DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/26 have been fully considered but they are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection made in view of amendments to the claims. It is noted, however, that Applicant asserts that “Sanville does not deal directly with potential issue with hardware components” and “makes no mention of detecting defective hardware and dealing with repair.” This assertion is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention – claim 1 does not recite subject matter directed to defective hardware. Claim 1 recites “performance of hardware components,” which is reasonably interpreted as usage of such components, which is taught by Sanville (see e.g. para. 43, describing hardware components performing collection of data and/or environmental parameters). Applicant also asserts, in regard to claim 19, that Sanville does not mention receipt of data describing historical performance at a vehicle wash facility. However, Sanville discusses performance of the facility, in particular performing processes such as monitoring and tracking historical chemical usage and inventory (see para. 60).
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the objection to claims 1, 2, 20, 21, and 24 set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 USC 101 set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejection of claims 3, 11, and 19-24 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 1-6, 10-12, and 19-24 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claims 7-9 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “chemical pods.” It is understood that this term refers to chemical pod devices, the terminology used in claim 1. The terms should be consistent among the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7, 12, 20, 21, 23, and 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 4 recites the limitation "the performance condition". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the inputs". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the resulting second message". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the performance condition". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the mobile device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the mobile devices". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the chemical pod device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the chemical pod device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the plurality of wash facilities". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the chemical pod device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the plurality of wash facilities". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-7, 10-12, and 19-24 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 20230347851 by Cunningham et al.
As to claim 1, Sanville teaches 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, the device associated with hardware components comprising at least valves and dosing pumps (paras. 35-36); and a control system 210 with functionality to observe and manipulate operations of the device and associated hardware components (paras. 41, 45) and communicate with a memory (para. 77) and a processor (para. 77) that processes data describing performance of the hardware components (paras. 43-44), determines at least one action comprising a component reconfiguration and replacement necessary to improve facility performance, and implements the action (para. 60, a reconfiguration such as a chemical delivery or change of connection to a chemical drum when monitored chemical quantities are low).
Sanville does not teach equipment for capturing, storing, and transmitting video content depicting at least quantities of vehicle passing through the facility and dimensions of the vehicles. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have video equipment. Cunningham teaches that video equipment allows for identification of issues, and its system uses the processed video to reconfigure components (abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that video content from the video camera would necessarily depict quantities of vehicles and dimensions of the vehicles since those characteristics are apparent in a video depiction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the system taught by Sanville to have the video equipment of Cunningham in order to identify issues and configure and control the system as appropriate, as suggested by Cunningham.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Sanville teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches a performance condition that describes chemical resource usage (para. 63).
As to claim 5, Sanville teaches that processing and inputs and a resulting second message are directed to correcting a performance condition (e.g. chemical usage, paras. 73-76).
As to claim 6, Sanville teaches that a mobile device provides a dashboard with facility data prompting a user to perform analysis of the data (paras. 68, 86).
As to claim 7, Sanville teaches on-site access via a human machine interface for electronic updates to resources and remote analysis, communications, and management from mobile devices (paras. 46, 86).
As to claim 10, Sanville teaches 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 analyze historical performance of a hardware component including service records and problem records involving the component (paras. 66, 77, 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).
As to claim 19, Sanville teaches a system for overseeing and controlling resource usage at 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), wherein the system analyzes hardware components to provide predictive maintenance instructions for operators (para. 29).
Sanville does not teach equipment for capturing data regarding vehicle volume and dimensions. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have video equipment. Cunningham teaches that video equipment allows for identification of issues and that its system performs analysis of the video data (abstract), the analysis directed to identifying inappropriate use of resources (para. 2, identifying a vehicle inappropriately using the car wash due to improper alignment). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that captured video would necessarily include vehicle volume and dimensions of the vehicles since a volume and dimensions are apparent in captured video. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the system taught by Sanville to have the video equipment of Cunningham in order to identify issues and configure and control the system as appropriate, as suggested by Cunningham.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 20, Sanville teaches that the control system computer 210 and the mobile device (e.g. vehicle 250) work in conjunction with instances of a chemical pod device located at each of the facilities (fig. 2).
As to claim 21, Sanville teaches that the control system computer 210 and the mobile device observe and control via instances of a chemical pod device sensors and actuators associated with hardware components (fig. 2).
As to claim 22, Sanville teaches 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 teaches that the mobile device is operated in a supervisory role over wash facilities (para. 86).
As to claim 24, Sanville teaches that each of the control system computer 210 and the mobile device may perform analysis unilaterally and/or it may perform analysis collaboratively of instances of chemical pod devices and associated components at wash 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.
Claim 8 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 20240083393 by Nana.
As to claim 8, Sanville does not explicitly teach activity volume that is 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights