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 of the Merits of claims 1 – 9 and 17. Claims 10 – 16 and 18 – 19 are withdrawn from consideration.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55
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.
Claims 1-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bienert et al (German publication 4032256) in view of Bauer et al (German publication 2942086), as evidenced by DESIGNERDATA publication.
The publication to Bienert (note cited English translation) discloses the invention substantially as is claimed. Bienert discloses a wiper arm (18, 12, 14, 16, fig. 1) of a windscreen wiper (10). The wiper arm having a first linear section (generally 14) and a second linear section (generally 12) extending at an angle to each other and connected at a bend (29, note that figure 1 erroneously shows 28 for the bend, while the specification correctly notes 29 in lines 112, 113). A cover (26, 26a, 26b figs. 2-4) comprised of an elongated flexible basic body (paragraph 21 of the translation), formed of sides (54, 56) and back (58), covers at least a portion of the first and second linear sections. It is noted that sections can be selected as desired. The cover comprises a channel therein that extends therein from one end of the cover to the other. A slot (55) is provided in the cover and allows access to the channel. The first and second linear sections are arranged in such channel. Bienert further discloses an elastic connection (area of bend, 29; Fig. 1) is provided at one end of the basic body (26)
The publication to Bienert discloses all of the above recited subject matter with the exception of the basic body being made of a material with a Young’s modulus in a range of .5 to 800 MPa, the second section having an end face from which the first section protrudes and to which the cover abuts, and the basic body including clips for holding a hose arranged in between a first end and second end of the basic body. While figure 1 of Bienert appears to show an end face on the second section (12) to which the cover abuts, in the same manner as applicant, such is not explicit.
The publication to Bauer discloses a wiper arm (13, fig. 3) wherein a cover (20) is provided thereon. The cover includes a channel (21) therein for receipt of the wiper arm. The cover is disclosed as being formed of a soft elastic plastic such as PVC.
The DESIGNERDATA publication discloses that soft PVC is known to have a Young’s modulus of 35 MPa.
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to form the cover of Bienert of a soft elastic plastic, such as PVC, as clearly suggested by Bauer, to enable better conformance of the cover to the bent wiper arm on which the cover is mounted. Further, while Bauer is silent as to the particular Young’s modulus for such plastic, it appears soft PVC is known to have a Young’s modulus of 35 MPa, as evidence by DESIGNERDATA publication, lying in the claimed range.
With respect to claim 2, each of the linear sections extend along a respective longitudinal axis. As clearly shown in figure 1, the linear sections, and thus the axes, are at an angle with respect to one another as claimed.
With respect to claim 3, the first and second sections are arranged adjacent to each other.
With respect to claim 4, Bienert further discloses an elastic connection (area of bend, 29; Fig. 1) is provided at one end of the basic body (26)
Applicant has set forth previously that there is no patentable distinction between their disclosed species such as between figures 1 (arm with no end face and no cover abutment, no clips), figure 4 (arm with end face and cover abutment, with clips). As such, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second section of the modified Bienert cover with an end face from which the first section protrudes and with which the cover abuts as merely an obvious modification to provide art recognized equivalent structure.
With respect to claim 5, it appears Bienert generally includes such structure where the second section (12) extends along a second longitudinal axis and the first section (14) extends from such second section and has the bend (29) therein such that the first section then extends along a first longitudinal axis. It appears such is the same as applicant’s figure 5 construction, at least with respect to section layout, to which it appears the claim is directed. However, even if such is not so, to provide the sections as set forth in claim 5 would be an obvious modification. As noted above, applicant has set forth that there is no patentable distinction between their disclosed embodiments. To provide section layout as claimed, with respect to the noted above modification directed to claim 4, would be an obvious variant thereto to provide art recognized equivalent structure
With respect to claim 6, such appears to relate to a method of assembly. How the cover is/was provided on the wiper arm does not appear to define any particular structure not shown or disclosed by Bienert. Further, is appears the modified Bienert cover could be assembled in such a manner as nothing would prohibit such.
With respect to claim 7, a fluid channel (24) is arranged in the basics body. Note that a connector piece does not appear required by claim 7.
With respect to claim 8, as noted above, applicant has set forth that there is no patentable distinction between the use of clips to hold a hose with respect to the cover (applicant fig.4) or merely providing the hose within the body of the cover (applicant fig. 1). As such, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to provide clips to hold the hose to the cover, as merely an obvious modification to provide art recognized equivalent structure.
With respect to claim 9, connection wall section (28, para. 14) forms an elastic connection, at least as far as defined provided on an end of the basic body.
With respect to claim 17, while not shown, Bienert discloses a wiper blade attached to the wiper arm via the connecting element (16). See paragraph 14 of the translation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive; therefore, the rejection is maintained. Applicant argues Bienert does not explicitly disclose or fairly suggest that the cover or main body includes an elastic connection provided at one end.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bienert discloses the retaining body 26, with wall section 28 of the retaining body 26 surrounding the bend 29 is elastically deformable and length-changeable in the area of the bend 29; thus, the reference teaches the cover or main body includes an elastic connection provided at one end.
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
