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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Thebault–Kamada combination does not teach the limitation “a pressure sensor for determining a pressure generated by the fluid conveying device.” However, the recitation “for determining a pressure generated by the fluid conveying device” is seen as intended use of the pressure sensor. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. (MPEP §2114.II).
Applicant also argues that the Thebault–Kamada combination teach the fluid delivery device as being adjusting the flow rate based upon a sensed pressure. Applicant goes on to argue that Thebault’s fluid delivery device is voltage controlled to ensure that P1 is constant. However, the voltage is a function of pressure. Therefore, the Thebault–Kamada combination does teach pressure that is measured to influence the fluid delivery device to adjust the flow rate.
Claim Objections
The Examiner agrees with Applicant’s argument about the claim objections of claims 6 and 8. Therefore, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 5–6 and 8–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thebault (FR 3121896 A1) in view of Kamada (USPN 6308516 B1).
PNG
media_image1.png
469
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - Thebault Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding Claim 1, Thebault discloses a method of controlling a cleaning system for motor vehicle components the cleaning system comprising: a fluid conveying device (20); a pressure sensor (31) for determining a pressure generated by the fluid conveying device (20); a fluid distribution device (21) with at least one input connection (Thebault Annotated Fig. 3) fluid connected to the fluid conveying device (20); and with at least two output connections (240 and Paras. 18 and 29, where the output connections are the intersections between pipeline 24 and each of the valve’s inlets) fluid-connected to the input connection (Thebault Annotated Fig. 3), each output connection (240) being adjustable between an open position and a closed position (Para. 49); at least two cleaning devices (22), each fluid-connected via a fluid line (Paras. 18 and 29, where the fluid line for each valve is the line that is connected to the valve inlets) to a respective output connection (240); and a control device (25) which is data-coupled to the fluid conveying device (20) and the fluid distribution device (31) for transmitting and/or receiving signals (Para. 39), the method comprising: determining a cleaning request for at least two cleaning devices (Para. 39, where there are multiple sensors) but does not disclose a first target flow rate.
Kamada teaches determining a first target flow rate (Col. 21, Lines 29–30, where the target flow rate is set beforehand) for at least one element (40, which corresponds to Thebault 22); setting the output connections the fluid distribution device (Col. 21, Lines 29–30, where the electromagnetic valve is the fluid distribution device) in their open position or in their closed position (Col. 21, Lines 29–30, where the electromagnetic valve is the fluid distribution device) according to the element (10, Col. 21, Lines 25–28 which describes the demand and Col. 21, Lines 29–30, where the electromagnetic valve is engaged based upon the tank demand); determining a power level of the fluid conveying device (2); determining an actual fluid pressure generated by the fluid conveying device (Col. 46, Lines 34–38, where the actual pressure is the pressure sensed by the pressure sensor 44a); determining an actual total flow rate delivered by the fluid conveying device (2) based on the determined actual fluid pressure and the determined power level (Col. 46, Lines 18–62; where the pressure sensor provides the pump’s actual torque which corresponds to the actual flowrate) determining a first actual flow rate by the output connection to which the at least one first demand device (40, which corresponds to Thebault 22) is connected (Col. 46, Lines 34–38, where the actual pressure is the pressure sensed by the pressure sensor 44a and thus the actual flow rate); determining a flow rate control value (Q) based on the first target flow rate (Q_r) and the first actual flow rate (Q_a, Col. 18, Lines 14–26); and adjusting the fluid conveying device (2) in such a way that the actual total flow rate (Q_a) provided by the fluid conveying device (2) is changed by the flow rate control value (Q) so that the first actual flow rate (Q_a) approaches the first target flow rate (Q_r, Col. 21. Lines 18–64, which describes the entirety of the method steps to attain this information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system of Thebault with a control system as taught by Kamada in order to have a pump that has a quick response in order to adjust to the demands (Col. 1, Lines 41–45 and Col. 2, Lines 14-15).
Regarding Claim 2, the Thebault–Kamada combination teaches determining the first actual flow rate (Kamada Col. 21. Lines 18–64, which describes the entirety of the method steps to attain this information) by the output connection (Thebault 240) to which the at least one first cleaning device (Thebault 22) is connected.
Regarding Claim 3, the Thebault–Kamada combination teaches determining the first actual flow rate is also based on a first conversion table (Kamada 12d, Col. 21, Lines 50–61) which indicates the ratios of the flow rates through a plurality of line paths associated with the respective cleaning devices (Thebault 22) as a function of actual total flow rates provided by the fluid conveying device (Thebault 20).
Regarding Claim 5, the Thebault–Kamada combination teaches determining at least one further first target flow rate (Kamada Col. 21. Lines 18–64, which describes the entirety of the method steps to attain this information and where the at least one further target rate is related to the associated cleaning device) for at least one first cleaning device (Thebault 22) at least one further target flow rate for at least one second cleaning device (Thebault 22) and calculating a value the basis of these determined target flow rates to adopt as the target flow rate.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, the structural limitation of the apparatus and the method claims described in the claim is recited in claim(s) 1.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, the structural limitation of the apparatus and the method claims described in the claim is recited in claim(s) 1.
Regarding Claim 9, the Thebault–Kamada combination teaches a motor vehicle with at least two motor vehicle components (Thebault Pg. 2, 3rd Para. where the at least two motor vehicle components are the sensors) and with the cleaning system for cleaning the motor vehicle components according to claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The limitation in claim 4 “determining the first actual flow rate is carried out based on at least one second conversion table” is not captured in current prior art.
The limitation in claim 7 “determining actual total flow rate delivered by the fluid conveying device is carried out using a characteristic diagram. . . which indicates the actual total flow rate that can be achieved by the fluid conveying device as a function of the fluid pressure for different power levels” is not captured in current prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753