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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (USPN 9,802,579).
As to claim 1, Anderson discloses a car wash system configured for installation in a residential or commercial building (Fig. 1, bay 20 has clamps 161, 162 that are attachable to a ceiling or entrance/exit points), the apparatus comprising: at least one track configured for attachment to an interior surface of the residential building (shuttle unit 51 runs along a track of bridge 52); and one or more wash units moveably connected to the track (Fig. 1: wash robot 30 having a theta body 53 coupled to various wash tools, see, for example Figs. 2A-2B).
As to claim 2, Anderson discloses for use in a garage of the residential or commercial building (as noted above, use of clamps to attach to a ceiling or entrance/exit points allows this apparatus to be connected to a building as recited by the intended use of the claim language), wherein the interior surface comprises a ceiling, a front and back wall, a side wall, a floor, or a front or back wall and a ceiling (disclosure of clamps 161 and 162 attached to a ceiling imply the structure also has side walls and a floor, otherwise the ceiling would be floating without support. Further, the feature of the building is not a required feature of the claim, but rather an intended use of the apparatus. To which, Anderson fulfills due to its known clamping system to a structure/building).
As to claim 3, Anderson discloses wherein each of the one or more wash units comprise one or more wash apparatus, wherein the one or more wash apparatus comprise a flexible hose or an articulate pipe (tool 27 includes flexible hoses 149, for example).
As to claim 4, Anderson discloses wherein each of the one or more wash apparatus comprise a retracted position and an extended position (Fig. 12B: see retracted and extended positions of tool 27).
As to claims 6-7, Anderson discloses use of a rotating brush scrubber 28 that is moveable from a passive position at Fig. 1, to an active position at Fig. 2B during cleaning.
As to claim 8, Anderson discloses comprising a component attachable to an end of the one or more wash apparatus (Fig. 8A: see tool 27 attachable to the side effector 57 from docking station 22).
As to claim 9, Anderson discloses wherein the component comprises an underbody sprayer or a wheel and rim scrubber (col. 3, lines 25-26: rotary wheel scrub brush, for example).
As to claim 10, Anderson discloses wherein the wash units provide touchless cleaning of a vehicle (col. 3, para at line 28: touch free wash cycle).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson as applied to claims above, and further in view of JP (JP 2018-70017).
As to claim 5, Anderson discloses numerous washing tool types and even discloses that tools may be stored and accessed at docking stations out of the wash area (col. 1, lines 50-61). However, Anderson does not expressly disclose “wherein the at least one track comprises a telescoping arm configured to extend to a position outside of the residential or commercial building, and wherein the one or more wash units are configured to move along the at least one track to a position outside of the residential or commercial building”. However, in the art of vehicle washers, JP discloses a telescoping sprayer that extends on a track and outside of the building at Fig 1, see telescoping arm 55 having a sprayers 59, 60 which extend beyond the frame of its washer. It would have been obvious to have such an extendable sprayer in Anderson, as taught by JP, as this would improve spraying options while the vehicle is waiting to enter the wash, and also to ensure enhanced pre-wash of the bumper and front windshield which are often dirty from bugs, etc. Also, providing extra time for a pre-wash solution to sit on any dirt or debris improves the ability for it to be easily removed during the remainder of the wash, thus making it a beneficial feature to incorporate in Anderson.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson as applied to claims above, and further in view of Dolitzsch et al. herein referred to as “Dolitzsch” (USPN 3,795,928).
As to claim 11, as discussed above, Anderson discloses the features of a car wash having a frame, particularly on having at least four vertical posts supporting an upper frame (Anderson at Fig. 1 shows a wash system 100 having corner supports 37 and an upper portion of its frame 20), along with wash units as discussed above. However, Anderson is silent regarding “each post comprises a bottom end having a wheel and a top end attached to and supporting the upper frame”. However, in the art of vehicle washing machines, it is known to incorporate use of wheels 13, 13a as taught by Dolitzsch at Fig. 6, as a known base on its vehicle washer. Use of wheels would improve portability and removability for use in various locations, thus making its use in Anderson obvious for improved versatility.
As to claim 12, Dolitzsch further discloses its vertical posts are adjustable in length to change a height of the upper frame relative to a ground surface, as shown at its Figure. 6 and use of lifting cylinders 65, 66 for lifting the entirety of the frame upwards to accommodate a vehicle of a larger size. It would have been obvious to incorporate the feature of a vertically adjustable frame in Anderson, as taught by Dolitzsch in order to accommodate washing of various sized vehicles in a very tailored way, thus producing improved cleaning results.
Similarly, as to claim 13, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Anderson to allow for adjustability in the lateral or longitudinal directions, similar to the vertical direct as taught by Dolitzsch, for the purpose of accommodating varying sized vehicles. For example, for cleaning longer vehicles, such as semi-trailer trucks or RVs, extending the cleaning length and width would allow the frame to accommodate the size of the vehicle in comparison to a compact car which would have a smaller height, width, and length. Modifying the length and width of Anderson would produce expected results in allowing the washing apparatus to accommodate longer or wider vehicles.
As to claim 14, the cited prior art at Anderson discloses wherein each of the one or more wash units comprise one or more wash apparatus (tool 27 includes flexible hoses 149, for example).
As to claim 15, the cited prior art at Anderson discloses wherein each of the one or more wash apparatus comprise a retracted position and an extended position (Fig. 12B: see retracted and extended positions of tool 27).
As to claim 16, the cited prior art at Anderson discloses wherein each of the one or more wash units comprise one or more wash apparatus, wherein the one or more wash apparatus comprise a flexible hose or an articulate pipe (tool 27 includes flexible hoses 149, for example).
As to claims 17-18, Anderson discloses use of a rotating brush scrubber 28 that is moveable from a passive position at Fig. 1, to an active position at Fig. 2B during cleaning.
As to claim 19, the cited prior art at Anderson discloses comprising a component attachable to an end of the one or more wash hoses (Fig. 8A: see tool 27 attachable to the side effector 57 from docking station 22).
As to claim 20, the cited prior art at Anderson discloses wherein the component comprises an underbody sprayer or a wheel and rim scrubber (col. 3, lines 25-26: rotary wheel scrub brush, for example).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RITA P ADHLAKHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5pm 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.
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711