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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 7/21/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/21/26.
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 2 and 11 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 2 recites the limitation: “…a motor vehicle…” in line 4. It is unclear whether or not this is in reference to the “motor vehicle” of claim 1 on which claim 2 depends. For examination purposes it has been determined that the limitation of claim 2 refers to the corresponding limitation of claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation: “…the first pump…” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is in reference to the “…a first two-way pump…” of claim 11 or the “…at least one pump…” of claim 1. For examination purposes it has been assumed that the limitation refers to the “first two-way pump” of claim 11.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (WO2020126299A1) in view of Caillot (FR2991948A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng et al. teaches a wiping system for a motor vehicle (see abstract), comprising: an arm 95 (see figure 4, page 5 of the translation); a motor (see drive motor) capable of rotating the arm 95 (see page 5 of the translation); a wiper blade 9 configured to wipe a visibility zone C of a windshield of the motor vehicle and capable of being driven by the arm 95 and including at least one longitudinal channel (see pipe that extends between the first 91 and second 93 longitudinal ends of the wiper blade 9) (see figure 4, page 5 of the translation), and at least one nozzle element 7’, in fluidic communication with the at least one longitudinal channel and configured to spray cleaning fluid toward at least one sensor 5 arranged outside the visibility zone C, the nozzle element 7’ being arranged in a longitudinal end zone 93 of the wiper blade 9 (see figure 4, page 5 of the translation); an injection assembly capable of injecting a cleaning fluid into the longitudinal channel (see page 5 of the translation, implicit since fluid is necessarily fed to the pipe from an upstream source); a control unit 13 capable of controlling the injection assembly in real time on the basis of position data concerning the arm 95 or the wiper blade 9, wherein when the control unit 13 determines that the arm 95 or the wiper blade 9 is in a given angular sector (see e.g. an angular range less than or equal to 15° on either side of the optics 51 of the optical sensor 5), the angular sector being smaller than an angular wiping range (see e.g. wiping range of C, as shown in figure 4) of the wiping system, the control unit 13 is capable of controlling injection by the cleaning fluid injection assembly into the longitudinal channel (see figure 4, page 5 of the translation, claims 2, 7-13). Cheng et al. does not explicitly teach that the injection assembly includes at least one pump. Caillot teaches a wiping system for a motor vehicle (see abstract) and that the injection assembly 10 may include at least one pump so as to provide the expected direction of the wash fluid to the nozzle element 11 (see pages 6 and 8 of the translation, figures 1-2). Since both Cheng et al. and Caillot teach wiping systems for motor vehicles it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the injection assembly of Cheng et al. may include at least one pump so as to provide the expected direction of the wash fluid to the nozzle element, as shown to be known and conventional by Caillot.
Regarding claim 2, Cheng et al. and Caillot together teach the limitations of claim 1. Cheng et al. also teaches in claims 2, 7-13, figure 4 and page 5 of the translation that the given angular sector is determined as a function of a geometry of the wiping system, a geometry of an optical surface 51 of the sensor 5, and a relative position of the wiping system and the sensor 5 (the geometry of the wiper blade 9 and the optical surface 51 of the sensor 5 determine the particular positions that would correspond to the desired angular space between the wiping system and the sensor 5), when the wiping system is mounted on the motor vehicle including the sensor 5, such that the nozzle element 7’ is capable of spraying cleaning fluid toward the optical surface 51 of the sensor 5 when the arm 95 or the wiper blade 9 is positioned in the angular sector.
Regarding claim 3, Cheng et al. and Caillot teach the limitations of claim 1. Cheng et al. does not explicitly teach that the position data concerning the arm or the blade come from the motor or come from a detection device. Caillot teaches in page 8 of the translation that the position data concerning the blade 3 may come from the motor or from a detection device (see position sensor) so as to provide the expected determination of the position of the wiping system relative to the sensor. Since both Cheng et al. and Caillot teach wiping systems for motor vehicles it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the position data concerning the blade may come from the motor or from a detection device so as to provide the expected determination of the position of the wiping system relative to the sensor, as shown to be known and conventional by Caillot.
Regarding claim 4, Cheng et al. and Caillot together teach the limitations of claim 1. Cheng et al. does not teach that the wiper blade includes at least one other longitudinal channel and at least one other nozzle element in fluidic communication with the other longitudinal channel. Caillot teaches in figures 5, 7, 10, 12 and page 10 of the translation that the wiper blade 3 may include at least one other longitudinal channel 30 and at least one other nozzle element 28 in fluidic communication with the other longitudinal channel 30 and capable of spraying cleaning fluid onto the visibility zone 4, 6 coming from the other longitudinal channel 30 in a direction inclined relative to a longitudinal direction of the blade 3; wherein the injection assembly 10 is capable of selectively injecting the cleaning fluid into the longitudinal channel 24 and/or into the other longitudinal channel 30, thereby allowing for greater fluid spray coverage. Since both Cheng et al. and Caillot teach wiping systems for motor vehicles it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the wiper blade in the system by Cheng et al. may include at least one other longitudinal channel and at least one other nozzle element in fluidic communication with the other longitudinal channel so as to allow for greater fluid spray coverage, as shown to be known and conventional by Caillot.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Cheng et al. and Caillot together teach the limitations of claim 4. Cheng et al. does not teach that the at least one other longitudinal channel comprises at least a first longitudinal channel and a second longitudinal channel. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that, in the modified system by Cheng et al. and Caillot, the at least one other longitudinal channel may comprise at least a first longitudinal channel and a second longitudinal channel so as to allow for greater fluid spray coverage. Hence, it is readily apparent that, in the modified system, the longitudinal channel would be a third longitudinal channel, wherein the at least one other nozzle element would comprise at least a first nozzle element in fluidic communication with the second longitudinal channel and capable of spraying cleaning fluid in a first direction inclined relative to a longitudinal direction of the blade and at least a second nozzle element in fluidic communication with the third longitudinal channel and capable of spraying cleaning fluid in a second direction inclined relative to a longitudinal direction of the blade, and wherein the nozzle element would be a third nozzle element and wherein the injection element would be capable of selectively injecting the cleaning fluid into the first longitudinal channel, the second longitudinal channel and/or the third longitudinal channel (reads on claim 5). Similarly, in the modified system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that each longitudinal channel may have a pump associated therewith to provide the expected direction of fluid therethrough, such that, the injection assembly would include a first pump connected to the first longitudinal channel by a first injection channel, a second pump connected to the second longitudinal channel by a second injection channel and a third pump connected to the third longitudinal channel by a third injection channel, the control unit being capable of selectively activating the first, second and third pumps (reads on claim 6). Furthermore, it has been determined that the duplication of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (WO2020126299A1) in view of Caillot (FR2991948A1) as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Yamauchi et al. (US20210179029).
Regarding claim 11, Cheng et al. and Caillot together teach the limitations of claim 5. As discussed in the rejection of claim 5, in the modified system of Cheng et al. and Caillot, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that each longitudinal channel may have a pump associated therewith to provide the expected direction of fluid therethrough, such that, the injection assembly further comprises a second pump connected to the third longitudinal channel by a third injection channel, the control unit being capable of controlling the activation of the second pump. Furthermore, it has been determined that the duplication of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Cheng et al. does not teach that the injection system comprises a first two-way pump. Yamauchi et al. teaches a vehicle sensor cleaning system (see abstract, paragraphs [0002], [0003], [0008]) and that the injection system may comprise a first two-way pump 12 being connected to a first channel H1 by a first injection channel 12b and being connected to a second channel H2 by a second injection channel 12c, the first pump 12 being capable of injecting cleaning fluid into the first injection channel 12b or into the second injection channel 12c depending on a direction of rotation of a pump motor 12a of the first pump 12, thereby allowing for selective spray coverage and accurate switching (see paragraphs [0010], [0028]-[0029], [0053], [0061], figure 1). Since both Cheng et al. and Yamauchi et al. teach vehicle sensor cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the injection system in the modified system by Cheng et al. may comprise a first two-way pump so as to allow for selective spray coverage and accurate switching, as shown to be known and conventional by Yamauchi et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Cheng et al. (WO2020126299A1). Cheng et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claim 7. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights