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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Species B (claims 9-13, 15 and 17-20) in the reply filed on December 29, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8, 14 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 29, 2025.
Claims 9-13, 15 and 17-20 will be examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “circuity” in line 2 should be amended to “circuitry.” 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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claims 17-20 are directed to both non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of machine-readable medium.
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 9-13 and 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 9 recites “at least one nozzle via a conduit, the at least one nozzle coupled to a conduit and configured to spray…” in lines 4-5. It is unclear whether the “conduit” recited in line 5 is referring to the “conduit” recited in line 4, or to a separate conduit. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “at least one nozzle via a conduit, the at least one nozzle coupled to [[a]] the conduit and configured to spray…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10-13 and 15 are rejected for depending on rejected claim 9.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12, 13, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0390859 to Lambertson in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0324000 to Shingler.
As to claim 9, Lambertson discloses a method comprising: in response to receipt of a signal to initiate a cleaning operation of a cooking range exhaust system (see Lambertson paragraphs [0039]-[0042], [0064]-[0068]): causing a cleaning solution to be provided to at least one nozzle via a conduit, the at least one nozzle coupled to the conduit and configured to spray a zone of the cooking range exhaust system, the zone corresponding to a hood zone, a flue zone, an exhaust fan zone, a waste collection system, or a combination thereof (see, e.g., Lambertson paragraphs [0039]-[0042] and [0047]) and collecting a sensor reading from a sensor configured to sense movement of cleaning solution to the conduit (see, e.g., Lambertson paragraphs [0012]-[0013], [0041]-[0042], [0058]-[0060], [0065] disclosing various sensors including water pressure sensors, pressure gauges and flow switches which are configured to sense movement of cleaning solution to the conduit as well as used to monitor and control the cleaning cycles).
Lambertson does not explicitly disclose comparing the sensor reading to a threshold. Shingler discloses that it is known in the art that water pressure is a known results effective variable and to control the cleaning cycle based on comparing the water pressure to a threshold (see Shingler paragraph [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lambertson to compare the sensor reading to a threshold in order to ensure that there is sufficient water pressure in order that the nozzles do not drip or leak when application of the solution is not desired (see Shingler paragraph [0038]).
As to claim 10, the combination of Lambertson and Shingler discloses that the sensor reading can be a pressure reading or a flow rate reading (see, e.g., Lambertson paragraphs [0012]-[0013], [0041]-[0042], [0058]-[0060], [0065] disclosing various sensors including water pressure sensors, pressure gauges and flow switches).
As to claim 12, the combination of Lambertson and Shingler discloses further providing data corresponding to the cleaning operation to a remote device via a wired or wireless interface (see Lambertson paragraphs [0065]-[0067]).
As to claim 13, the combination of Lambertson and Shingler discloses that the data corresponding to the cleaning operation comprises the sensor reading or the sensor reading compared to the threshold (see Lambertson paragraphs [0065]-[0067] disclosing that the data can be feed back data from the various sensors).
As to claim 17, Lambertson discloses a machine-readable medium that can include instructions that when executed by processing circuitry can cause the processing circuitry to (see Lambertson paragraphs [0065]-[0068] disclosing a program to perform the disclosed method): cause a cleaning solution to be provided to a plurality of nozzles via a conduit, the plurality of nozzles configured to spray a hood, a flue, an exhaust fan, a waste collection system, or a combination thereof of a cooking range exhaust system (see, e.g., Lambertson paragraphs [0039]-[0042] and [0047]) and collect a sensor reading from a sensor configured to sense movement of cleaning solution to the conduit (see, e.g., Lambertson paragraphs [0012]-[0013], [0041]-[0042], [0058]-[0060], [0065]-[0068] disclosing various sensors including water pressure sensors, pressure gauges and flow switches which are configured to sense movement of cleaning solution to the conduit as well as used to monitor and control the cleaning cycles).
Lambertson does not explicitly disclose comparing the sensor reading to a threshold. Shingler discloses that it is known in the art that water pressure is a known results effective variable and to control the cleaning cycle based on comparing the water pressure to a threshold (see Shingler paragraph [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lambertson to compare the sensor reading to a threshold in order to ensure that there is sufficient water pressure in order that the nozzles do not drip or leak when application of the solution is not desired (see Shingler paragraph [0038]).
As to claim 20, the combination of Lambertson and Shingler discloses that the instructions can further cause the processing circuitry to provide data corresponding to the cleaning operation to a remote device via a wired or wireless interface (see Lambertson paragraphs [0065]-[0067]).
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0390859 to Lambertson in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0324000 to Shingler as applied to claims 9 and 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0013989 to Brown, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0176400 to Schlenker and U.S. Patent No. 5,441,063 to Fernandez et al.
Lambertson and Shingler are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claims 9 and 17.
As to claims 11 and 18, the combination of Lambertson and Shingler does not explicitly disclose providing an alert in response to the comparison of the sensor reading to the threshold indicating a nozzle of the at least one nozzle is at least partially clogged. Brown discloses that clogged nozzles are a known problem with water wash systems of cooking range exhaust systems (see Brown paragraph [0006]). Both Schlenker and Fernandez disclose that it is known in the spray bar wash/water systems to use a pressure sensor to detect a pressure of liquid within the conduit and a controller to determine whether the pressure of the liquid exceeds a threshold to determine whether any of the plurality of nozzles have been clogged and send an alert or to use flow rate sensors to determine if there is a clogged spray nozzle (see Schlenker paragraphs [0005], [0020], [0022], [0025]-[0026]; Fernandez col. 29, lines 35-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lambertson/Shingler to include using the pressure sensor and/or flow meters to compare the sensor readings to a threshold to alert that at least one nozzle is at least partially clogged as disclosed by Schlenker/Fernandez in order to overcome a known problem in the prior art as disclosed by Brown.
Claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0390859 to Lambertson in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0324000 to Shingler as applied to claims 9 and 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0225205 to Wellens.
Lambertson and Shingler are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claims 9 and 17.
As to claims 15 and 19, while the combination of Lambertson and Shingler discloses causing cleaning solution runoff to be provided to a waste conduit as well as the use of various sensors including pressure gauges, flow switches and pressure transducers (see Lambertson paragraphs [0047]-[0048], [0060]), the combination of Lambertson and Shingler does not explicitly disclose collecting a second sensor from a second sensor configured to sense movement of the cleaning solution runoff through the waste conduit and comparing the second sensor reading to a second threshold. Wellens discloses that it is known in the art of cleaning systems to use signals from flow measurement devices to determine blockages in any conduits or drains (see Wellens paragraphs [0064]-[0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a flow measurement device on the waste drain system of Lambertson/Shingler in order to determine whether there are any blockages in order to better control the system (see Wellens paragraphs [0064]-[0069]) where one of ordinary skill in the art would know that a flow measurement that is lower than a threshold value would indicate that there is a blockage in the conduit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714