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 title of the invention is not descriptive. The title appears to be in language other than English. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 16-19 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 16-19, The claims cite “the relieving element” This is unclear, as the relieving element lacks antecedent basis in the claims, and as such the claims are indefinite. As best understood by Examiner, it seems these claims are intended to depend from claim 15, as claim 15 does cite a relieving element and will be interpreted as such for the purposes of examination.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trebouet (WO 2020064881 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Trebouet discloses a lidar device (101) having a cleaning unit (120) which has at least one wiper unit (121) having at least one wiper blade (150 part of blade assembly 121) for mechanically cleaning a cover element (110) of a lidar unit (101), and having at least one pressing element (128) which in a mounted state provides a pressing force for the wiper blade (121 See Para [0054] “As shown, this accessory 125 is mounted on a support 126 which comprises a housing 127 configured to receive a vertebra 128 for stiffening the wiper blade 121, and at least one space 129 configured to receive a wiper blade 150 intended to be pressed, in particular thanks to the vertebra 128, against the protective window 140 to be cleaned.”).
Examiner notes that “for mechanically cleaning a cover element of a lidar unit” is being interpreted as an intended use limitation modifying the “at least one wiper blade”. As such the claim is not requiring a cover element and a lidar unit, but is instead is requiring “at least one wiper blade” capable of mechanically cleaning a cover element of a lidar unit.
Regarding Claim 2, Trebouet discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses the wiper unit (121) has the pressing element (128, See Para [0054] “Figure 4 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the wiper blade 121 of this cleaning device 120.” … “As shown, this accessory 125 is mounted on a support 126 which comprises a housing 127 configured to receive a vertebra 128 for stiffening the wiper blade 121, and at least one space 129 configured to receive a wiper blade 150 intended to be pressed, in particular thanks to the vertebra 128, against the protective window 140 to be cleaned.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Trebouet discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses the pressing element (128) is integrated with the wiper blade (150, see Fig. 4 showing the pressing element connected to the wiper blade 150, and further see Para [0054] “As shown, this accessory 125 is mounted on a support 126 which comprises a housing 127 configured to receive a vertebra 128 for stiffening the wiper blade 121, and at least one space 129 configured to receive a wiper blade 150 intended to be pressed, in particular thanks to the vertebra 128, against the protective window 140 to be cleaned.”).
Regarding Claim 8 Trebouet discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses the wiper blade (150) is connected to the pressing element (128) in a middle region (see 129 in Fig. 4 of Trebouet) of the pressing element (128).
Regarding Claim 10, Trebouet discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses that the wiper unit (121) has a housing unit (127), which supports the pressing element (128) at least in one direction (126 supports the upper/top portion of the pressing element 128, see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Trebouet discloses all the limitations of claim 10 and in addition discloses that the pressing element (128) is connected by positive engagement to the housing element (126, See Para [0054] “As shown, this accessory 125 is mounted on a support 126 which comprises a housing 127 configured to receive a vertebra 128 stiffening the wiper blade 121, and at least one space 129 configured to receive a wiper blade 150 intended to be pressed, in particular by means of the vertebra 128, against the protective glass 140 to be cleaned. Optionally, the accessory 125 can also include an air deflector 151 which then also participates in the plating of the wiping blade against the protective glass.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Trebouet discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses the cover element and at least one relieving element, adjoining the cover element and arranged spaced apart from the cover element, for relieving the wiper unit in a parking position of the wiper unit (This limitation is with respect to the cover element of the lidar unit, which is claimed as part of an intended use limitation, as such this limitation is also intended use as it modifies what the wiper blade is capable of mechanically cleaning (See rejection of claim 1), which the wiper blade (150) of Trebouet is capable of doing, Trebouet discloses a wiper blade capable of cleaning a 3 part surface (110, 130 and 140, see Fig. 1), and is pressed against said surface by an elastic force (See Para [0052]
“In other words, the wiper blade 121 is in contact with the entirety of the protective glass 140 over its vertical dimension, so as to ensure complete cleaning of the surface of this protective glass 140 when the blade is moved longitudinally from one end to the other of the protective glass.
More particularly, and as will be detailed in more detail below, the wiper blade 121 comprises a wiping blade and it is this wiping blade which is actually pressed against the protective glass and which wipes the latter. According to the invention, the pressing of this wiping blade is for example carried out using one or more elastic return devices, or using an elastic return effect specific to this wiping blade.”)).
Regarding Claim 16, as best understood by examiner Trebouet discloses all the limitation of claim 15 and in addition discloses the relieving element is additionally provided for dissipating liquid (See Examiners note following the rejection of claim 1, cover and Relieving element of Trebouet are capable of dissipating liquid, as the wiper of Trebouet includes the ability to spray wiper fluid on the surface to be cleaned, See Para [0059]
“For example, the quantity of windscreen washer fluid to be sprayed can be determined according to the detected disturbing element, i.e. according to the level of soiling of the protective glass, this level of soiling being directly correlated to the loss of information during the acquisition of images by the driving assistance sensor protected by the portion of the protective glass to be cleaned. Thus, it will be possible to provide for the projection of a minimal quantity of windscreen washer fluid, or even zero, when the mere friction of the wiper blade against this protective glass is sufficient to eliminate the disturbing element and the projection of a maximum quantity of windscreen washer fluid when image acquisition is completely prevented by the disturbing element.”).
Regarding Claim 17, as best understood by examiner Trebouet discloses all the limitations of claim 15 and in addition disclose the relieving element is formed integrally with the cover element (See Examiners note following the rejection of claim 1, The wiper blade assembly of Trebouet is capable of mechanically cleaning a relieving element formed integrally with the cover element, See Fig. 3 of Trebouet showing the 3 part surface (130, 110 and 140 ) formed integrally.
Regarding Claim 18, as best understood by examiner Trebouet discloses all the limitations of claim 15 and in addition disclose that the relieving element is set back relative to a surface of the cover element (See Examiners note following the rejection of claim 1, the wiper blade of Trebouet is capable of cleaning a cover element of a lidar unit including a relieving element set back relative to a surface of the cover element, disclosing: a wiper blade capable of cleaning a 3 part surface (110, 130 and 140, see Fig. 1), and is pressed against said surface by an elastic force (See Para [0052]
“In other words, the wiper blade 121 is in contact with the entirety of the protective glass 140 over its vertical dimension, so as to ensure complete cleaning of the surface of this protective glass 140 when the blade is moved longitudinally from one end to the other of the protective glass.
More particularly, and as will be detailed in more detail below, the wiper blade 121 comprises a wiping blade and it is this wiping blade which is actually pressed against the protective glass and which wipes the latter. According to the invention, the pressing of this wiping blade is for example carried out using one or more elastic return devices, or using an elastic return effect specific to this wiping blade.”)).
Regarding Claim 19, as best understood by examiner Trebouet discloses all the limitations of claim 15 and in addition discloses that the cover element has at least one tangential transition to the relieving element (See Examiners note following the rejection of claim 1, the wiper blade of Trebouet is capable of cleaning a cover element of a lidar unit including a relieving element and having a tangential transition to the relieving element, disclosing: a wiper blade capable of cleaning a 3 part surface (110, 130 and 140, see Fig. 1), and is pressed against said surface by an elastic force (See Para [0052]
“In other words, the wiper blade 121 is in contact with the entirety of the protective glass 140 over its vertical dimension, so as to ensure complete cleaning of the surface of this protective glass 140 when the blade is moved longitudinally from one end to the other of the protective glass.
More particularly, and as will be detailed in more detail below, the wiper blade 121 comprises a wiping blade and it is this wiping blade which is actually pressed against the protective glass and which wipes the latter. According to the invention, the pressing of this wiping blade is for example carried out using one or more elastic return devices, or using an elastic return effect specific to this wiping blade.”)).
Regarding Claim 20, Trebouet discloses a vehicle (300), having a lidar device according to claim 1(See rejection of claim 1 above).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trebouet (WO 2020064881 A1)
Regarding Claim 3, Trebouet discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition suggests, the pressing element (128) is in the form of an elastic element (See Para [0052] “More particularly, and as will be detailed in more detail below, the wiper blade 121 comprises a wiping blade and it is this wiping blade which is actually pressed against the protective glass and which wipes the latter. According to the invention, the pressing of this wiping blade is for example carried out using one or more elastic return devices, or using an elastic return effect specific to this wiping blade.” And Para [0054] “As shown, this accessory 125 is mounted on a support 126 which comprises a housing 127 configured to receive a vertebra 128 for stiffening the wiper blade 121, and at least one space 129 configured to receive a wiper blade 150 intended to be pressed, in particular thanks to the vertebra 128, against the protective window 140 to be cleaned.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the pressing element of Trebouet to be an elastic element as advantageously described by Trebouet as doing so would provide the necessary pressing force for cleaning the protective glass.
Regarding Claim 5, Trebouet discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition suggests, but does not explicitly disclose that the pressing element (128) has a substantially higher stiffness than the wiper blade (150 See Para [0054] “As shown, this accessory 125 is mounted on a support 126 which comprises a housing 127 configured to receive a vertebra 128 for stiffening the wiper blade 121, and at least one space 129 configured to receive a wiper blade 150 intended to be pressed, in particular thanks to the vertebra 128, against the protective window 140 to be cleaned.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to ensure the pressing element has a substantially higher stiffness than that of the wiper blade as doing so would be beneficial for the purpose of stiffening the wiper blade 121 as advantageously suggested by Trebouet in Para [0054].
Regarding Claim 6, Trebouet discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and in addition discloses the pressing element is provided for providing a degressive pressing force curve in respect of a distance of the wiper unit from the cover element (Trebouet as modified discloses a wiper blade with an elastic pressing element analogous to that discloses in the instant application, and is capable of providing a degressive force curve with respect to the distance of the wiper unit from the cover element, See Para [0054] cited above in the rejection of claim 5) wherein the wiper unit and the cover element is so chosen that the pressing force, lies in an approximately linear part-region of the degressive pressing force curve (This is interpreted as an intended use limitation, as the degressive pressing force curve is an element that is claimed as part of the proceeding functional limitation, the wipe unit of Trebouet as modified is capable of being positioned such that the pressing force lies in an approximately linear part-region of the pressing force curve. Examiner further notes that as the pressing force curve is a continuous function of Force dependent on distance, and there is no specific limitations regarding the length of the linear part-region, any distance resulting in contact of the wiper blade to the cover element resulting in any force applied could be considered to be lying in an approximately linear part-region of the degressive force curve, as any arbitrarily small segment of a continuous function could be considered at least approximately linear).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trebouet (WO 2020064881 A1) as modified in claim 3 and in further view of Kawashima (US 20170334400 A1)
Regarding Claim 4, Trebouet discloses all the limitations of claim 3 but does not explicitly disclose the pressing element is formed at least in part of a flexurally elastic plastics material. However, Kawashima discloses a similar wiper blade assembly (7) formed at least in part of a flexurally elastic plastics material (FIGS. 28 and 29 illustrate an exemplary wiper strip 7 that may be used in accordance with the disclosed concepts. See Para [0090] “The wiper strip is preferably made of a soft rubber or plastic, but may be made of any suitable material.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify substitute the pressing element of Trebouet to be made of a flexurally elastic plastics material as Kawashima advantageously describes it as an equivalent for providing the necessary elastic pressing force described in Para [0052] of Trebouet. See MPEP 2144.06 II.
Claim(s) 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trebouet (WO 2020064881 A1) as modified in claim 3 and in further view of Watanabe (US 20030138655 A1)
Regarding Claim 9, Trebouet discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the pressing element delimits at least in part at least one cavity.
However, Watanabe discloses a similar wiper blade with a pressing member (2, See Para [0116] “The reinforcement imparts the wiper blade with rigidity, and the reinforcement is not particularly limited for its size, shape, number, location, material, and the like as long as the wiper blade produced by integral molding has the rigidity equivalent to that of the wiper blade produced by conventional assembly process.”), wherein the pressing element delimits at least in part at least one cavity (See Fig. 6 (j) and Para [0046] “FIGS. 6(a) to (j) are transverse cross sectional views illustrating various embodiments of the reinforcement in the wiper blade of the present invention.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the shape of the pressing portion such that it delimits at least in part at least one cavity as Watanabe discloses a multitude of potential shape that the pressing portion could take, and it has been held that a change in shape is a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trebouet (WO 2020064881 A1) as modified in claim 3 and in further view of Block (DE 10350274 A1)
Regarding Claim 12, Trebouet discloses all the limitations of claim 10 but does not explicitly disclose a slide unit which is provided for reducing friction between the housing unit and the pressing element.
However, Block discloses a similar wiper assembly, including a slide unit (162) which is provided for reducing friction between the housing unit (160) and the pressing element (36).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the housing unit and pressing element to include a slide unit as doing so would assist in securing elements in place and guiding the deformation of different elements of the wiper assembly, See Para [0042] “From Fig. 7 it can be seen that the resulting U-base 161 of the reinforcement 160 is provided with bending marks 162 acting as predetermined bending points, which facilitate an exact, dimensionally correct deformation. Furthermore, in the area of the resulting claws, projecting buffers 163 are formed on their mutually facing inner sides, which facilitate proper securing of the wind deflector strip to the supporting element.”
Regarding Claim 13, Trebouet discloses all the limitations of claim 12 and in addition discloses the slide unit comprises at least one recess (See gaps between teeth 163 in Fig. 7 of Block) arranged at the pressing element (36 of Block) for reducing a contact surface between the pressing element and the housing unit (160).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trebouet (WO 2020064881 A1) as modified in claim 3 and in further view of Block (DE 10350274 A1) as modified in claim 12, and in further view of Wang (US 20200249415 A1)
Regarding Claim 14, Trebouet as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 12 but does not explicitly disclose The slide unit has in at least a part-region of the pressing element and of the housing unit at least one material pairing which has at least one material pairing which has low friction.
However, Wang is concerned with a driving unit and discloses that minimizing contact between two ports minimizes frictional wear (See Para [0136] “The smaller the contacting area between the sliding parts 1-223 and the rail 1-527 is, the less the elements would be worn due to frictions therebetween.”) and that using the same material on two parts will reduce frictional wear between the two elements (See Para [0136] “In some embodiments, the holder 1-220 and the fixed portion 1-500 are both made of plastic, or both made of metal. Using the same material may further reduce the abrasion wear between each other.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the slide unit of Trebouet as modified such that it has a part-region of the pressing element and of the housing unit at least one material pairing which has at least one material pairing which has low friction as doing so would reduce wear on the components of the device, increasing the lifespan of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/T.J.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723