DETAILED ACTION
CONNECTING MEMBER FOR A WINDSCREEN WIPER SYSTEM
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05-05-2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2,4-13 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claim 13 is newly added.
The previous rejection has been updated due to applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05-05-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant argument that the prior art combination of Heuberger, Sekimoto and Madden fails to disclose "wherein the microscopic gripping structures are formed as hooks embedded on the boundary", examiner respectfully disagrees.
Madden discloses that the microscopic gripping structure for the bearing can include peaks and valleys to provide the desired degree of the increased friction and resistance to slippage. The peaks and valley of Madden would need to be able to hook or catch hold of a component to perform this function ,and therefore perform the same function as the microscopic gripping structure claimed in the instant application. Further, the hook structure being claimed in the instant application and are shown in the drawings to be just peaks and valleys.
Additionally, regarding applicant argument prior art that the prior art combination of Heuberger, Sekimoto and Madden fails to disclose "wherein the amount of laser engraved longitudinal patterns is from 6 to 12.", examiner respectfully disagrees.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modified Heuberger have the amount of laser engraved longitudinal patterns be from 6 to 12 because discovering an optimum value of the amount of plurality of longitudinal patterns would have been a mere design characteristics needed for an end user based on intended use, and discovering optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant disclosure.
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) 1-2,4-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heuberger et al. (US2014/0368072A1) cited in IDS in view of Sekimoto (JPH07190077A) cited in IDS and Madden (US20220136487A1).
Regarding claim 1, Heuberger teaches
a head portion (26, figure 6); and a shaft portion (25a and L, figure 5),
wherein the shaft portion is configured (capable of performing this action) to be assembled between an output shaft and a transmission housing (abstract; para 0022-0030) of the windscreen wiper system to adjust the position of the output shaft in the transmission housing; and wherein an outer circumference (30, figure 6) of the shaft portion (25a and L, figure 5).
Heuberger fails to teach a plurality of laser engraved longitudinal patterns,
wherein the longitudinal patterns comprise at least one groove engraved in an axial direction of the shaft portion, and wherein the plurality of laser engraved longitudinal patterns further comprise a plurality of microscopic gripping structures formed along a boundary of the at least one groove wherein the microscopic gripping structures are formed as hooks embedded on the boundary.
Sekimoto teaches a supporting member (8, figure 8) for a rotating body (abstract) that includes wherein the longitudinal patterns comprise at least one groove (10, figure 8; “knurling”) engraved in an axial direction of the shaft portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Heuberger to include engraved longitudinal patterns wherein the longitudinal patterns comprise at least one groove engraved in an axial direction of the shaft portion based on the teachings of Sekimoto. This modification would help provide a more precise connection between the connection member and output shaft of a motor. (see abstract of Sekimoto)
Further, Madden teaches wind turbine pitch bearing (abstract) that includes laser engraved patterns (para 0012) that further comprise a plurality of microscopic gripping structures formed along a boundary of the at least one groove wherein the microscopic gripping structures are formed as hooks embedded on the boundary. (para 0050, discloses that gripping structures comprising peaks and valley that provide desired degree of the increased friction and resistance to slip, the peaks and valleys hook on to component ensure there is an increased resistance to slip)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Heuberger to include comprise a plurality of microscopic gripping structures formed along a boundary of the at least one groove, wherein the microscopic gripping structures are formed as hooks embedded on the boundary based on the teachings of Madden. This modification would help increase coefficient of friction and minimize slippage. (see abstract of Madden)
Further, regarding claim 1 and dependent claims, the recitation “laser engraved” is a product by process limitation.
Regarding claim 2, modified Heuberger teaches all limitations stated above, but fails to teach wherein the microscopic gripping structures are formed perpendicular to or at an oblique angle with the at least one groove.
Because Heuberger as modified by Madden discloses microscopic structures can have varied design for purpose to increase friction and resistance to slip. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the microscopic gripping structures be formed perpendicular to or at an oblique angle with the at least one groove because discovering an optimum angle of the angle extending between microscopic gripping structures and groove would have been a mere design characteristics needed to make the connecting member to increase friction and resistance to slip. Such modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the friction and resistance requirements of the end user based on intended use. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, Further no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant disclosure.
Regarding claim 4, modified Heuberger teaches wherein the plurality of laser engraved longitudinal patterns are formed as a plurality of straight stripes that are engraved adjacent to each other. (see Sekimoto figure 8)
Regarding claim 5, modified Heuberger teaches wherein the boundary of the consecutive straight stripes are coincident forming a ridge. (see Sekimoto figure 8)
Regarding claim 6, modified Heuberger teaches all limitations stated above but fails to teach wherein the plurality of laser engraved longitudinal patterns are formed as at least one cross-hatching pattern or a helical pattern on the outer circumference of the shaft portion.
Because Heuberger as modified by Sekimoto discloses patterns can have varied design for purpose to provide a more precise connection between the connection member and output shaft of a motor (see abstract of Sekimoto, and Sekimoto discloses “the retaining groove may be formed in various forms such as a wavy shape in which one-direction inclined portions and reverse-direction inclined portions are alternately arranged continuously or discontinuously”, see figures 1-8).
Therefore, based on teachings Sekimoto it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified wherein the plurality of laser engraved longitudinal patterns are formed as at least one cross-hatching pattern or a helical pattern on the outer circumference of the shaft portion , since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a more precise connection between the connection member and output shaft of a motor. (see abstract of Sekimoto)
Regarding claim 7, modified Heuberger teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach wherein the plurality of longitudinal patterns are formed at 60° angular intervals to one another.
Because Heuberger as modified by Sekimoto discloses longitudinal patterns can have varied design for purpose to provide a more precise connection between the connection member and output shaft of a motor (see abstract of Sekimoto, and Sekimoto discloses “the retaining groove may be formed in various forms such as a wavy shape in which one-direction inclined portions and reverse-direction inclined portions are alternately arranged continuously or discontinuously”). Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the plurality of longitudinal patterns are formed at 60° angular intervals to one another because discovering an optimum angle of the angle extending between plurality of longitudinal patterns would have been a mere design characteristics needed to make the connecting member to provide a more precise connection between the connection member and output shaft of a motor. Such modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the connection requirements of the end user based on intended use. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, Further no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant disclosure.
Regarding claim 8, modified Heuberger teaches wherein the plurality of laser engraved longitudinal patterns are formed as a continuous pattern extending the entire length of the shaft portion. (see Sekimoto figure 8)
Regarding claim 9, modified Heuberger teaches all limitations stated above, but fails to teach wherein the plurality of laser engraved longitudinal patterns are formed as non-continuous patterns distributed along the length of the shaft portion.
Because Heuberger as modified by Sekimoto discloses patterns can have varied design for purpose to provide a more precise connection between the connection member and output shaft of a motor (see abstract of Sekimoto, and Sekimoto discloses “the retaining groove may be formed in various forms such as a wavy shape in which one-direction inclined portions and reverse-direction inclined portions are alternately arranged continuously or discontinuously”, see figures 1-8).
Therefore, based on teachings Sekimoto it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Heuberger wherein the plurality of laser engraved longitudinal patterns are formed as non-continuous patterns distributed along the length of the shaft portion , since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a more precise connection between the connection member and output shaft of a motor. (see abstract of Sekimoto)
Regarding claim 10, modified Heuberger teaches wherein the shaft portion comprises at least one set of laser engraved longitudinal patterns proximal to the head portion and at least one set of laser engraved longitudinal patterns formed distal to the head portion. (see Sekimoto, figure 8)
Regarding claim 11, modified Heuberger teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach wherein the at least one set of laser engraved longitudinal patterns proximal to the head portion are formed at 60° intervals and the at least one set of laser engraved longitudinal pattern distal to the head portion are formed at 30° intervals.
Because Heuberger as modified by Sekimoto discloses longitudinal patterns can have varied design for purpose to provide a more precise connection between the connection member and output shaft of a motor (see abstract of Sekimoto, and Sekimoto discloses “the retaining groove may be formed in various forms such as a wavy shape in which one-direction inclined portions and reverse-direction inclined portions are alternately arranged continuously or discontinuously”). Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to wherein the at least one set of laser engraved longitudinal patterns proximal to the head portion are formed at 60° intervals and the at least one set of laser engraved longitudinal pattern distal to the head portion are formed at 30° intervals because discovering an optimum angle of the angle extending between plurality of longitudinal patterns would have been a mere design characteristics needed to make the connecting member to provide a more precise connection between the connection member and output shaft of a motor. Such modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the connection requirements of the end user based on intended use. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, Further no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant disclosure.
Regarding claim 12, modified Heuberger teaches wherein the connecting member is an eccentric bush. (see Heuberger abstract).
Regarding claim 13, modified Heuberger teaches wherein the amount of laser engraved longitudinal patterns is from 6 to 12.
Because Heuberger as modified by Sekimoto discloses longitudinal patterns can have varied design for purpose to provide a more precise connection between the connection member and output shaft of a motor (see abstract of Sekimoto, and Sekimoto discloses “the retaining groove may be formed in various forms such as a wavy shape in which one-direction inclined portions and reverse-direction inclined portions are alternately arranged continuously or discontinuously”). Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modified Heuberger to wherein the amount of laser engraved longitudinal patterns is from 6 to 12 because discovering an optimum value of the amount of plurality of longitudinal patterns would have been a mere design characteristics needed to make the connecting member to provide a more precise connection between the connection member and output shaft of a motor. Such modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the connection requirements of the end user based on intended use. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant disclosure.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm.
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.
/SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights