DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 12, 20, 21, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite “chemical pod device[s],” “device,” “pod[s],” and “chemical pod.” It is understood that each of these terms refer to the same element. The terms should be consistent among the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving a message, processing the message with other data, and sending a second message. The receiving, processing, and sending may be embodied as human activity and are fundamentally mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a chemical pod device and a control system do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer for a generic wash facility. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited functions are well-understood and routine operations of human activity and the system is not configured to perform a practical application of a result of the processing. The control system merely sends a second message containing instructions; it does not control the wash facility in any way. Dependent claims 2-12 do not recite subject matter sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
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 3, 11, and 19-24 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 3 recites the limitation "the wash facilities". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the other inputs". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a plurality of vehicle wash facilities" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear if it refers to the plurality of vehicle wash facilities recited in the preamble.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the chemical pod devices". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Remaining claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10-12, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 20040220817 by Sanville et al.
As to claim 1, Sanville discloses a system for controlling wash facility operations, the system comprising a chemical pod device (process control device, paras. 35-36) at a vehicle wash facility; and a control system 210 with functionality to observe and manipulate operations of the device (paras. 41, 45) that receives a first message from the device that describes a performance condition of at least one hardware component of the device (first message being process data and/or environmental parameters, paras. 43-44), processes the first message with other data describing at least activity volume at the facility (usage data of chemicals and the facility, paras. 63, 65), based on at least the processing and inputs from a mobile device (e.g. instructions and control inputs from operators, paras. 46, 86), sends a second message containing instructions for configuration of the at least one hardware component (control command, paras. 73-76).
As to claim 2, Sanville discloses that the control system 210 may be located onsite or remote from the facility and observes and manipulates operations of devices at a plurality of facilities (fig. 2).
As to claim 3, Sanville discloses that the control system 210 observes and controls sensors and actuators associated with hardware components at wash facilities (paras. 41, 45, 86).
As to claim 4, Sanville discloses a performance condition that describes chemical recourse usage (para. 63).
As to claim 5, Sanville discloses that the processing and inputs and resulting second message are directed to correcting the performance condition (e.g. chemical usage, paras. 73-76).
As to claim 6, Sanville discloses that the mobile device provides a dashboard with facility data prompting a user to perform analysis of the data (paras. 68, 86).
As to claim 10, Sanville discloses that current chemical inventory, actual chemical usage, and predictive wash activity are used to achieve a predictive chemical order from suppliers (paras. 65, 68).
As to claim 11, the system of Sanville may receive inputs that describe historical performance of a hardware component including service records and problem records involving the component (paras. 66, 77, 86). Also, an operator, as part of the system, may provide such inputs (paras. 46, 86).
As to claim 12, the system of Sanville may analyze health monitoring of hardware in an ecosystem of wash facilities, chemical pod devices, and control system components to provide predictive maintenance instructions for operators to minimize downtime and optimize equipment lifespan (paras. 63-66). Also, an operator, as part of the system, may perform such analysis (paras. 46, 86).
As to claim 19, Sanville discloses a system for overseeing and controlling resource usage at a plurality of vehicle wash facilities, the system comprising a control system computer 210 monitoring operations at the facilities (paras. 41, 45) that receives analysis material of performance data from a mobile device (e.g. instructions and control inputs from operators, paras. 46, 86), the data describing historical performance at a first facility (para. 60); combines the analysis material with locally stored data describing current performance (para. 61, received data and locally stored data is combined in a storage device); performs analysis of the analysis material from the mobile device and the locally stored data, the analysis directed to identifying trends suggesting inappropriate use of resources (e.g. chemical exhaustion or mechanical failure, para. 66); and based on the analysis and approval communications from the mobile device, remotely executes adjustments to a component at the facility (para. 76).
As to claim 20, Sanville discloses that the control system computer 210 and the mobile device (e.g. vehicle 250) work in conjunction with chemical pod devices located at each of the facilities (fig. 2).
As to claim 21, Sanville discloses that the control system computer 210 and the mobile device observe and control via chemical pod devices sensors and actuators associated with hardware components (fig. 2).
As to claim 22, Sanville discloses that the control system computer 210 may unilaterally execute adjustments to components and/or it may execute adjustments ordered by a mobile device (paras. 41, 45, 46, 86).
As to claim 23, Sanville discloses that the mobile device is operated in a supervisory role over the facilities (para. 86).
As to claim 24, Sanville discloses that each of the control system computer 210 and the mobile device may perform analysis unilaterally and/or it may perform analysis collaboratively of chemical pods and associated components at the facilities (fig. 2, paras. 38-40)
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20040220817 by Sanville et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20240083393 by Nana.
As to claims 7 and 8, Sanville does not explicitly teach activity volume that describes a volume of vehicles passing through the facility, the activity volume compared to resource usage to calculate true cost of washing a vehicle. However, Nana teaches calculating a cost of washing a vehicle based on resource usage and a volume of vehicles washed in a wash facility (para. 21). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to compare activity volume and resource usage in order to determine resource uses and costs for each vehicle so a user may better manage expenses at the wash facility (para. 22). Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20040220817 by Sanville et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20250214544 by Smith.
As to claim 9, Sanville teaches analyzing weather trends and past activity volume to achieve a predictive wash activity level (paras. 58, 65), but does not teach the use of artificial intelligence. However, artificial intelligence was a known advancement in automation and control systems of vehicle wash facilities that enhances the performance and functionality of the equipment in the facility (see Smith, para. 52). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use artificial intelligence in the system of Sanville since it was known to provide enhanced operation. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711