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 .
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.
Specifically, the claim limitations including: “filling means”, “compression means”, “dispensing means”, “control means”, and “heating means” are all interpreted as means plus function limitations wherein Examiner will look to the Specification for the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof.
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 10, 11, 13-14, and 20 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.
Further regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitation "a third valve and a fourth valve" in line 2. Applicant has not previously claimed a first valve and a second valve. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected for depending upon claim 10 and thereby containing all of the same indefiniteness issues thereof.
Further regarding claim 13, Applicant claims a “heating means”. When Examiner looks to the Specification as to how this limitation is defined—see paragraphs 40, 88, and 89—Applicant does not define a structure thereof. Applicant does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Therefore, this claim language is indefinite.
Claim 14 is rejected for depending upon claim 13 and thereby containing all of the same indefiniteness issues thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 12, and 15-19 are allowed.
The prior art fails to disclose or make obvious the limitations of claim 1, claiming a fluidic distribution system for cleaning surfaces of a vehicle, the distribution system comprising: a main tank with a main volume and configured to store a cleaning fluid at a main pressure; two secondary tanks including a first tank and a second tank, each of the first tank and the second tank having a secondary volume, the secondary volume being smaller than the main volume; filling means configured to allow selective filling of both the first tank and the second tank with cleaning fluid from the main tank; compression means configured to inject air selectively into one and the other of the first tank and the second tank, so as to impose a working pressure, higher than the main pressure, on cleaning fluid in the respective secondary tank; and dispensing means configured to selectively dispense from either of the first and second tanks cleaning fluid and/or air.
The closest prior art of record is that of EP 2815936 to Dominique et al. (Dominique). Dominique discloses a fluidic distribution system for cleaning surfaces of a vehicle, the distribution system comprising: a main tank with a main volume and configured to store a cleaning fluid at a main pressure; two secondary tanks including a first tank and a second tank, each of the first tank and the second tank having a secondary volume, the secondary volume being smaller than the main volume; filling means configured to allow selective filling of both the first tank and the second tank with cleaning fluid from the main tank; and dispensing means configured to selectively dispense from either of the first and second tanks cleaning fluid and/or air. Dominique does not disclose or make obvious a compression means configured to inject air selectively into one and the other of the first tank and the second tank, so as to impose a working pressure, higher than the main pressure, on cleaning fluid in the respective secondary tank.
The advantage of the current invention over that of the prior art to Dominique is that of the compression means along with configuration thereof to inject air into the secondary tanks to impose a working pressure on the cleaning fluid higher than the main pressure wherein this allows for targeted cleaning of components that require increased cleaning pressures using a smaller volume tank thereby decreasing risks associated with the increased pressures all while decreasing a footprint and number of components in view of the prior art thereof.
Claims 2-9, 12, and 15-19 which depend upon claim 1 are also allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN LEE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (571)270-7379. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
BENJAMIN LEE OSTERHOUT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/BENJAMIN L OSTERHOUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights