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 .
Abstract
The Abstract (last line) includes a statement regarding the merits of the invention, which is not
allowed (MPEP 608.01 (b) I): The device . . . channel.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, “and” should be positioned before “extending” to be correct grammar.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, a comma should be positioned after “vehicle” to be correct grammar.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “and” should be positioned after “together,” to be correct grammar.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 5, a comma should be positioned after “another” to be correct grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-14 and 7-9 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 3, line 5 recites “preferably” and it is unclear if the feature after that word is required by the claim.
Claim 7, line 4 recites “the drive shaft” and there is no antecedent basis for it.
Claim 9, line 2 recites “the cleaning fluid circulation channel” which was called “a circulation channel” in line 1. One element can’t be given two different names.
Claim 11, line 2 recites “a drive shaft” and that same element was also recited in claim 2, line 2.
Claim 11, lines 2 and 3 each recite “a part”. Two different elements can’t be given the same name.
Claim 14, line 3 recites “the other part” and it is unclear which “part” of claim 11 is referred to.
The remaining claims are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nogawa (US 5,203,049).
As to claim 1, Nogawa includes a wiper device (The wiper blade) for wiping a window of a motor vehicle, comprising a head (4) of a wiper arm (3), a housing (2a) of a drive motor (The motor is interpreted as wiper motor 32 and pivot shaft 2 because both drive the wiper blade) for driving the head of the wiper arm, and a circulation channel (4a2, 4a3, 4a4, 4b4, 11; column 5, lines 13-18) for circulating cleaning liquid to the wiper, extending through the drive motor housing and the head of the wiper arm (Fig. 1).
As to claim 4, wherein the liquid circulation channel extends through a circumferential cavity (The space within 4a2) delimited by the head (Now understood as 4a) and the housing (Now understood as 4b) when pushed together (4a and 4b border the space within 4a2), the cavity being sealed by inner and outer circumferential seals (sealants 5 and 6) between the head and the housing (column 6, lines 13-16 and 28-30, and Fig. 1).
As to claim 5, wherein a seal (9; Also, 5 and 6 meet the requirement) between the head and the housing is in a groove of the head or of the housing and is pressed against the other of the head or the housing (Fig. 1).
As to claim 6, wherein the seal situated in the groove is toric with a cross section in the shape of an X, D or O (9 is X-shaped cross-sectionally; Fig. 1).
As to claim 7, further comprising a recess (The recess holding 5, 6, or 9) in the head or the housing (The recess is in the housing, which is now understood as 4b), the recess being open in the direction of the drive shaft and in the direction of the circumferential cavity, a seal (One of 5, 6 and 9) in the recess that is pressed against the other of the head or the housing (5/6/9 are pressed against the head, which is now understood as 4a) [Fig. 1]. The inner and outer circumferential seals are now understood as any two of 5, 6 and 9.
As to claim 9, wherein the cleaning fluid circulation channel opens out toward a wiper blade (33) from the head, the device further comprising a conveying tube (45, 46) for conveying the liquid between a connector (4a) on the head and a connector (40, 41) on the wiper blade, the connectors face one another (Fig. 1 and 5) and the tube being at least partially concealed by the wiper arm (Fig. 1 and 4).
As to claim 10, wherein the housing (Now understood as including 2a and 4b, and the head is understood as 4a) of the motor extends from a dry zone (The area below vehicle body 50) of the vehicle to the outside of the vehicle through a seal (sealant 6) [The housing extends within 6] through a window or a bodywork element (vehicle body 50) [Fig. 1].
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.
Claims 2, 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogawa (US 5,203,049) in view of Hommelet (US 5,711,487).
As to claim 2, Nogawa does not include wherein the head of the arm is able to rotate with respect to the housing around a drive shaft for driving the head.
Hommelet includes a wiper device having a housing (2) of a drive motor (The motor includes an arm 9 that drives a drive shaft 10) [Fig. 1 and column 3, lines 64-67 to column 4, lines 1-9].
It would have been obvious to modify the wiper device to include a housing surrounding the drive arm (The rectangular element below 2 in Fig. 1) [The drive arm is part of the drive motor because it drives the wiper blade], as taught by Hommelet, in order to prevent damage to the drive arm. The modification provides the head of the arm is able to rotate with respect to the housing (2a and now including element 2 of Hommelet) around a drive shaft (2; The wiper motor is now understood as including said rectangular element) for driving the head (column 5, lines 32-37 and 35-39).
As to claim 3, wherein the head is situated outside the vehicle (4 is outside of vehicle body 50).
Hommelet includes a wiper device having a housing (2) of a drive motor (The motor includes an arm 9 that drives a drive shaft 10) [Fig. 1 and column 3, lines 64-67 to column 4, lines 1-9].
Nogawa does not include the housing situated in a dry zone of the vehicle extends to the outside of the vehicle, the head and the housing being pushed one inside the other through the boundary between the dry zone and the outside of the vehicle, preferably the head is pushed into the housing.
It would have been obvious to modify the wiper device to include a housing surrounding the drive arm (The rectangular element below 2 in Fig. 1) [The drive arm is part of the drive motor because it drives the wiper blade], as taught by Hommelet, in order to prevent damage to the drive arm. The modification provides the head of the arm is able to rotate with respect to the housing (2a and now including element 2 of Hommelet) around a drive shaft (2; The wiper motor is now understood as including said rectangular element) for driving the head (column 5, lines 32-37 and 35-39). The modification provides the housing situated in a dry zone (2a is inside of the vehicle because it is below 50 where no cleaning liquid is sprayed) of the vehicle extends to the outside of the vehicle (2a includes a nut above 50), the head and the housing being pushed one inside the other through the boundary between the dry zone and the outside of the vehicle (4 is pushed inside of 2a; Fig. 1), preferably the head is pushed into the housing (Language after “preferably” is not required to be included).
As to claim 11, Nogawa does not include wherein the head of the arm comprises a part driven around a drive shaft by the motor and a part articulated to the wiper arm, the two parts being assembled together.
Hommelet includes a wiper device having a housing (2) of a drive motor (The motor includes an arm 9 that drives a drive shaft 10) [Fig. 1 and column 3, lines 64-67 to column 4, lines 1-9].
It would have been obvious to modify the wiper device to include a housing surrounding the drive arm (The rectangular element below 2 in Fig. 1) [The drive arm is part of the drive motor because it drives the wiper blade], as taught by Hommelet, in order to prevent damage to the drive arm. The modification provides wherein the head of the arm comprises a part (4a) driven around a drive shaft (2) by the motor and a part (4b) articulated to the wiper arm (column 5, lines 32-37 and 35-39), the two parts being assembled together (Fig. 1).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogawa (US 5,203,049) in view of Hommelet (US 5,711,487), and further in view of Steed (US 3,760,451).
As to claim 12, wherein the two parts are assembled together by fitting (4a and 4b are assembled together using sealants 5 and 6; Fig. 1).
Nogawa does not include the two parts are assembled together specifically by elastic fitting.
Steed includes a wiper device having a sealant (70) made of an elastic material (rubber) [column 2, lines 43-54].
It would have been obvious to modify the sealant of Nogawa to be made of an elastic material, as taught by Steed, in order to provide a reliable material for the sealant.
As to claim 13, wherein the elastic fitting of the two parts is in a direction parallel to the drive shaft (4a and 4b are assembled together in the vertical direction; Fig. 1) or in a direction transverse to the drive shaft.
As to claim 14, wherein the parts comprise clips forming a spring engaging elastically and removably with the other part (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW A. HORTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 S. 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.
/ANDREW A HORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723