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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/23/2024, 01/21/2025 and 06/26/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the switch module must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract includes phrases which can be implied, such as “The present disclosure provides…”. The phrase does not aid in understanding the invention and said phrasing is expressly discouraged in order to clearly and concisely describe the invention. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds either 15 lines of text or 150 words. Applicant should check and attempt to amend the abstract so that it is as concise as the disclosure permits in order to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract appears to include language that refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention, such as “Thus, the water pump does not need to be turned on…temperature rise would not be caused…service life and a spraying effect…may be guaranteed when the spraying system is operated in a water conservation manner,”. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be included in the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to because it does not appear to provide a consistent interpretation of the invention with the drawings. Specifically, ¶ 0055 of the specification recites, “…a solid branch in Fig. 1 represents the spraying branch and a dotted line branch represents the backflow branch.” However, further citations in the specification such as ¶ 0048 recites numeral 2 as the spraying branch and numeral 3 as the backflow branch. It is apparent from Fig. 1 of the application drawings that line 3, the backflow branch, is solid; line 2, the spraying branch, is dotted. Therefore, the recitation of the invention in the cited location is contradictory to the understanding of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purposes of Examination, solid line 3 is considered the backflow branch and dotted line 2 is considered the spraying branch.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Water outlet device in at least claim 1
Switch module in at least claim 5
Detection module in at least claim 6
Control module
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification show that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
A water outlet device (i.e. a device configured to output water) appears to be described as a water tank in at least ¶ 0012 of the specification.
–
A detection module (i.e. a module configured to detect) appears to be described as a circuit board in communication with a control module, configured to detect the startup-shutdown of a spray system via wires in at least ¶ 0069-0072 of the specification.
A control module (i.e. a module configured to control) appears to be described as a circuit board in communication with a plurality of components via wires, in order to control the power on and power off of the plurality of components in at least ¶ 0071-0072 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “switch module” in line 2. The term “module,” being a non-structural term that is a substitute for the term "means," invokes a claim interpretation under the guise of 35 USC § 112(f), which requires a reliance on the corresponding disclosure to provide the limits on the structure, material or act that performs the claimed function. The disclosure must show with reasonable clarity to one skilled in the art that applicant was in possession of the invention as claimed. Possession is shown by describing the claimed invention with all limitations. Here, the switch module, including its function, is discussed in ¶ 0009 and 0065-0066. However, the corresponding structure that is capable of performing the claimed function (i.e. switching) of the module is not provided in the specification. A mere restatement of the function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function, is a failure to provide adequate written description for a § 112(f) limitation claim interpretation. Because the specification fails to provide an adequate description of a structure for the switch module, the boundary of claim is not clearly defined. A claim without clearly defined boundaries is rendered indefinite. Therefore, the claim, and all claims depending therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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 3-5 and 9-17 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.
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation of “…a first solenoid valve…” and “…a second solenoid valve…” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, claim 1 has already disclosed “a solenoid valve”. Therefore, it is unclear if the new instance of a first and second valves are building upon the previously disclosed elements, or if they are entirely new elements. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Assuming that the respective valves are building upon claim 1, and not claiming entirely new valves, the claim may be rewritten in the following form or similar to overcome the rejection: The spraying system according to claim 2, wherein the solenoid valve comprises a first solenoid valve provided in the second spraying branch, and a second solenoid valve provided in the backflow branch….
Regarding Claim 4, the recitation of “...a third solenoid valve…,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear as to how a third solenoid valve may exist without the existence of a first or second solenoid valve. Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “switch module” render the claim indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not understand the scope of the claimed invention when read in light of the specification. The lack of disclosure regarding the limitation "switch module” as called for in dependent claim 5 creates such an inconsistency between the claims and the description that it prevents a skilled artisan from understanding the scope of the independent claims (MPEP § 2173.03). The specification does not use the claim terminology to identify the “switch module.” For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be broadly interpreted as any known means to control the pump.
Regarding Claim 5, the recitation of “...a fourth solenoid valve…” and “…a fifth solenoid valve…” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear as to how a fourth or fifth solenoid valve may exist without the existence of a first and all preceding solenoid valves. Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 9, the recitation of “…controlling, if the spraying mode is in an intermittent spraying mode, the spraying branch to be turned on, and controlling the backflow branch or the spraying branch to be turned off, and controlling the backflow branch to be turned on…” cannot be followed, as it is unclear how the spraying branch may be turned on while also providing an alternative for the spraying branch to be turned off, while the backflow branch may be turned off while being controlled to be turned on. The phrasing may appear to be result of a translation and is thus unclear to the Examiner how the alternative operation should be interpreted. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, the claim is suggested by the examiner to understand as the following (underlined differences):
“…controlling, if the spraying mode is in an intermittent spraying mode, the spraying branch to be turned on and controlling the backflow branch to be turned off, or controlling the spraying branch to be turned off and controlling the backflow branch to be turned on…”.
Regarding Claim 14, the recitation of “…controlling, if the solenoid valve of the spraying branch or the solenoid valve of the backflow branch is in a turned-on state, the solenoid valve of the spraying branch in the turned-on state or the solenoid valve of the backflow branch in the turned-on state to be turned on for a second time, and then turning off the solenoid valve of the spraying branch in the turned-on state or the solenoid valve of the backflow branch in the turned-on state,” cannot be followed. Respectfully, the phrasing may appear to be result of a translation and is thus it is unclear to the Examiner how the interpret the claim. Specifically, the claim appears to state that if any valve is already on, then that valve turns on a second time. It is unclear how a valve turns on a second time when it is already in the on state. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 15, the recitation of “…control the spraying branch to be turned on, control the backflow branch or the spraying branch to be turned off, and control the backflow branch to be turned on…” cannot be followed, as it is unclear how the spraying branch may be turned on while also providing an alternative for the spraying branch to be turned off, while the backflow branch may be turned off while being controlled to be turned on. The phrasing may appear to be result of a translation and is thus unclear to the Examiner how the alternative operation should be interpreted. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, the claim is suggested by the examiner to understand as the following (underlined differences):
“…control the spraying branch to be turned on and control the backflow branch to be turned off, or control the spraying branch to be turned off and control the backflow branch to be turned on…”.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (CN 112191393 A, hereinafter “Ma”).
Regarding Claim 1, Ma teaches a spraying system [at least Fig. 4a], comprising a water outlet device [419], a spraying branch [at least 43, 45, 44, 49, 414, nozzle], a backflow branch [41, 416] and a nozzle [17; see Fig. 1; not numbered in Figs. 4a-5]; a water outlet of the water outlet device [419], the spraying branch and the nozzle are communicated sequentially [¶ 0068-0069; apparent from inspection of figures]; the spraying branch, the backflow branch and a water inlet of the water outlet device are communicated sequentially [¶ 0068-0069; apparent from inspection of figures];
a solenoid valve [41, 44] is arranged in the spraying branch and/or the backflow branch [¶ 0054; the valve may be a solenoid valve; 0068; Fig. 4a; apparent from inspection], and the solenoid valve is configured to control turning on and turning off of the spraying branch and/or the backflow branch [¶ 0068; control valves 41 and 44 may turn on/off flow in their respective passages];
when the spraying branch is turned on, liquid flowing out of the water outlet device flows out of the nozzle through the spraying branch [¶ 0050; liquid passes through nozzle 17 when first control valve is on [¶ 0068; see entire description; also see flow arrows 414 and 416 in Fig. 4a];
when the backflow branch is turned on, the liquid flowing out of the water outlet device flows into the water outlet device through the backflow branch [¶ 0068; see entire description; also see flow arrows 414 and 416 in Fig. 4a].
Regarding Claim 2, Ma teaches the spraying system according to claim 1 above and Ma teaches wherein the spraying branch comprises a first spraying branch [at least 43, 45] and a second spraying branch [at least 44, 49, 414], and a water pump [45] is arranged in the first spraying branch [Fig. 4a; apparent from inspection; at least valve 44 or shunt pipe 49 divides the spraying branch in separate pipes];
the water outlet of the water outlet device, the first spraying branch, the second spraying branch and the nozzle are communicated sequentially [Fig. 4a; apparent from inspection 419 outputs to 43, then 49, then 414, then through the nozzle]; the water outlet of the water outlet device, the first spraying branch, the backflow branch and the water inlet of the water outlet device are communicated sequentially [Fig. 4a; apparent from inspection 419 outputs to 43, then 49, then 416 to input back to 419].
Regarding Claim 3, Ma teaches the spraying system according to claim 2 above and Ma teaches wherein the second spraying branch is provided with a first solenoid valve [44], the backflow branch is provided with a second solenoid valve [41], both the first solenoid valve and the second solenoid valve are two-way solenoid valves [¶ 0054, 0072; Fig. 4a; apparent from inspection the valves are two-way valves].
Regarding Claim 5, Ma teaches the spraying system according to claim 2 above and Ma teaches wherein if a switch module is arranged in the water pump, none of the second spraying branch and the backflow branch is provided with the solenoid valve; if the switch module is not arranged in the water pump, the second spraying branch is provided with a fourth solenoid valve or a fifth solenoid valve is provided in the backflow branch, wherein both the fourth solenoid valve and the fifth solenoid valve are two-way solenoid valves [see 112(a) and 112(b) rejections regarding claim 5; any lack of prior art rejection should not be construed as any indication of allowable subject matter, but rather it is indicative to the degree of uncertainty as to how to interpret the claims given the aforementioned 112 rejections without improper importation and assumption from the Examiner] [The claim appears to merely require that the pump have some sort of means to prevent the flow, whether that means is in the water pump or elsewhere in the conduit. Therefore, a mere distinction of a switch location may be considered an obvious design matter of design choice regarding a rearrangement of parts [MPEP 2144.04 VI.C], as the location of the switch to control the pump would not significantly modify the operation of the device].
Regarding Claim 6, Ma teaches the spraying system according to claim 1 above and Ma further teaches comprising a detection module [1202]; the detection module is configured to detect startup and shutdown and a spraying mode of the spraying system [¶ 0104; determining module 1202 is configured to determine the spraying period according the working parameter].
Regarding Claim 7, Ma teaches the spraying system according to claim 6 above and Ma further teaches comprising a control module [1203], the control module is in communication connection with the detection module, and the control module is connected to a solenoid valve of the spraying system; the control module is configured to control turning on and turning off of the solenoid valve based on a detection mode [¶ 0104-0106; control module 1203 is configured to control the operation of the control valve and the continuous operation of the liquid delivery unit according to the spray cycle].
Regarding Claim 8, Ma teaches the spraying system according to claim 1 above and Ma teaches wherein the water outlet device is a water tank [¶ 0003; Ma discloses spraying water, therefore liquid tank 319 may store water].
Regarding Claim 9, Ma teaches a method for controlling a spraying system [¶ 0083-0102], the method comprising:
determining a spraying mode of the spraying system [¶ 0084; at least S102; also see equivalent steps in preceding embodiments];
controlling, in response to the spraying mode being a continuous spraying mode [¶ 0099; when the duration is greater than or equal to spraying time, the system may be controlled to perform continuous spraying], the spraying branch of the spraying system to be turned on, and controlling the backflow branch of the spraying system to be turned off, in order that liquid in the water outlet device of the spraying system continuously flows out of the nozzle of the spraying system [¶ 0087, 0096-0098; see 0087 for explanation of pressure drop over a plurality of open/closed control valves to encourage or discourage flow of liquid to nozzle without frequent/rapid stopping/starting of pumping means]; and
controlling, if the spraying mode is an intermittent spraying mode, the spraying branch to be turned on, and controlling the backflow branch or the spraying branch to be turned off, and controlling the backflow branch to be turned on, in order that the liquid in the water outlet device intermittently flows out of the nozzle [¶ 0088-0092; after a spraying period is determined according to working parameters, the system is controlled such that the plurality of control valves are turned on to convey liquid for a period and stop delivering the liquid within another interval of time by turning the respective valves off; also see ¶ 0052].
Regarding Claim 10, Ma teaches the method according to claim 9 above and Ma teaches wherein if the spraying mode is the continuous spraying mode [at least ¶ 0099], said controlling the spraying branch of the spraying system is controlled to be turned on [¶ 0099; system is configured to provide water to spray nozzle], and controlling the backflow branch of the spraying system to be turned off comprises:
turning on the spraying branch [¶ 0099; system is configured to provide water to spray nozzle]; and
controlling the water pump of the spraying system to start to operate after the spraying branch has been turned on for a preset first time [¶ 0067; in addition to control the control valve to working intermittently according to the spray cycle, the system may control the pump to work according to the spraying cycle, such as intermittent start and stop when suitable].
Regarding Claim 11, Ma teaches the method according to claim 10 above and Ma further teaches comprising:
obtaining a stop spraying signal [¶ 0064; when the intermittent spraying method is realized, the system stops delivering liquid to the nozzle], and controlling the water pump of the spray system to stop operation based on the stop spraying signal [¶ 0067; the pump may also be controlled in combination with the control of valves]; and
turning off the spraying branch after the water pump stops operation for the first time [¶ 0064; when the intermittent spraying method is realized, the system stops delivering liquid to the nozzle].
Regarding Claim 12, Ma teaches the method according to claim 10 above and Ma teaches wherein if the spraying mode is the intermittent spraying mode, said controlling the spraying branch to be turned on, controlling the backflow branch or the spraying branch to be turned off, and controlling the backflow branch to be turned on comprises:
determining a spraying time and a stop spraying time of the intermittent spraying mode [¶ 0083; working parameters may include injection time and interval time];
controlling the spraying branch to be turned on and controlling the backflow branch to be turned off during the spraying time [¶ 0084; a spraying period is determined according to the working parameters by controlling the valves]; and
controlling the spraying branch to be turned off and controlling the backflow branch to be turned on during the stop spraying time [¶ 0085; operate the valves according to the spraying cycle such that the intermittent spraying mode is realized].
Regarding Claim 13, Ma teaches the method according to claim 12 above and Ma further teaches comprising:
turning on the backflow branch when the spraying time is switched to the stop spraying time and an operation time of the water pump is greater than a preset time threshold value [¶ 0061-0063; the control unit may obtain a preset working times and working parameters without restrictions according to own conditions, such as any number of user defined presets]; turning off the spraying branch after the backflow branch has been turned on for a preset second time [¶ 0069]; and
turning on the spraying branch when the stop spraying time is switched to the spraying time; turning off the backflow branch after the spraying branch has been turned on for the second time [¶ 0070-0074; the system turns respective valves on and off in intervals to satisfy intermittent cycle spray times, therefore an interval (i.e. 200 ms, 350 ms, etc.) necessarily has a first preset time, a second preset time, a third preset time, etc., and may be any number of cycles N].
Regarding Claim 14, Ma teaches the method according to claim 10 and Ma further teaches comprising:
obtaining a stop spraying signal, and controlling the water pump to stop operation based on the stop spraying signal [¶ 0067; a stop spraying signal is necessarily received in order to satisfy an intermittent spraying signal, wherein the operation of the pump may also be controlled according to the spray cycle in addition to the valves];
maintaining a turned-off state of the solenoid valve of the spraying branch and the solenoid valve of the backflow branch if the solenoid valve of the spraying branch and the solenoid valve of the backflow branch are both in a turned-off state [Any system is commonsensically capable of maintaining an off state if the device is in the off state]; and
controlling, if the solenoid valve of the spraying branch or the solenoid valve of the backflow branch is in a turned-on state, the solenoid valve of the spraying branch in the turned- on state or the solenoid valve of the backflow branch in the turned-on state to be turned on for the second time [It is commonsensical that if a valve is on, the valve may be turned on], and then turning off the solenoid valve of the spraying branch in the turned-on state or the solenoid valve of the backflow branch in the turned-on state [see 112(b) rejection above regarding claim 14; any lack of prior art rejection should not be construed as any indication of allowable subject matter, but rather it is indicative to the degree of uncertainty as to how to interpret the claims without improper importation and assumption from the Examiner]
Regarding Claim 15, Ma teaches an apparatus for controlling a spraying system [¶ 0015], the apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors [¶ 0110; the system may include a processor, memory etc.] configured to:
determine a spraying mode of the spray system [¶ 0096; at least S501-S502; also see equivalent steps in other embodiments];
control the spraying branch of the spraying system to be turned on, and control the backflow branch of the spraying system to be turned off, in order that liquid in a water outlet device of the spraying system continuously flows out of a nozzle of the spraying system, in response to the spraying mode being a continuous spraying mode [¶ 0099; the system may operate in a continuous spraying mode; also see ¶ 0087]; and
control the spraying branch to be turned on, control the backflow branch or the spraying branch to be turned off, and control the backflow branch to be turned on, in order that the liquid in the water outlet device intermittently flows out of the nozzle, in response to the spraying mode being an intermittent spraying mode [¶ 0088-0092; after a spraying period is determined according to working parameters, the system is controlled such that the plurality of control valves are turned on to convey liquid for a period and stop delivering the liquid within another interval of time by turning the respective valves off; also see ¶ 0052].
Regarding Claim 16, Ma teaches the control apparatus according to claim 15 above and Ma teaches wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to turn on the spraying branch if the spraying mode is the continuous spraying mode [¶ 0099; the system may operate in a continuous spraying mode; also see ¶ 0087], and control a water pump of the spraying system to start to operate after the spraying branch has been turned on for a preset first time [¶ 0067; in addition to control the control valve to working intermittently according to the spray cycle, the system may control the pump to work according to the spraying cycle, such as intermittent start and stop when suitable].
Regarding Claim 17, Ma teaches the control apparatus according to claim 15 above and Ma teaches wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to:
determine a spraying time and a stop spraying time of the intermittent spraying mode in response to the spraying mode being the intermittent spraying mode [¶ 0104; determining module 1202 is configured to determine the spraying period according the working parameter]; and
control the spraying branch to be turned on and control the backflow branch to be turned off during the spraying time, and control the spraying branch to be turned off and control the backflow branch to be turned on during the stop spraying time [¶ 0088-0092; after a spraying period is determined according to working parameters, the system is controlled such that the plurality of control valves are turned on to convey liquid for a period and stop delivering the liquid within another interval of time by turning the respective valves off; also see ¶ 0052].
Regarding Claim 18, Ma teaches an electronic device, comprising at least one processor and a memory [¶ 0028], wherein the memory stores a computer-executable instruction executable by the processor, the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instruction so as to implement the control method of the spray system according to claim 9 [¶ 0083-0102].
Regarding Claim 19, Ma teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which stores a computer-executable instruction [¶ 0028], that, when being invoked and executed by a processor, causes the processor to implement the control method for the spray system according to claim 9 [¶ 0083-0102].
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Katsurayama et al. (JP 2006191946 A, hereinafter “Katsurayama”).
Regarding Claim 4, Ma teaches the spraying system according to claim 2 above and while Ma teaches a three-way shunt pipe [49] arranged at an intersection point of the first spraying branch [at least 43, 45], the second spraying branch [at least 414 and the nozzle] and the backflow branch [at least 416], Ma does not explicitly teach wherein the three-way valve is a solenoid valve.
However, Katsurayama teaches a mist sauna apparatus [Fig. 5] comprising a water output device [water storage tank 2], a branch of conduit extending to a spraying device [4] [via at least 51, 10, 41b], as well as branch conduit extending from a three-way valve [10] towards an input of the water output device [at least 41c], wherein the conduits connecting the tank input/output and the spray nozzle are connected sequentially [¶ 0071; Fig. 5; apparent from inspection]. Katsurayama further teaches that the three-way valve [10] is a solenoid valve [¶ 0075]. Katsurayama discloses that the solenoid valve provides an obvious “opening/closing means” for a control device [52] to comprehensively control the operation of the components thereby enabling the system to achieve a control target, therefore providing that a three-way solenoid valve is a known means to control the system, and may therefore be within the technical grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art if there is an expectation of success (i.e. providing opening/closing means) [¶ 0077]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the three-way solenoid valve as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the three-way solenoid valve would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a known opening/closing means to control the system, thereby enabling the system achieve target parameters through control [¶ 0077].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Ma to have wherein the three-way valve is a solenoid valve, in view of the teachings of Katsurayama, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a known opening/closing means to control the system, thereby enabling the system achieve target parameters through control.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katsurayama et al. (JP 2006191946 A, hereinafter “Katsurayama”).
Regarding Claim 20, Ma teaches the spraying system according to claim 1 above, but Ma does not explicitly teach an air conditioner.
However, Li teaches a spraying control method and spraying control system, wherein the system may be applied to an air conditioner [Abstract, ¶ 0024]. Li teaches that utilizing the spraying control system helps rapidly and effectively reduce the temperature of an air conditioner, thereby helping protect the air side heat exchanger and extend the service life of the system [Abstract]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined air conditioner as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the air conditioner would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. utilizing the spraying control system helps rapidly and effectively reduce the temperature of an air conditioner, thereby helping protect the air side heat exchanger and extend the service life of the system [Abstract].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Ma to have an air conditioning system in view of the teachings of Li where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. utilizing the spraying control system helps rapidly and effectively reduce the temperature of an air conditioner, thereby helping protect the air side heat exchanger and extend the service life of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xie et al. (CN 113531934 A) discloses a refrigeration system utilizing water circulation and spray nozzle systems controlled with a plurality of valves.
Ma et al. (CN 111889249 A) discloses a spray system and method utilizing water circulation and spray nozzle systems controlled with a plurality of valves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights