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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 09/01/2026. Claims 1-12 have been amended. Claim 13 has been cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-12 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 09/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Liao have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Liao and Cunningham as detailed below.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the dependent claims, applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
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.
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) 1-3, 6-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao CN 11655458 A (Liao was submitted by the applicant in IDS on 04/30/2025 with an English translation upon which the examiner is relying, hence Liao) in view of Cunningham et al US 2024/0411312 A1 (hence Cunningham).
In re claims 1 and 6, Liao discloses an unattended automatic car washing device (Abstract), and teaches the following:
controlling work equipment that performs work (Page 13, Paragraph 0015 “the car wash controller controls the car wash gantry” and Paragraph 0037 “the car wash controller starts the car wash gantry”) on a moving object that moves to a workplace (Entire reference, vehicle”)
the work equipment disposed in the work place and including an actuator configured to perform the work on the moving object (Page 10, Paragraph 0018, Page 12, Paragraph 0012, and Page 13, Paragraph 0015 “the car wash controller controls the car wash gantry” and Paragraph 0037 “the car wash controller starts the car wash gantry”)
and a control device including a memory, a processor, and a communication interface configured to communicate with the work equipment (Page 1 “the carwash controller”)
acquire individual information regarding an attribute of the moving object (Page 10, Paragraph 0018 “the car wash controller is communicatively connected with the car wash channel”, and Paragraph 0021 “the car wash controller obtains the license plate information of the vehicle”);
generate a control signal according to the individual information, wherein the control signal is a signal for controlling a state of the work performed by the actuator (Page 13, Paragraph 0015 “the car wash controller controls the car wash gantry” and Paragraph 0037 “the car wash controller starts the car wash gantry”);
and transmit the control signal to the work equipment via the communication interface, wherein the work equipment is configured to drive the actuator according to the received control signal (Page 10, Paragraph 0018 “the car wash controller is communicatively connected with the car wash channel”)
However, Liao discloses a vehicle as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
a moving object that moves to a work place by unmanned driving
Nevertheless, Cunningham discloses systems and method for carwash detection and entry assistance of a vehicle (Abstract) and teaches the following:
a moving object that moves to a work place by unmanned driving (Paragraph 0004 “automated vehicle operations associated with the purpose of washing the vehicle”, Paragraph 0039 “the vehicle car wash detection and entry assistance system 40 identifies the presence of a carwash in front of the vehicle 10, assists with preparations of the vehicle 10 prior to entering the carwash, assists with maneuvering tasks of the vehicle 10 to enter the carwash at the optimal approach angle, and may assist with operation of the vehicle within, and exit from, the carwash”, and Paragraph 0042 “a control module onboard the autonomous vehicle 10, such as in the controller 30, may use the various onboard sensors in the sensor array 32, and may enable data from those different types of sensors to be spatially or otherwise associated with one another for object detection, object classification, with the purpose of controlling operation of the vehicle 10”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Liao reference to include a vehicle carwash detection and entry assistance system, as taught by Cunningham, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control an autonomous vehicle through a carwash (Cunningham, Paragraph 0003).
In re claims 2-3, 7, Liao discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly recite a first and second moving object and generating and transmitting a first and second control signal based on content of the information of the first and second moving objects.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to control more than one vehicle especially that Liao discloses detecting vehicle model, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In re claim 10, Liao teaches the following:
wherein the work equipment is equipment that sprays a liquid onto the moving object, and the processor is configured to generate the control signal for adjusting a spray starting position of the liquid with respect to the moving object (Page 5 “water source”)
Claim(s) 4-5, 8-9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao, Cunningham, and further in view of Palazzolo US 2021/0188321 A1 (hence Palazzolo).
In re claims 4 and 8, the combination of Liao and Cunningham discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the work equipment comprises a pair of guide rails configured to adjust a traveling direction of the moving object, wherein the individual information includes information regarding a width of the moving object, and wherein the processor is configured to generate the control signal for adjusting at least one of a gap and an angle between the pair of guide rails
Nevertheless, Palazzolo discloses a system for autonomously moving and aligning a vehicle with respect to an object fixed to a traveling surface in front of the vehicle (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the work equipment comprises a pair of guide rails configured to adjust a traveling direction of the moving object, wherein the individual information includes information regarding a width of the moving object, and wherein the processor is configured to generate the control signal for adjusting at least one of a gap and an angle between the pair of guide rails (Fig.1, #24, #26, and Paragraph 0013 “Correlator guide rails 24 and support rails 26 rotate axially towards the center of the conveyor structure 22 to correctly align the driver-side front tire 14 of the vehicle 10”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Liao reference to include the drive system of the vehicle, as taught by Palazzolo, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to autonomously maneuvering the vehicle into engagement with the conveyor structure, such that no attendant is needed and driver misalignment errors are eliminated (Palazzolo, Paragraph 0021).
In re claim 5, Palazzolo discloses aligning the driver-side front tire of the vehicle with the conveyor taking into consideration width of the tire and wheel track width but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the second control signal is transmitted to the work equipment after the first moving object exits from the pair of guide rails and before the second moving object enters the pair of guide rails
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to allow a vehicle of one specific tire width on an adjustable conveyor at one time before allowing another vehicle of a different tire width to enter the conveyor, since it was know in the art that the conveyors at a carwash facility are designed to align the vehicle to go through the car wash and a vehicle with a wider tire width will not fit on the conveyor configured to support a vehicle of a smaller tire width.
In re claim 9, Palazzolo teaches the following:
wherein the processor is configured to detect a state of the work equipment and execute at least one of a process of decelerating the moving object, a process of changing a movement route of the moving object, and a process of notifying occurrence of an abnormality when the state of the work equipment does not change according to the control signal (Fig.3, and Paragraph 0021)
In re claim 11, Palazzolo teaches the following:
wherein the moving object is a vehicle, the work equipment is equipment that adjusts a wheel alignment of the vehicle, and the processor is configured to generate the control signal for adjusting a standby position of the work equipment (Fig.1, #24, #26, and Paragraph 0013)
In re claim 12, Palazzolo teaches the following:
wherein the work equipment is equipment that emits an electromagnetic wave onto the moving object, and the processor is configured to generate the control signal for adjusting a wavelength of the electromagnetic wave (Paragraph 0029)
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 RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
