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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-19 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 1 recite the following:
1. A fluid delivery system for dispensing fluid in a vehicle wash, comprising:
a fluid passageway configured to receive a motive fluid from a pressurized motive fluid source, the fluid passageway comprising at least one fluid inlet and at least one fluid outlet;
at least one integrated valve, each integrated valve comprising:
a plunger housing configured to receive a valve limiter within an interior thereof, wherein a fluid inlet of the at least one fluid inlet, a fluid outlet of the at least one fluid outlet, and the plunger housing are integrally-constructed; and
a valve plunger arranged in the plunger housing movable between a closed position and an open position and configured to block a valve orifice in the closed position to prevent passage of fluid, and open the valve orifice in the open position to permit the passage of fluid from the fluid inlet through the valve orifice for dispensing from the fluid outlet;
at least one actuator assembly each comprising an actuator and the valve limiter; and
a control system communicatively coupled to each actuator of the at least one integrated valve,
wherein the control system is configured to receive a selection from a user corresponding to a selected outlet pressure from one or more of the at least one fluid outlet, and based on the selection, the control system is configured cause at least one communicatively coupled actuator to adjust a position of a corresponding valve limiter such that, when a corresponding valve plunger moves to the open position, a distance of movement of the corresponding valve plunger is limited by the corresponding valve limiter to thereby reach a target flow rate or a target outlet pressure of dispensed motive fluid.
Notice that claim 1 both recite “fluid” and “a motive fluid” due to the way the claim is written it makes it unclear and indefinite if “fluid” and “motive fluid” are the same limitation or related limitations or if they are distinct. Additionally, due to the lack of the article “a/an” and “the” it is unclear and indefinite if the latter recitations of “fluid” are the same the first recitation or if each one is distinct. Based on the disclosure, the Office will assume that they can be the same limitation (i.e. “fluid” is the same as “motive fluid” such as in the case where only motive fluid is dispensed) in some situations and in others, the fluid dispensed is a mixture of motive fluid and at least one chemical (see for example claim 17). The Office suggests that claim 1 is amended to clarify the fluid being dispensed is “a motive fluid”.
If so the Office suggests that claim 1 is amended as follows:
1. A fluid delivery system for dispensing a fluid in a vehicle wash, comprising:
a fluid passageway configured to receive a motive fluid from a pressurized motive fluid source, the fluid passageway comprising at least one fluid inlet and at least one fluid outlet;
at least one integrated valve, each integrated valve comprising:
a plunger housing configured to receive a valve limiter within an interior thereof, wherein a fluid inlet of the at least one fluid inlet, a fluid outlet of the at least one fluid outlet, and the plunger housing are integrally-constructed; and
a valve plunger arranged in the plunger housing movable between a closed position and an open position and configured to block a valve orifice in the closed position to prevent passage of the motive fluid, and open the valve orifice in the open position to permit the passage of the motive fluid from the fluid inlet through the valve orifice for dispensing from the fluid outlet;
at least one actuator assembly each comprising an actuator and the valve limiter; and
a control system communicatively coupled to each actuator of the at least one integrated valve,
wherein the control system is configured to receive a selection from a user corresponding to a selected outlet pressure from one or more of the at least one fluid outlet, and based on the selection, the control system is configured cause at least one communicatively coupled actuator to adjust a position of a corresponding valve limiter such that, when a corresponding valve plunger moves to the open position, a distance of movement of the corresponding valve plunger is limited by the corresponding valve limiter to thereby reach a target flow rate or a target outlet pressure of dispensed motive fluid.
---Claim 10 recites the following:
10. The fluid delivery system of claim 1, wherein the control system is further configured to control a chemical supply fluidly coupled to a mixing site, the mixing site configured to receive motive fluid from a fluid outlet of the at least one fluid outlet and chemical from the chemical supply, to mix the motive fluid and the chemical to form a mixture, and to dispense the mixture.
Notice that the lack of the article “a/an” and/or “the” in the limitation “motive fluid” makes it unclear and indefinite if the motive fluid of claim 10 is the same as the one previously recited in intervening claim 1 or if they are distinct. Based on the record, the Office will assume that they are the same limitation.
If so, the Office suggests that claim 10 is amended as follows:
10. The fluid delivery system of claim 1, wherein the control system is further configured to control a chemical supply fluidly coupled to a mixing site, the mixing site configured to receive the motive fluid from a fluid outlet of the at least one fluid outlet and chemical from the chemical supply, to mix the motive fluid and the chemical to form a mixture, and to dispense the mixture.
---Claim 17 recites the following:
17. The fluid delivery system of claim 12, wherein the control system is further configured to control a plurality of chemical supplies, each of the plurality of chemical supplies fluidly coupled to a mixing site, each mixing site configured to receive motive fluid from the fluid outlet of a respective integrated valve and chemical from at least one of the plurality of chemical supplies, mix the motive fluid and the chemical to form a mixture, and dispense the mixture.
Notice that claim 17 comprises similar issues as claim 10 and are rejected in a similar manner and the same assumption apply.
If so, the Office suggests that claim 17 is amended as follows:
17. The fluid delivery system of claim 12, wherein the control system is further configured to control a plurality of chemical supplies, each of the plurality of chemical supplies fluidly coupled to a mixing site, each mixing site configured to receive the motive fluid from the fluid outlet of a respective integrated valve and chemical from at least one of the plurality of chemical supplies, mix the motive fluid and the chemical to form a mixture, and dispense the mixture.
---Claim(s) 2-18, being dependent on any of the preceding claim(s) above, inherit the same deficiencies as the parent/intervening claim(s) and as such is/are rejected in the same manner, see the rejection(s) above.
---Claim 19 recites the following:
19. A method of delivering motive fluid from a fluid delivery system in a vehicle wash, comprising:
receiving, at a control system of the fluid delivery system, a selection from a user corresponding to a selected outlet pressure;
using the control system to cause a position of a valve limiter of an actuator assembly of an integrated valve of the fluid delivery system to be adjusted, the actuator assembly comprising an actuator and the valve limiter, wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the position of the valve limiter to adjustably control an effective valve orifice area of a valve orifice of a fluid outlet of the fluid delivery system based on a distance of movement of a valve plunger to an open position of the valve plunger, wherein the valve plunger is arranged in a plunger housing and configured to block the valve orifice in a closed position of the valve plunger and open the valve orifice in the open position to permit passage of fluid from a fluid inlet of the fluid delivery system through the valve orifice for dispensing the motive fluid from the fluid outlet; and
using the control system to cause the valve plunger to be moved to the open position in which the valve plunger contacts the valve limiter to thereby define the effective valve orifice area of the valve orifice such that the motive fluid is dispensed from the fluid outlet at a target flow rate or a target outlet pressure corresponding to the selected outlet pressure.
Notice that claim 19 comprises similar issues to claim 1 above but with the claim first claiming “motive fluid” and then claiming “fluid” which makes it unclear and indefinite if the two limitations are the same or related to each other or if they are distinct. Based on the disclosure and claim context, the Office will assume that various typos occurred and claim 19 should be amended to clarify theses limitations are the same.
If so, the Office suggests that claim 19 is amended as follows:
19. A method of delivering a motive fluid from a fluid delivery system in a vehicle wash, comprising:
receiving, at a control system of the fluid delivery system, a selection from a user corresponding to a selected outlet pressure;
using the control system to cause a position of a valve limiter of an actuator assembly of an integrated valve of the fluid delivery system to be adjusted, the actuator assembly comprising an actuator and the valve limiter, wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the position of the valve limiter to adjustably control an effective valve orifice area of a valve orifice of a fluid outlet of the fluid delivery system based on a distance of movement of a valve plunger to an open position of the valve plunger, wherein the valve plunger is arranged in a plunger housing and configured to block the valve orifice in a closed position of the valve plunger and open the valve orifice in the open position to permit passage of the motive fluid from a fluid inlet of the fluid delivery system through the valve orifice for dispensing the motive fluid from the fluid outlet; and
using the control system to cause the valve plunger to be moved to the open position in which the valve plunger contacts the valve limiter to thereby define the effective valve orifice area of the valve orifice such that the motive fluid is dispensed from the fluid outlet at a target flow rate or a target outlet pressure corresponding to the selected outlet pressure.
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.
---Claim 20 recites the following:
20. At least one machine-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by processing circuitry, result in the processing circuitry:
in response to receipt of a user selection, causing a position of a valve limiter of an actuator assembly of an integrated valve of a fluid delivery system to be adjusted, the actuator assembly comprising an actuator and the valve limiter, wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the position of the valve limiter to adjustably control an effective valve orifice area of a valve orifice of a fluid outlet of the fluid delivery system based on a distance of movement of a valve plunger to an open position of the valve plunger, wherein the valve plunger is arranged in a plunger housing and configured to block the valve orifice in a closed position of the valve plunger and open the valve orifice in the open position to permit passage of fluid from a fluid inlet of the fluid delivery system through the valve orifice for dispensing from the fluid outlet; and
causing the valve plunger to be moved to the open position in which the valve plunger contacts the valve limiter to thereby define the effective valve orifice area of the valve orifice such that the fluid is dispensed from the fluid outlet at a target flow rate or a target outlet pressure corresponding to the selection.
Notice that claim 20 is directed to a “machine-readable medium”. The phrase “machine-readable medium” under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), will cover signals per se which are ineligible subject matter unless defined otherwise in the application as filed. It is noted that the specification is silent on how this limitation should be interpreted and as such, claim 20 covers both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
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) 1-2, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris US-10443747 in view of Yasue US-7090190 and Soland US-4461450.
Regarding claims 1-2, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19, Harris US-10443747 teaches in Figs. 1-14 (see at least Figs. 9 and 13-14) the limitations of:
A fluid delivery system (900 of Harris) for dispensing fluid in a vehicle wash (the limitations of “for dispensing fluid in a vehicle wash” in the preamble are being treated as an “intended use” of the device/system since said limitations in the preamble merely states that the fluid delivery system is intended to be used for dispensing fluid in a vehicle wash and has no significance to claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02. As such these limitations were not given patentable weight. It is further noted that Harris does teaches in at least C10 L56- C11 L3 of Harris that the fluid dispensing manifold “may be particularly useful in the car wash and industrial cleaning industries” as such being capable of being “for dispensing fluid in a vehicle wash”), comprising:
a fluid passageway configured to receive a motive fluid from a pressurized motive fluid source, the fluid passageway comprising at least one fluid inlet (907 of Harris) and at least one fluid outlet (964 of Harris);
at least one integrated valve (905 of Harris), each integrated valve comprising:
a plunger housing (934 of Harris) [[
a valve plunger (941 of Harris) arranged in the plunger housing movable between a closed position and an open position and configured to block a valve orifice (see the orifice at outlet 964 of Harris) in the closed position to prevent passage of fluid, and open the valve orifice in the open position to permit the passage of fluid from the fluid inlet through the valve orifice for dispensing from the fluid outlet;
[[
Notice that Harris fails to shows the details of an actuator assembly with an actuator and a valve limiter and a control system as claimed. However, valve limiters are known in the art.
Yasue US-7090190 teaches in Figs. 1-3 (see at least Fig. 1) teaches of a valve having a plunger housing (23 and 14) comprising an air chamber 55 having within a valve limiter 19, an actuator assembly coupled to the valve having an actuator 11 and the valve limiter 19 wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the position of the valve limiter to adjustably control the valve stroke and therefore control an effective valve orifice area of the valve orifice based on a distance of movement of the plunger to the open position (see at least C8 L22-29 and C9 L58-65). Notice that this arrangement provides high-precision control and flow rate regulation by remote (see at least C10 L5-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the valve assembly/assemblies of the device of Harris to include an actuator assembly with an actuator 11 and a valve limiter 19 in a similar manner as taught by Yasue since such a modification provides a means of remotely controlling the valve stroke of the valve plunger(s) and therefore precisely control the flow rate of the valve(s) via the adjustment to the valve limiter. It is noted that while the device of the combination of Harris in view of Yasue (in particular Yasue) does teach some form of “remote control”, the device of the combination fails to disclose the specifics a control system as claimed. However, control systems allowing a user to control the operation of the valve to a desired target flow-rate outlet pressure is known in the art.
Soland US-4461450 teaches in Figs. 1-3 (see at least Fig. 1) of a valve assembly 10 with an inlet 26 and outlet 30, a plunger housing (14, 110 and 120), a valve plunger (56 and 58), an actuator assembly 200 having an actuator (motor) and a valve limiter 182, wherein the actuator is configured to adjust a position of the valve limiter (see at least C5 L4-10 and C5 L23-27 of Soland), wherein the position of the valve limiter is controlled by a control system (see at least C5 L55-68 of Soland), wherein the control system is configured to receive a selection from a user corresponding to a selected outlet pressure, and based in the selected outlet pressure, the control system is configured to cause the actuator assembly to adjust the position of the valve limiter to reach a target flow rate or target outlet pressure when the valve plunger is in the open position (see at least C5 L55-68 of Soland). Notice that such an arrangement allows a user to specify the desired flow-rate/pressure at which fluid is allowed to flow when the valve is in the opened position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the device of the combination of Harris in view of Yasue to include a control system (see at least C5 L55-68 of Soland) for controlling the actuator and valve limiter in a similar manner as taught by Soland since such a modification allows a user to specify the desired flow-rate/pressure at which fluid is allowed to flow when the valve is in the opened position.
As such, as best understood by the Office, in making and/or using the device of the combination of Harris US-10443747 in view of Yasue US-7090190 and Soland US-4461450, the device of the combination teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 1. A fluid delivery system (900 of Harris as modified by Yasue and Soland) for dispensing fluid in a vehicle wash (the limitations of “for dispensing fluid in a vehicle wash” in the preamble are being treated as an “intended use” of the device/system since said limitations in the preamble merely states that the fluid delivery system is intended to be used for dispensing fluid in a vehicle wash and has no significance to claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02. As such these limitations were not given patentable weight. It is further noted that Harris does teaches in at least C10 L56- C11 L3 of Harris that the fluid dispensing manifold “may be particularly useful in the car wash and industrial cleaning industries” as such being capable of being “for dispensing fluid in a vehicle wash”), comprising:
a fluid passageway configured to receive a motive fluid from a pressurized motive fluid source, the fluid passageway comprising at least one fluid inlet (907 of Harris) and at least one fluid outlet (964 of Harris);
at least one integrated valve (905 of Harris), each integrated valve comprising:
a plunger housing (934 of Harris) configured to receive a valve limiter (19 of Yasue) within an interior thereof, wherein a fluid inlet of the at least one fluid inlet, a fluid outlet of the at least one fluid outlet, and the plunger housing are integrally-constructed (see at least Para. [0091] and Fig. 13 of Harris); and
a valve plunger (941 of Harris) arranged in the plunger housing movable between a closed position and an open position and configured to block a valve orifice (see the orifice at outlet 964 of Harris) in the closed position to prevent passage of fluid, and open the valve orifice in the open position to permit the passage of fluid from the fluid inlet through the valve orifice for dispensing from the fluid outlet;
at least one actuator assembly (11 and 19 of Yasue) each comprising an actuator (11 of Yasue) and the valve limiter (19 of Yasue); and
a control system (see at least C5 L55-68 of Soland) communicatively coupled to each actuator of the at least one integrated valve,
wherein the control system is configured to receive a selection from a user corresponding to a selected outlet pressure from one or more of the at least one fluid outlet, and based on the selection, the control system is configured cause at least one communicatively coupled actuator to adjust a position of a corresponding valve limiter such that, when a corresponding valve plunger moves to the open position, a distance of movement of the corresponding valve plunger is limited by the corresponding valve limiter to thereby reach a target flow rate or a target outlet pressure of dispensed motive fluid (see at least Figs. 9 and 13-14 of Harris teaching of a fluid delivery system including spring biased closed valve plungers that are actuated via air pressure acting on the valve plunger when commanded by solenoids and a control system, see at least Fig. 1 of Yasue teaching of the actuator adjusting the position of the valve limiter independent of the valve plunger actuation, which in turn adjust the valve stroke and therefore adjusting the flow-rate/pressure of fluid flowing through the valve when the valve is opened and see at least Fig. 1 of Soland teaching of a control system that allows a user to remotely control the operation of the actuator to provide a desired outlet flow-rate/pressure of the valve).
---Claim 2. The fluid delivery system of claim 1, wherein the actuator of the at least one actuator assembly is configured to cause a linear adjustment of an effective valve orifice area of a valve orifice of a corresponding fluid outlet (see at least Fig. 1 of Yasue teaching the actuator linearly adjusting the position of the valve limiter 19 and Fig. 13 of Harris showing a similar lift/plunger valve).
---Claim 8. The fluid delivery system of claim 1, wherein the valve plunger is normally in the closed position such that the valve plunger blocks the valve orifice, and an air chamber (969 of Harris) of the integrated valve is configured to receive pressurized air to thereby cause the valve plunger to move to the open position by a predetermined distance based on the position of the valve limiter (see at least Fig. 13 of Harris, notice that plunger 941 of Harris is biased closed via spring 933 and the valve is actuated by pressurized air acting on the bottom portion of the plunger head 939, see also at least Fig. 1 of Yasue teaching of a adjustable valve limiter for controlling the stroke of the valve).
---Claim 9. The fluid delivery system of claim 8, further comprising a solenoid valve (912 of Harris) fluidly coupled to the air chamber for delivering the pressurized air to the air chamber, wherein the control system is further configured to control an actuation status of the solenoid valve (see at least Fig. 11 and 13 of Harris).
---Claim 10. The fluid delivery system of claim 1, wherein the control system is further configured to control a chemical supply fluidly coupled to a mixing site, the mixing site configured to receive motive fluid from a fluid outlet of the at least one fluid outlet and chemical from the chemical supply, to mix the motive fluid and the chemical to form a mixture, and to dispense the mixture (see at least Fig. 13 of Harris, notice that motive fluid allowed to flow through the valve plunger 941 is able to mix with a chemical flowing to chemical inlet 928 where it is mixes at mixing zone 982 and wherein the mixture is dispensed via outlet 930).
---Claim 12. The fluid delivery system of claim 1, wherein the at least one integrated valve comprises a plurality of integrated valves, and wherein each of the at least one fluid inlet is fluidly coupled (see at least Figs. 12-14 of Harris showing at least three integrated valves side by side and sharing a common inlet rail 907).
---Claim 15. The fluid delivery system of claim 12, wherein each of the valve plungers is normally in the closed position such that the valve plunger blocks the valve orifice of a respective integrated valve, and an air chamber (969 of Harris) of a respective integrated valve is configured to receive pressurized air to thereby cause the valve plunger to move to the open position by a predetermined distance based on the position of the valve limiter of the respective integrated valve (see at least Fig. 13 of Harris, notice that plunger 941 of Harris is biased closed via spring 933 and the valve is actuated by pressurized air acting on the bottom portion of the plunger head 939, see also at least Fig. 1 of Yasue teaching of a adjustable valve limiter for controlling the stroke of the valve).
---Claim 16. The fluid delivery system of claim 15, further comprising a plurality of solenoid valves (912 of Harris), each solenoid valve of the plurality of solenoid valves fluidly coupled to the air chamber for delivering pressurized thereto, wherein the control system is further configured to control an actuation status of each solenoid valve of the plurality of solenoid valves (see at least Figs. 11-14 of Harris).
---Claim 17. The fluid delivery system of claim 12, wherein the control system is further configured to control a plurality of chemical supplies, each of the plurality of chemical supplies fluidly coupled to a mixing site, each mixing site configured to receive motive fluid from the fluid outlet of a respective integrated valve and chemical from at least one of the plurality of chemical supplies, mix the motive fluid and the chemical to form a mixture, and dispense the mixture (see at least Fig. 13 of Harris, notice that motive fluid allowed to flow through the valve plunger 941 is able to mix with a chemical flowing to chemical inlet 928 where it is mixes at mixing zone 982 and wherein the mixture is dispensed via outlet 930).
---Claim 19. A method of delivering motive fluid from a fluid delivery system (900 of Harris as modified by Yasue and Soland) in a vehicle wash (Harris teaches in at least C10 L56- C11 L3 of Harris that the fluid dispensing manifold “may be particularly useful in the car wash and industrial cleaning industries” as such it is capable of being delivering motive fluid from a fluid delivery system in a vehicle wash), comprising:
receiving, at a control system (see at least C5 L55-68 of Soland) of the fluid delivery system, a selection from a user corresponding to a selected outlet pressure (Yasue teaches of the actuator adjusting the position of the valve limiter, which in turn adjust the valve stroke and therefore adjusting the flow-rate/pressure of fluid flowing through the valve when the valve is opened and Soland teaches of a control system that allows a user to remotely control the operation of the actuator to provide a desired outlet flow-rate/pressure of the valve);
using the control system to cause a position of a valve limiter (19 of Yasue) of an actuator assembly (11 and 19 of Yasue) of an integrated valve (905 of Harris) of the fluid delivery system to be adjusted, the actuator assembly comprising an actuator (11 of Yasue) and the valve limiter, wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the position of the valve limiter to adjustably control an effective valve orifice area of a valve orifice (see the orifice at outlet 964 of Harris) of a fluid outlet (964 of Harris) of the fluid delivery system based on a distance of movement of a valve plunger (941 of Harris) to an open position of the valve plunger, wherein the valve plunger is arranged in a plunger housing (934 of Harris) and configured to block the valve orifice in a closed position of the valve plunger and open the valve orifice in the open position to permit passage of fluid from a fluid inlet (907 of Harris) of the fluid delivery system through the valve orifice for dispensing the motive fluid from the fluid outlet; and
using the control system to cause the valve plunger to be moved to the open position in which the valve plunger contacts the valve limiter to thereby define the effective valve orifice area of the valve orifice such that the motive fluid is dispensed from the fluid outlet at a target flow rate or a target outlet pressure corresponding to the selected outlet pressure (see at least Figs. 9 and 13-14 of Harris teaching of a fluid delivery system including spring biased closed valve plungers that are actuated via air pressure acting on the valve plunger when commanded by solenoids and a control system, see at least Fig. 1 of Yasue teaching of the actuator adjusting the position of the valve limiter independent of the valve plunger actuation, which in turn adjust the valve stroke and therefore adjusting the flow-rate/pressure of fluid flowing through the valve when the valve is opened and see at least Fig. 1 of Soland teaching of a control system that allows a user to remotely control the operation of the actuator to provide a desired outlet flow-rate/pressure of the valve).
Claim(s) 3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris US-10443747 in view of Yasue US-7090190 and Soland US-4461450 as applied to the intervening claims above, and further in view of Martin US-20210349482.
Regarding claims 3 and 20, the device of the combination of Harris US-10443747 in view of Yasue US-7090190 and Soland US-4461450 fails to explicitly disclose the control system being integrated into the assembly of the fluid delivery system and that the control system includes circuitry to perform its function as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that the control system can be made to be either remote remotely communicating with the assembly or be integral to the assembly directly communicating with the various controllable components of the assembly. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that the device of the combination (Harris, Yasue and Soland) rely on electrical signals for controlling the operation of the various electrical components (such as solenoid valves of Harris and the actuators of Yasue and Soland) and that processing circuitry is required to be capable of interpreting input signals from a user to be converted to actuation of the various electrical components to produce the desired outcome. Furthermore, control systems with processing circuitry and programmable logic are known in the art.
Martin US-20210349482 teaches in Figs. 1A-3 (see at least Figs. 1A and 3) of a vehicle wash assembly 100 for controlling and delivering various fluids for washing a vehicle, wherein the assembly includes a processor 110 and electrical component 120 which are integrated into the assembly 100 for controlling the operation of the various electronic components (such as valves, pumps, motors, actuators, etc.) of the vehicle wash assembly 100. At least Para. [0023-0026 and 0052] teaches that the processor uses onboard memory and programming (instructions) for the monitoring and control of the vehicle wash assembly 100 allowing the system to be precisely controlled based on user input, sensor data and/or autonomously.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the control system of the device of the combination of Harris in view of Yasue and Soland to be integrated into the housing of the fluid delivery system in a similar manner as the processor 110 of the fluid delivery system 100 as taught by Martin since such a modification is a known method housing the necessary electrical components for the monitoring and control of the fluidic system. Additionally or alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the control system of the device of the combination of Harris in view of Yasue and Soland to be similar to the processor 110 as taught by Martin which includes onboard memory, programming and connectivity to various electrical components that allows for the fluid delivery system to be capable of effectively monitoring and control the system allowing the system to be precisely controlled based on user input, sensor data and/or autonomously.
As such, as best understood by the Office, in making and/or using the device of the combination of Harris US-10443747 in view of Yasue US-7090190, Soland US-4461450 and Martin US-20210349482, the device of the combination teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 3. The fluid delivery system of claim 2, wherein the control system controls the linear adjustment by controlling a linear position of the valve limiter of the at least one actuator assembly, and wherein the control system is integrated into an assembly of the fluid delivery system (see at least Fig. 1A of Martin teaching of the control system 110 being integrated into the housing of the fluid delivery system 100, see also at least Figs. 9 and 13-14 of Harris teaching of a fluid delivery system including spring biased closed valve plungers that are actuated via air pressure acting on the valve plunger when commanded by solenoids and a control system, see at least Fig. 1 of Yasue teaching of the actuator adjusting the position of the valve limiter independent of the valve plunger actuation, which in turn adjust the valve stroke and therefore adjusting the flow-rate/pressure of fluid flowing through the valve when the valve is opened and see at least Fig. 1 of Soland teaching of a control system that allows a user to remotely control the operation of the actuator to provide a desired outlet flow-rate/pressure of the valve).
---Claim 20. At least one machine-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by processing circuitry, result in the processing circuitry:
in response to receipt of a user selection, causing a position of a valve limiter (19 of Yasue) of an actuator assembly (11 and 19 of Yasue) of an integrated valve (905 of Harris) of a fluid delivery system (900 of Harris as modified by Yasue, Soland and Martin) to be adjusted, the actuator assembly comprising an actuator (11 of Yasue) and the valve limiter, wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the position of the valve limiter to adjustably control an effective valve orifice area of a valve orifice (see the orifice at outlet 964 of Harris) of a fluid outlet (964 of Harris) of the fluid delivery system based on a distance of movement of a valve plunger (941 of Harris) to an open position of the valve plunger, wherein the valve plunger is arranged in a plunger housing (934 of Harris) and configured to block the valve orifice in a closed position of the valve plunger and open the valve orifice in the open position to permit passage of fluid from a fluid inlet (907 of Harris) of the fluid delivery system through the valve orifice for dispensing from the fluid outlet; and
causing the valve plunger to be moved to the open position in which the valve plunger contacts the valve limiter to thereby define the effective valve orifice area of the valve orifice such that the fluid is dispensed from the fluid outlet at a target flow rate or a target outlet pressure corresponding to the selection (see at least Figs. 9 and 13-14 of Harris teaching of a fluid delivery system including spring biased closed valve plungers that are actuated via air pressure acting on the valve plunger when commanded by solenoids and a control system, see at least Fig. 1 of Yasue teaching of the actuator adjusting the position of the valve limiter independent of the valve plunger actuation, which in turn adjust the valve stroke and therefore adjusting the flow-rate/pressure of fluid flowing through the valve when the valve is opened, see at least Fig. 1 of Soland teaching of a control system that allows a user to remotely control the operation of the actuator to provide a desired outlet flow-rate/pressure of the valve and see at least Fig. 1A and 3 of Martin teaching of the control system 110 including onboard memory, programming/instruction and connectivity to various electrical components that allows for the fluid delivery system to be capable of effectively monitoring and control the system allowing the system to be precisely controlled based on user input, sensor data and/or autonomously).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-13, 15 and 17 of copending Application No. 19186817 (US-20250334187). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the device of the claims of the co-pending application either explicitly or implicitly anticipates all the limitations of the present application and/or any missing structure or detail would be obvious over the cited prior art. See for example claim 1 of the application mimics the limitations found in claims 1 and 6 of the co-pending application with the difference that the claims of the co-pending application are more specific and the claims of the application are broader. Following the rationale in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where the applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, the applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since the claims of the application are anticipated by the claims of the patent and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then the claims of the application are obvious over the claims of the patent. Similarly, the limitation of claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20 can be found in at least 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-13, 15 and 17 of co-pending application and any missing structure or detail would be obvious over the either the claims of the co-pending patent themselves and/or obvious over the cited prior art with at least Harris US-10443747 teaching of fluid delivery system a manifold with at least one integrated valve with a valve plunger biased closed via a spring and actuated using pneumatic pressure controlled by a solenoid valve that allow for the mixing and delivery of various fluids, Yasue US-7090190 teaching of an actuator assembly including an actuator and a valve limiter wherein the valve stroke of the valve can be adjusted by linearly moving the position of the valve limiter with the actuator which is independent of the actuation of the valve allowing for precise flow-rate control via the adjustability of the valve stroke, Soland US-4461450 teaching of a control system that allows a user to remotely control the operation of the actuator to provide a desired outlet flow-rate/pressure of the valve and Martin US-20210349482 teaching of the control system including onboard memory, programming/instruction and connectivity to various electrical components that allows for the fluid delivery system to be capable of effectively monitoring and control the system allowing the system to be precisely controlled based on user input, sensor data and/or autonomously).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
***The Office notes that claims 7 and 14 are distinct enough to avoid a Double Patenting rejection based on copending Application No. 19186817 (US-20250334187).***
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 11, 13-14 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome any applicable rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and pending resolution of applicable Double Patenting Rejections as mentioned above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest/related art is as follows:
---References A (Related but not prior art):
Meschke US-12611700, Meschke US-12623257,
Meschke US-20250334187, Meschke US-20250334186, Meschke US-20250334184, Meschke US-20250334183, Meschke US-20250334182, Meschke US-20250333028, Meschke US-20250333027, Meschke US-20250333026, Meschke US-20250332621, Meschke US-20250332618, Meschke US-20250332617, Meschke US-20250332616, Meschke US-20250332609 and Meschke US-20250332554.
---References B (Plunger/Lift Valves):
Wagner-Sturz US-12435814, Eurich US-11649907, Stephens US-11635015, Harris US-10443747, Kajitani US-7117886, Hall US-6769666, Izumo US-6192932, Grant US-4874014 and Soland US-4461450.
---References C (Valve limiters):
Kang US-12135046, Yamada US-11384864, Tempel US-11261992, Okamura US-11028808, Luke US-10948261, Enzaki US-10895331, Goto US-10883615, Taya US-10767785, Walter US-10550944, Tanikawa US-10132415, Yanagida US-10060537, Hasunuma US-9353884, Hoffmann US-8292264, Yasue US-7090190, Simonelli US-4687181, Christensen US-4588163 and
Beh US-20050161625.
---References D (Dispensing systems):
Krause US-10144396, Krause US-9932018, Cornett US-9421559, Rietsch US-9389114, Sanville US-8527372, Belanger US-8163096, Ewing US-7045021, Laughlin US-6240953, Bagnara US-6113007, Czeck US-5203366,
Martin US-20210349482, Mayer US-20200148175 and Martin US-20100186778.
References A are related art disclosed by the Inventor within the grace period and/or commonly owned by the same Assignee which are under the exceptions 35 USC 102(b)(1)(A)/102(b)(2)(A/B) which are not considered “prior art” under US patent laws for the purpose of prior art rejections. References B teaches of various examples of prior art plunger/lift valves with some of the generic features of the claimed invention. References C teaches of various examples of valves including some form of valve limiter that allows for the adjustability of the valve stroke and therefore adjust the flow-rate/pressure of the valve when the valve is opened in a similar manner as a key feature of the claimed invention. References D teaches of various examples of prior art fluid dispensing system such as those used for dispensing various fluids used for washing a vehicle similar to applicant’s general invention. As noted in the rejections above, while the closest prior art does teaches various aspects of the claimed invention such as the fluid delivery system with a valve plunger, a valve limiter and control system for controlling the operation of the limiter and the dispensing system, the closest prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the specifics of the fluid delivery system including pressure sensor and /or flow meters for adjusting the position of the valve limiter based on sensor data and the specific arrangement of the solenoid valves in combination with all the limitations as claimed in claims 4-7, 11, 13-14 and 18 and as shown in at least Figs. 1 and 2a-2b of the application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID COLON-MORALES, whose telephone number is 571-270-1741 and fax number is 571-270-2741. If the applicant has authorized internet communications via the filling of form PTO/SB/439, the examiner can be reached via email at david.colon-morales@uspto.gov , email communication is not permitted if the applicant has not filed an authorization for internet communication (see MPEP 502.03 for more details on internet communications). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-3:30PM 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 supervisors can be reached by phone. KENNETH RINEHART can be reached at 571-272-4881 or CRAIG SCHNEIDER can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/DAVID COLON-MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights