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 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.
Claim 5-6 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.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, these claims cite the limitation “wherein the wiped surface is a surface of a front windshield in a small-sized mobility vehicle”. Examiner first notes that the wiped surface is a not a part of the wiping device, and as such this limitation is interpreted as an intended use limitation. Additionally, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the a “small-sized mobility vehicle” is. Applicant in Para [0002] of the instant application specification gives examples of “small-sized mobility vehicles”, see “small-sized mobility vehicles such as roofed motorcycles, tricycles, scooters, and motorcycles.” But it is still unclear what the makes a vehicle a small-sized mobility vehicle, For example, it is unclear if a compact sedan can be considered small size. As such this claim is indefinite, for the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the “small-sized mobility vehicle” to include the listed examples in applicants’ specification, roofed motorcycles, tricycles, scooters and motorcycles.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cox (US 20120047672 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cox discloses A wiping device (22) that wipes off rainwater from a wiped surface by reciprocating a wiper blade by a power source, the wiping device comprising:
a drive part (controller 40) that drives the power source (Driver motor 38); and
an operation part (Switch 42) that outputs an operation signal specifying a standby position of the wiper blade to the drive part (See Para [0015] “The switch 42 may be a separate two position switch with one position setting the wiper system 22 to the standard park position and the other position setting the wiper system 22 to the high park position 48.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Cox discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the drive part changes the standby position of the wiper blade based on an operation time indicated by the operation signal (See Para [0015] discussing holding a switch to a “mist” function for a predetermined amount of time in order to change the standby position “For example, in a vehicle that employs a multi-function stalk switch (not shown) to control wiper operations, the rotating switch that has positions such as mist, off, intermittent wipe, low speed and high speed, may be employed. The mist function may be a switch position that causes a one time instantaneous wipe. The controller 40 may be programmed so that, when the driver holds the switch 42 in the mist position for at least ten seconds (or some other predetermined amount of time), the controller will toggle from the current park position to the other. Again holding the switch 42 in the mist position for at least ten seconds will cause the controller 40 to toggle back to the first park position setting.”).
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) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 20120047672 A1) in view of Mizuno (US 20150076925 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Cox discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein the operation part is an automatic return type toggle switch (See Para [0015] “Alternatively, the switch 42 may employ one of the current switches used for wiper control in order to toggle between the two modes of park position. For example, in a vehicle that employs a multi-function stalk switch (not shown) to control wiper operations, the rotating switch that has positions such as mist, off, intermittent wipe, low speed and high speed, may be employed..”).
However, Mizuno discloses a similar wiper switch arrangement, and discloses that it is known for the operation lever of a wiper to have a neutral position, to which the operation lever returns to when released. See Para [0005]- [0006]
“As a conventional technique relating to the operation lever for such a wiper, a technique disclosed in Patent Document 1 is known.
According to Patent Document 1, four operation positions of "HI", "1UP", "OFF", and "MID" are provided in a range in which the operation lever can turn, and specific functions are assigned to each of the operation positions. Specifically, a neutral position, to which the operation lever returns when the operation lever is released from a driver's hand, is a position of "OFF" and operation of the wiper stops at this position.”
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the switch of Cox with a return switch described by Mizuno as doing so would be a matter of substituting one known switch in the art for another, See MPEP 2144.06 II and would improve the ease of use for the operator while driving by having the switch default to the off position and allow a user to operator or change it as needed.
Regarding Claim 4, Cox discloses all the limitations of claim 2 and suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein the operation part is an automatic return type toggle switch (See Para [0015] “Alternatively, the switch 42 may employ one of the current switches used for wiper control in order to toggle between the two modes of park position. For example, in a vehicle that employs a multi-function stalk switch (not shown) to control wiper operations, the rotating switch that has positions such as mist, off, intermittent wipe, low speed and high speed, may be employed.”).
However, Mizuno discloses a similar wiper switch arrangement, and discloses that it is known for the operation lever of a wiper to have a neutral position, to which the operation lever returns to when released. See Para [0005]- [0006]
“As a conventional technique relating to the operation lever for such a wiper, a technique disclosed in Patent Document 1 is known.
According to Patent Document 1, four operation positions of "HI", "1UP", "OFF", and "MID" are provided in a range in which the operation lever can turn, and specific functions are assigned to each of the operation positions. Specifically, a neutral position, to which the operation lever returns when the operation lever is released from a driver's hand, is a position of "OFF" and operation of the wiper stops at this position.”
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the switch of Cox with a return switch described by Mizuno as doing so would be a matter of substituting one known switch in the art for another, See MPEP 2144.06 II and would improve the ease of use for the operator while driving by having the switch default to the off position and allow a user to operator or change it as needed.
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 20120047672 A1) in view of Xie (US 20180304859 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Cox discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the wiped surface is a surface of a front windshield in a vehicle (See Para [0005] “An embodiment contemplates a wiper system for use on a window of a vehicle.”).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle is a small-sized mobility vehicle.
However, Xie discloses a similar wiper controlling method that can be used on a plurality of types of vehicles including motorcycles (See Para [0025] “The vehicle may be any vehicle selected from a group consisting of a motorcycle, an electric motorcycle, an electric automobile, an electric moped, an electric self-balancing scooter, a hybrid vehicle and an automobile. A windscreen wiper may be a windscreen wiper for a front windscreen of the vehicle, or a windscreen wiper for a rear windscreen of the vehicle.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the wiper device to wipe the windshield of a small-sized mobility vehicle as doing so would expand the range of vehicles the wiper blades could work on, increasing their utility.
Regarding Claim 6, Cox discloses all the claim limitations of claim 2 and in addition discloses wherein the wiped surface is a surface of a front windshield in a vehicle (See Para [0005] “An embodiment contemplates a wiper system for use on a window of a vehicle.”).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle is a small-sized mobility vehicle.
However, Xie discloses a similar wiper controlling method that can be used on a plurality of types of vehicles including motorcycles (See Para [0025] “The vehicle may be any vehicle selected from a group consisting of a motorcycle, an electric motorcycle, an electric automobile, an electric moped, an electric self-balancing scooter, a hybrid vehicle and an automobile. A windscreen wiper may be a windscreen wiper for a front windscreen of the vehicle, or a windscreen wiper for a rear windscreen of the vehicle.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the wiper device to wipe the windshield of a small-sized mobility vehicle as doing so would expand the range of vehicles the wiper blades could work on, increasing their utility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/T.J.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723