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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merits for claims 1 and 3 – 17. Claim 2 is cancelled.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeno et al (US patent application publication 2019/0152442) in view of Kruse et al (US patent 9,862,358) and Shimoyama (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0113658 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1 - The publication to Umeno discloses the invention substantially as is claimed, at least to the extent understood. Umeno discloses a wiper (10, fig. 1) comprising a wiper arm (12) comprising a wiper arm holder (14), an extension arm (20), and a wiper arm end member (40) that extend together continuous (Fig. 2). The wiper arm is configured to swing back and forth in an outward and return swing direction (a, b, figs. 1, 3). A wiper blade (50) includes a blade holding portion (52) and blade rubber strip (60) supported thereby. The blade holding portion is held by the wiper arm end member (40). A first nozzle (90) is connected to the wiper arm end member and arranged on an outward swing side of the wiper blade (generally on direction a side, fig. 1). A first conduit (H1 with 101, fig. 2 (Paragraph [0124 and 0125]) for conveying a cleaning fluid under pressure to the first nozzle extends in a direction of the wiper arm; wherein the wiper arm end member (40) is provided with a first segment (arm fixing portion, 42; Fig. 6) for connection with the extension arm (20) and a second segment (arm coupling portion, 46; Fig. 6) for holding the wiper blade (50), wherein the wiper arm end member (40) has a first web (48a; Fig. 6) and a second web (48b; Fig. 6) that reflect downwards towards a windscreen relative to the second segment (46; Fig. 6). The first conduit (H1) being routed within the wiper arm end member and secured between the blade holding portion (Paragraph [0124]). The first nozzle, at least a portion thereof, is arranged between the wiper arm end member (40, 48) and the blade holding portion (52) as can be seen in figure 19. The first nozzle extends over the wiper blade via portion (102) to a first longitudinal side of the wiper blade (right side fig. 1). Figures 1 and 2 collectively show this extension of the portion (102) of the first nozzle (90) to the first longitudinal side as claimed. A second nozzle (70, fig. 1) is located along the first longitudinal side and is configured to spray separate fluid from conduit (H2).
The publication to Umeno discloses all of the above recited subject matter with the exception of explicitly setting forth the first and second nozzles as spraying separately respective of when the wiper arm swings in the outward swing direction and the return swing direction and the first conduit is elastically deformed into an accommodating space formed by a holding arm and the wiper arm end member.
The publication to Kruse discloses a wiper (fig. 3) where first and second nozzles (18a, 20a) are provided on opposite first and second sides (38a, 40a) of wiper blade (16a). The nozzles are fed by conduits (30a, 32a) to separately spray fluid respect of the wiper arm swing direction (col. 3, lines 12-28 and col. 5, lines 26-43).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to spray separately to the first and second nozzles of Umeno respective of when the wiper arm swings in the outward and return directions if not already, as clearly suggested by Kruse, to enable efficient use of washer fluid.
Shimoyama further discloses the first conduit (44 and 45) is elastically deformed (Paragraph [0055]) into an accommodating space (bottom wall. 51) formed by a holding arm (52e) and the wiper arm end member (arm shank, 50).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Umeno to further include the first conduit is elastically deformed into an accommodating space formed by a holding arm and the wiper arm end member, as clearly suggested by Shimoyama, to provide a secure connection of the washer tubes and prevent clipping off the arm shank.
With respect to claim 3, the first nozzle (90) is provided with a main body (92, fig. 14) that is equipped with a spout (96B), as well as a conduit joint (104), and a nozzle holding portion (92B) that protrudes from the main body.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, the wiper arm end member is provided with a stepwise first web (left web 48A fig. 13, and part of 48B, fig. 6) protruding towards the first longitudinal side. The first web is used to hold the nozzle holding portion (fig. 5).
With respect to claim 6, the other of webs (right web 48A fig. 13) is deemed a second web on the wiper arm end member. The webs are arranged side by side at a distance from each other. The conduit joint is located below the second web (generally demonstrated fig. 13).
With respect to claim 7, the wiper arm end member (40, fig. 7) is in a zigzag shape and is provided with a first segment (42) for connection with the extension arm (20), a second segment (46) for holding the wiper blade, and an intermediate segment (44) arranged therebetween such that the first and second segments are offset in a direction transverse to a longitudinal extension direction of the wiper arm. The first and second webs are arranged in the intermediate segment (fig. 7).
With respect to claim 8, the second segment (46) is in the form of a U-shaped hook (46A).
With respect to claim 9, the nozzle holding portion (92B) is in the form of a socket (fig. 14), which is inserted into the first web, at least as far as understood.
With respect to claim 10, the webs are deemed offset upward and downward as far as claimed. Such is shown in figure 6.
With respect to claim 11, the first longitudinal side is deemed an outward swing side (a, upper side of arm shown in fig. 3) in the same manner as applicants. As can be seen the wiper blade is arranged on such outward swing side. The end of the conduit (H1) extends to such outward swing side (fig. 2).
With respect to claim 12, the hook portion and the webs are deemed deflected as claimed. Note that the windscreen does not make up a part of the claimed wiper. Thus, deflected towards the windscreen does not appear to impart any particular structure to the wiper arm not disclosed by Umeno.
With respect to claim 13, setting forth deflection as corresponding to an inclination angle of the windscreen does not appear to distinguish from Umeno. As noted above, the windscreen is not part of the claimed wiper. Absent such, no particular deflection is defined. Further, the language of “corresponding” imparts no particular relationship between the deflection and inclination angle. As such, Umeno is deemed to meet the structure set forth.
With respect to claim 14, a holding arm (20D) for holding the conduit, at least indirectly, is integrally formed on the wiper arm end member.
With respect to claim 15, a second nozzle (ex. 98, fig. 1) is provided with a spout (opening) for spraying a cleaning fluid in different directions to a second longitudinal side (left side fig. 1) of the wiper blade.
With respect to claim 16, the first nozzle includes numerous spouts (96B, 98B, 100B) for spraying in different directions.
With respect to claim 17, the wiper as disclosed by Umeno is for a vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated April 16, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3 – 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, however, after further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Shimoyama.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights