing reservoirs in series or parallel would gain the benefit of increasing available fluid volume.
Applicant’s next argument towards the Shank reference is regarding the location of the pump being downstream of reservoir ref 35. This argument is also not persuasive because the pump is upstream of ref 103 which can be provided multiple of reservoirs ref 103 in series. Secondly, the Shank reference is not utilized for relying upon the placement of the pump relative to the reservoirs being filled.
Applicant’s following argument is directed towards the Albing reference, in which applicant argues that Albing does not disclose two satellite reservoirs as required by the amended claim. While examiner does agree with such a statement, it is noted that Albing reference does provide a general teaching of providing a return line from a reservoir to be filled to a main reservoir and placing a flow sensor in said return line in order to determine whether the reservoir to be filled has been filled.
Applicant’s final argument is directed towards the Sykula reference, where applicant argues that the sensors are not considered cleaning modules. Applicant specifically states “claim 19 requires sensor cleaning modules configured to provide cleaning fluid to at least one cleaning nozzle, whereas Sykula describes the cleaning fluid is provided from the nozzles 72 to the sensors 48 to clean them”. This argument is unclear as examiner never recites to ref 48 of Sykula as cleaning modules. It is noted that applicant also argues that Sykula feeds nozzles from a common reservoir, which examiner respectfully disagrees with. Sykula explicitly indicates that nozzles can be fed from different reservoirs (see refs 66 & 74) based on the location of the sensor to be cleaned (see Fig.3).
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 claim limitation(s) is/are: “consumption estimation module” in claims 2-3 and “consumption monitoring module” in claims 17-18.
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 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 4 & 14-15 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said at least one satellite reservoir" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the at least two satellite reservoirs or a specific one of the satellite reservoirs. For examination purposes the limitation will be understood as “said at least two satellite reservoirs”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the satellite reservoir" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the at least two satellite reservoirs, a specific one of the satellite reservoirs, or a different satellite reservoir entirely. For examination purposes the limitation will be understood as “the least two satellite reservoirs”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the individual fluid lines" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that applicant is attempting to refer to the fluid line connecting the reservoirs in series and will be understood as such. For examination purposes the limitation will be understood as “individual fluid lines”.
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, 6, 9, 17-18, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhl (DE102018205999A1) in view of Shank (US 20070284457 A1), Hanisch (US20220397081A1), and Albing (DE102017006304A1).
As to claims 1 & 20, Muhl discloses a vehicle (Fig.1 ref 1) having cleaning liquid reservoir system (Fig.1) configured to store a cleaning liquid for cleaning at least one surface of the vehicle [0025], the cleaning liquid reservoir system comprising: a main reservoir primary (ref 9) configured to store a main amount of the cleaning liquid; a pump (ref 11) for pumping the cleaning liquid; satellite tank (ref 8) configured to store a further amount of the cleaning liquid; a liquid sensing device (ref 13) configured to detect a presence of the cleaning liquid outside of the main reservoir and to provide a liquid presence signal when the presence of the cleaning liquid outside the main reservoir is detected [0028]; the main reservoir being connected to the satellite reservoir via a fluid line (ref 10); said pump being configured to pump the cleaning liquid from the main reservoir to the satellite reservoir [0030 & 0035]; and the pump being configured to be deactivated upon receiving said liquid presence signal (see Fig.3 flow chart from ref 230 to ref 150 continues until satellite tank is not below minimum level). Further, the limitation of the pump being deactivated upon receiving the liquid presence signal is merely intended use. Since the pump is controlled by an electronics unit which can also obtain a signal regarding satellite washer fluid level [0035], one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a pump is capable of performing such a feature. Muhl does not disclose the presence of two satellite reservoirs either in series or in parallel. However, providing multiple tanks in series is known in the art, as seen by Shank and Hanisch. Muhl also does not disclose the presence of a flow sensor or a return passage. However, such features are known in the field of automotive fluid handling, as seen by Albing.
Shank discloses an art related vehicle cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known that multiple tanks can be provided in series or in parallel, to thereby increase to volume of fluid available [0110].
Hanisch discloses an art related vehicle fluid supplying system (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that multiple secondary fluid tanks can be provided in order to allow for large storage of a fluid [0020 & 0029].
Albing discloses a system for handling a liquid substance of a vehicle (abstract & Figs.1-2), wherein a main reservoir (Fig.2 ref 220) feeds a satellite reservoir (Fig.2 ref 250). The satellite reservoir has a return passage (Fig.2 ref P251) to which fluid is returned to the main reservoir. The return passage is provided with a flow sensor in order to determine when the satellite reservoir is filled [0070]. The pump is operated until the satellite tank is filled [0070], and is thus stopped when the tank is considered full (e.g., when the flow sensor provides a positive reading). Albing further discloses that a flow sensor can be utilized as an alternative to a level sensor for making a determination regarding the filling quantity of the reservoir [0070]. Albing and Muhl are related in the field of fluid handing in vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Muhl to provide additional satellite tanks, in series in order to increase the volume of fluid available to the vehicle (Hanisch [0020 & 0029], Shank [0110]). Further, such a modification would merely amount to a duplication of the number of satellite reservoirs without producing a new or unexpected result (see MPEP 2144.04). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to modify Muhl to provide a return line from the satellite reservoir(s) to the main reservoir and provide a flow sensor in said return line in order to determine when the reservoir is filled and prevent overfilling (Albing [0060 & 0070]). As Albing indicates that a flow sensor is located in a return passage between a satellite reservoir and the main reservoir, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to implement such a return passage at any location after a satellite reservoir, including at the end of a series of two satellite reservoirs as claimed, in order to determine whether the reservoir(s) is/are filled. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known arrangement for determining the quantity of fluid in the satellite reservoir in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, the limitation of the pump being deactivated upon receiving the liquid presence signal is merely intended use. Since the pump is controlled by an electronics unit which can also obtain a signal regarding satellite washer fluid level [0035], one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a pump is capable of performing such a feature.
As to claim 6, Modified Muhl teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the satellite reservoir is connected to the main reservoir in series (see Muhl Fig.1 in conjunction with Shank [0110] & Hanisch [0020 & 0029]).
As to claim 9, Modified Muhl teaches the system of claim 1, wherein an increase in the number of satellite reservoirs to incorporate two further satellite reservoirs in the series would merely be a duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04). Moreover, such a feature would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to further increase the volume of fluid available to the vehicle (Hanisch [0020 & 0029] & Shank [0110]). As the satellite reservoirs are in series they would be connected via an individual fluid line to the main reservoir (e.g., this is implicit via a series configuration).
As to claims 17-18, Modified Muhl teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the control unit monitors the level of fluid and provides a request signal to actuate the pump when the fluid level is below a minimum (Muhl [0035] in conjunction with Albing [0070]), thereby reading on a consumption module that monitors a value of the cleaning liquid and provides a request signal when the value reaches a threshold (i.e., below a minimum level).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhl (DE102018205999A1) in view of Shank (US 20070284457 A1), Hanisch (US20220397081A1), and Albing (DE102017006304A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jansson (US 20200139941 A1) and Schmidt (US 20190107401 A1).
As to claim 2, Modified Muhl teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose the presence of a consumption estimation module which provides a liquid request signal. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Jansson and Schmidt.
Jansson discloses an art related vehicle wash system (abstract), wherein an estimation of the amount of fluid to be consumed is made [0004-0005] in order to inform a user about the remaining number of washes present and the distance until the reservoir is empty [0046].
Schmidt discloses an art related vehicle wash system (Fig.4) pertaining to a fluid levels within the vehicle (abstract), wherein estimation of the amount of fluid to be consumed based on a desired route and number of cleaning events can be performed (Figs.6-7). If an estimated consumption is greater than an amount of fluid in the reservoir (e.g. see Fig.4) for supplying the cleaning devices, then a remediation action is performed (refs 612/712), such as replenishing fluid (i.e., a liquid request signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Muhl to estimate the consumption of the cleaning liquid in order to inform a user regarding the number of washes left and distance until the reservoir is empty (Jansson [0004-0005 & 0046]). Should the estimated consumption indicate that an amount of fluid in the reservoir supplying the cleaning devices is insufficient for a desired travelling route, it would be obvious to replenish the fluid in the tank (Schmidt Fig.7 ref 712), utilizing the main reservoir. As Muhl is directed towards the refilling of a reservoir utilizing a main reservoir when the amount of fluid is determined to be insufficient, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to also refill the satellite reservoir with fluid from the main reservoir when an estimated consumption is above a threshold indicating that the fluid will be insufficient for a trip.
As to claim 3, Modified Muhl teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the control unit can control the pump based on the liquid presence signal [0016-0019 & 0035] or a liquid request signal when the satellite reservoir has insufficient fluid for a trip.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhl (DE102018205999A1) in view of Shank (US 20070284457 A1), Hanisch (US20220397081A1), and Albing (DE102017006304A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sykula (US 20180370496 A1) and Wildegger (WO2009077067A1).
As to claim 4, Modified Muhl teaches the system of claim 1 but does not disclose the presence of multiple outlets provided at a top of the satellite reservoirs. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Sykula and Wildegger.
Sykula discloses an art related vehicle cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known vehicles commonly are present with sensors in order to detect the external environment and require cleaning [0001-0002]. Sykula further showcases that a vehicle can be provided with multiple sensors (Fig.1 ref 48) and have multiple outlets with tubing (ref 68) running from a reservoir (ref 66) to the sensors from a reservoir in order clean external sensors (see Fig.5).
Wildegger discloses an art related vehicle fluid reservoir system (abstract), wherein it is shown that an outlet for the reservoir can be located at various different locations such as a bottom of the reservoir (Figs.1-2 & 5-7), a side of the reservoir (Fig.8), or a top of the reservoir (Figs.3-4). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that an outlet from the reservoir may be provided at any location with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Muhl to provide the satellite reservoirs with multiple outlets in order to supply fluid for the cleaning of multiple sensors (Sykula Fig.1 & [0001-0002]), especially as the state of the art indicates that such sensors are common on vehicles. Further, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide the outlets at any location, including the claimed configuration, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a modification merely amounts to a rearrangement of the reservoir outlet locations (see MPEP2144.04) and configurations in which an outlet for a reservoir can be located in various locations is known in the art (Wildegger Fig.1-7)
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhl (DE102018205999A1) in view of Shank (US 20070284457 A1), Hanisch (US20220397081A1), and Albing (DE102017006304A1) as applied to claims 1 & 9 above, and further in view of Schmid (DE10138466A1).
As to claims 14-15, Modified Muhl teaches the system of claims 1 & 9, but does not disclose the presence of a floating valve in the satellite reservoir. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Schmid.
Schmid discloses an art related washer system for a vehicle (abstract), wherein a container (ref 16, e.g., a satellite reservoir) can be filled via fluid from another container (e.g., refs 2/3, e.g., a main reservoir). The satellite reservoir is provided with a float valve (Figs.5a-5c ref 50) which is open when a liquid level is low and closed when a liquid level at a desired level [0041-0047].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing, to modify Muhl to provide the float valve in the satellite reservoirs in order to control the amount of liquid supplied to satellite reservoir (Schmid [0041-0047]). Such a modification would close the flow line connecting the satellite reservoirs in series.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhl (DE102018205999A1) in view of Shank (US 20070284457 A1), Hanisch (US20220397081A1), and Albing (DE102017006304A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasaki (US 20190022676 A1).
As to claim 16, Modified Muhl teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose the presence of a heating system in the satellite reservoirs. However, the use of a heating system in an auxiliary reservoir is known, as seen by Sasaki.
Sasaki discloses an art related washer liquid supply system (abstract), wherein a main reservoir (ref 10) supplies fluid to a satellite reservoir (ref 20). Sasaki also indicates that a heater is provided within the satellite reservoir (see Fig.5) for heating the fluid within the satellite reservoir to provide improved washing capacity and a defrost function [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Muhl to provide a heating device in the satellite reservoirs in order to improve washing capacity and provide a defrost function (Sasaki [0037]).
Claim(s) 19 & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhl (DE102018205999A1) in view of Shank (US 20070284457 A1), Hanisch (US20220397081A1), Albing (DE102017006304A1), and Sykula (US 20180370496 A1).
As to claims 19 & 21, Muhl discloses a vehicle (Fig.1 ref 1) having cleaning liquid reservoir system (Fig.1) configured to store a cleaning liquid for cleaning at least one surface of the vehicle [0025], the cleaning liquid reservoir system comprising: a main reservoir primary (ref 9) configured to store a main amount of the cleaning liquid; a pump (ref 11) for pumping the cleaning liquid; satellite tank (ref 8) configured to store a further amount of the cleaning liquid; a liquid sensing device (ref 13) configured to detect a presence of the cleaning liquid outside of the main reservoir and to provide a liquid presence signal when the presence of the cleaning liquid outside the main reservoir is detected [0028]; the main reservoir being connected to the satellite reservoir via a fluid line (ref 10); said pump being configured to pump the cleaning liquid from the main reservoir to the satellite reservoir [0030 & 0035]; and the pump being configured to be deactivated upon receiving said liquid presence signal (see Fig.3 flow chart from ref 230 to ref 150 continues until satellite tank is not below minimum level). Further, the limitation of the pump being deactivated upon receiving the liquid presence signal is merely intended use. Since the pump is controlled by an electronics unit which can also obtain a signal regarding satellite washer fluid level [0035], one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a pump is capable of performing such a feature. Muhl does not disclose the presence of two satellite reservoirs either in series or in parallel. However, providing multiple tanks in series is known in the art, as seen by Shank and Hanisch. Muhl also does not disclose the presence of a flow sensor or a return passage. However, such features are known in the field of automotive fluid handling, as seen by Albing. Muhl does not disclose a sensor cleaning module and a nozzle for cleaning a sensor, however such a feature is well known in the art, as seen by Sykula
Shank discloses an art related vehicle cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known that multiple tanks can be provided in series or in parallel, to thereby increase to volume of fluid available [0110].
Hanisch discloses an art related vehicle fluid supplying system (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that multiple secondary fluid tanks can be provided in order to allow for large storage of a fluid [0020 & 0029].
Albing discloses a system for handling a liquid substance of a vehicle (abstract & Figs.1-2), wherein a main reservoir (Fig.2 ref 220) feeds a satellite reservoir (Fig.2 ref 250). The satellite reservoir has a return passage (Fig.2 ref P251) to which fluid is returned to the main reservoir. The return passage is provided with a flow sensor in order to determine when the satellite reservoir is filled [0070]. The pump is operated until the satellite tank is filled [0070], and is thus stopped when the tank is considered full (e.g., when the flow sensor provides a positive reading). Albing further discloses that a flow sensor can be utilized as an alternative to a level sensor for making a determination regarding the filling quantity of the reservoir [0070]. Albing and Muhl are related in the field of fluid handing in vehicles.
Sykula discloses an art related vehicle cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known vehicles commonly are present with sensors in order to detect the external environment and require cleaning [0001-0002]. Sykula further indicates that such sensor are provided with supply lines and nozzles (refs 68 & 72, i.e., defining cleaning modules) from a reservoir in order clean external sensors (see Fig.5), thereby reading on a sensor cleaning module and at least one cleaning nozzle. Sykula also indicates that based on the position of the sensor to be cleaned, fluid can be supplied from a different reservoir (see Fig.3 refs 66 and lines leading to refs 48 & ref 76 and line leading to ref 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Muhl to provide additional satellite tanks, in series in order to increase the volume of fluid available to the vehicle (Hanisch [0020 & 0029], Shank [0110]). Further, such a modification would merely amount to a duplication of the number of satellite reservoirs without producing a new or unexpected result (see MPEP 2144.04). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to modify Muhl to provide a return line from the satellite reservoir(s) to the main reservoir and provide a flow sensor in said return line in order to determine when the reservoir is filled and prevent overfilling (Albing [0060 & 0070]). As Albing indicates that a flow sensor is located in a return passage between a satellite reservoir and the main reservoir, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to implement such a return passage at any location after a satellite reservoir, including at the end of a series of two satellite reservoirs as claimed, in order to determine whether the reservoir(s) is/are filled. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known arrangement for determining the quantity of fluid in the satellite reservoir in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, the limitation of the pump being deactivated upon receiving the liquid presence signal is merely intended use. Since the pump is controlled by an electronics unit which can also obtain a signal regarding satellite washer fluid level [0035], one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a pump is capable of performing such a feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would also find it obvious to modify the vehicle of Muhl to provide sensors in order to obtain external data and tubes and nozzles extending from the reservoir to clean said sensors, as is common in the art (Sykula [0001-0002] & Fig.5). As sensors are known to be placed in a variety of locations, a skilled artisan would find it natural to connect the cleaning modules to the reservoir closest to the sensor to be cleaned in order to reduce piping costs and weight. Such a modification would merely amount to the incorporation of well-known features in the art that are commonly present in the current state of art (e.g., vehicle external sensors and means for cleaning said sensors) along with common sense of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Blandina (US 20240217268 A1) discloses multiple tanks in series (Figs.1-3).
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