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 .
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes the following limitations which recite “at least one” is being interpreted as there only being one of that element as Applicant does not have drawing support for multiple of any of the following limitations which recite “at least one”: “at least one structural element”, “at least one spray element”, “at least one spray channel”, “at least one spray device”, and “at least one solenoid valve”.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caillot (US20150143655).
Regarding claim 1, Caillot discloses a wiper (Fig. 9 element 1) for a glazed surface (Fig. 10 element 59) of a vehicle (0096), the wiper comprising:
at least one structural element (Fig. 1 elements 3 and 15 and Fig. 2 element 8),
a wiper rubber (Fig. 1 element 12) carried by the at least one structural element (Fig. 9, 0053),
wherein the wiper rubber is configured to bear against the glazed surface and to sweep a wiping zone (Fig. 10 element 61) of the glazed surface (Fig. 10, 0053), and
at least one end piece (see annotated Fig. 8 below) arranged at a longitudinal end of the at least one structural element (see annotated Fig. 8 below),
at least one conduit (Fig. 9 element 4, 0092-0094) extending in a main direction of elongation of the wiper (Figs. 8-9, 0093, where element 5 in Fig. 8 corresponds to a main direction of elongation of the wiper), and
at least one spray element (Fig. 3 element 3, 0090-0093) fluidically connected to the conduit (Fig. 9, 0090 and 0092) and formed on the at least one structural element (Figs. 1 and 5, where the at least one spray element being a subset of the structural element means that the at least one spray element is formed on (i.e. in contact with) the structural element),
wherein the at least one spray element is configured to spray the cleaning fluid (0044, where "washing liquid" corresponds to cleaning fluid) in a spray direction onto an optical surface that is separate from the glazed surface (0074, where at least one of the "multiplicity of directions" corresponds to the at least one spray element being configured to (i.e. capable of) spray the cleaning fluid in a spray direction onto an optical surface that is separate from the glazed surface).
PNG
media_image1.png
548
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Caillot discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the spray direction is oriented at an opening angle of between 3° and 30° in relation to the main direction of elongation of the wiper in a first plane configured to be substantially parallel to the glazed surface (see annotated Fig. 9 below for a first plane, 0074, where the spray being able to be "oriented in a multiplicity of directions" means that there are multiple configurations of the wiper where the spray direction is oriented at the claimed angle range in relation to the main direction of elongation of the wiper in a first plane configured to be substantially parallel to the glazed surface).
PNG
media_image2.png
522
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Caillot discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the at least one spray element comprises at least one spray channel (Fig. 5 element 37) that extends in the spray direction of a jet of the cleaning fluid (Fig. 5, 0067 and 0074, where "a jet of washing fluid" corresponds to a jet of the cleaning fluid and where the at least one spray channel extends in the spray direction of the jet of the cleaning fluid when the hole of element 40 is arranged parallel to the at least one spray channel).
Regarding claim 4, Caillot discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the spray direction is oriented at an angled of between -30° and 20° in relation to a transverse direction of extension perpendicular to the main direction of elongation, in a second plane configured to be substantially perpendicular to the glazed surface (see annotated Fig. 9 above for a second plane and transverse direction, 0074, where the spray being able to be "oriented in a multiplicity of directions" means that there are multiple configurations of the wiper where the spray direction is oriented at the claimed angle range in relation to a transverse direction of extension perpendicular to the main direction of elongation, in a second plane configured to be substantially perpendicular to the glazed surface).
Regarding claim 5, Caillot discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the at least one spray element is formed in the structural element (Figs. 1 and 5, where the at least one spray element being a subset of the at least one structural element means that theat least one spray element is formed in (i.e. integral with) the at least one structural element).
Regarding claim 6, Caillot discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the at least one spray element is attached to the at least one structural element (Figs. 1 and 5, where the at least one spray element being a subset of the structural element means that the at least one spray element is attached to (i.e. connected either directly or indirectly to) the at least one structural element).
Regarding claim 7, Caillot discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses at least one spray device (Fig. 8 element 2, which also includes elements 56 and 57) configured to spray the cleaning fluid onto the wiping zone (0042-0043).
Regarding claim 8, Caillot discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses the spray device is formed on the at least one structural element (Fig. 8, 0093, where the at least one spray device being "arranged in the air deflector 15" means that the at least one spray device is formed on (i.e. in contact with) the at least one structural element).
Regarding claim 9, Caillot discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses the at least one spray device comprises a plurality of spray orifices (Fig. 8 elements 57), wherein the plurality of spray orifices are arranged along the main direction of elongation of the wiper (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 10, Caillot discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses the at least one spray element is configured to spray the cleaning fluid from a first side of the wiper and the at least one spray device is configured to spray the fluid from a second side of the wiper, opposite the first side in relation to the main direction of elongation of the wiper (see annotated Fig. 9' below, 0093).
PNG
media_image3.png
522
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caillot (US20150143655), in view of Caillot (US20170369037), hereinafter Caillot’, and in further view of Giraud et al. (US20160096512), hereinafter Giraud.
Regarding claim 11, Caillot discloses a wiper system (Fig. 10 element 58) for a vehicle, the wiper system comprising a wiper as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein an arm (0100, where "first arm" corresponds to arm) moves the wiper and a cleaning device (Fig. 10 element 65 corresponds to a cleaning device and 0100 discloses the arm moving the wiper and since the cleaning device is shown in claim 10 to be in direct connection with the wiper, the arm will also move the cleaning device) that is connected fluidically to the at least one conduit and configured to control the circulation of the cleaning fluid (Fig. 10, 0107-0108), and
wherein the cleaning device comprises:
at least one valve (0108, where "at least one valve" corresponds to at least one valve) configured to permit the cleaning fluid to circulate to the at least one spray element (Fig. 10, 0108, where the at least one valve would be capable of permitting the cleaning fluid to circulate to the at least one spray element).
Caillot fails to disclose that the at least one valve is at least one solenoid valve and a control module for the at least one solenoid valve.
Caillot’ is also concerned with a wiper system and teaches at least one solenoid valve (Fig. 3 element 11, 0015-0016 and 0050-0051). It 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 to modify the wiper system of Caillot to make the at least one valve an at least one solenoid valve, as taught by Caillot’, because Caillot’ teaches that a solenoid valve "can be configured to generate heat for heating the fluid" (0016) which "is advantageous if there is a risk of the fluid freezing" (0016).
Caillot, as modified, fails to disclose a control module for the at least one solenoid valve.
Giraud is also concerned with a wiper system and teaches a control module (Fig. 1 element 13, 0074-0075) to permit the cleaning fluid to circulate to the spray element (0074-0075, where “dedicated sprinkling orifice 8” corresponds to the spray element). It 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 to modify the wiper system of Caillot, as modified, to include a control module to permit the cleaning fluid to circulate to the spray element, as taught by Giraud, because Giraud teaches that the control module is used to "reduce consumption of washing fluid" (0074) which in turn "makes it possible to reduce the dimensions of the tank 7 and therefore the weight of the vehicle" (0075).
Caillot, as modified, then yields a control module (Giraud, Fig. 1 element 13, 0074-0075) for the at least one solenoid valve (Giraud, 0074-0075, where permitting the cleaning fluid to circulate to the spray element, as taught above, would mean controlling the solenoid valve as well)
Regarding claim 12, Caillot, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses the control module is able to open or close the solenoid valve as a function of a given angular position of the wiper during the movement thereof (Giraud, 0074, where "angular position of the windscreen wiper" corresponds to angular position of the wiper).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caillot (US20150143655), in view of Caillot (US20170369037), hereinafter Caillot’, in further view of Giraud et al. (US20160096512), hereinafter Giraud, and as further evidenced by Kolanowski et al. (US20190248337), hereinafter Kolanowski.
Regarding claim 13, Caillot, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further discloses an electronically controlled electric motor able to move the arm with the wiper arranged at the end thereof (Caillot, 0100, where "an electric motor, in some cases electronic" corresponds to an electronically controlled electric motor),
wherein the angular position is able to be determined by the electronically controlled electric motor (Caillot, 0100, where the electronically controlled electric motor being an "electronic" motor means that the electronically controlled electric motor is capable of determining the angular position, which is evidenced by Kolanowski in paragraph 0003).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Caillot fails to disclose “the at least one spray element is configured to spray cleaning fluid in a spray direction onto an optical surface that is separate from the glazed surface” because the optical surface (64) of Caillot is part of the windshield (59) and therefore is not separate from the glazed surface. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that “an optical surface” is not being positively claimed in claim 1 and would also be improper to positively claim in claim 1 as claim 1 is drawn to “a wiper for a glazed surface of a vehicle” and the optical surface is separate from the wiper. Therefore, examiner finds that the limitation described above is only a functional limitation, and examiner finds that the spray element of Caillot is capable of spraying cleaning fluid in a spray direction onto an optical surface that is separate from the glazed surface.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights