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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, these claims cite the limitation “… the wiped surface, which is a surface of a vertical long front windshield”. 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. Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the wiping device is capable of being disposed on the wiped surface, such as a surface of a vertical long front windshield in a mobility vehicle”
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Murthy (US 20230163707 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Murthy discloses A wiping device that wipes off rainwater from a wiped surface by reciprocating a wiper blade between a first reciprocating position on the wiped surface and a second reciprocating position on the wiped surface by a power source (See Para [0010] “When driven by motor drive 16 and controller 18, wiper 12 traverses windshield 20 from inboard position 22 to outboard position 24, or vice versa, to define wiper sweep S.”), the wiping device comprising:
a drive part (Controller 18) that drives the power source (Motor 16); and an operation part that outputs an operation signal specifying a standby position of the wiper blade being the first reciprocating position (inboard position 22) or the second reciprocating position (outboard position 24) to the drive part (See Para [0035] “By implementing the four-quadrant control techniques disclose herein, controller 18 utilizes position feedback data 92 to determine when wiper 12 has reached the parked position. The parked position of wiper 12 will be selected based on the windshield curvature, the pilot's field of view, and aerodynamic forces imposed on the wiper during flight, among other possible factors. Exemplary parked positions include positions in which wiper 12 is vertical oriented and horizontally orientated as well as an inboard position (i.e., position 22) and an outboard position (i.e., position 24).”).
Regarding Claim 5, Murthy discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the wiping device is configured to being disposed on the wiped surface, which is a surface of a vertical long front windshield in a mobility vehicle, wherein the first reciprocating position is set to a left end of the wiped surface, and the second reciprocating position is set to a right end of the wiped surface (See Figs. 1, 3a and 3b of Murthy, showing the wipers capable of sweeping from both outboard to inboard (left to right on the left hand window 20), and inboard to outboard (left to right on right hand window 20) on a vertically long front windshield) .
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) 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murthy (US 20230163707 A1) in view of de Almeida (US 20170225654 A1) and Park (US 20210070254 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Murthy discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the drive part is configured to change an operation mode of the wiping device to a normal mode where the wiper blade performs continuous wiping of the wiped surface in a case when an operation time indicated by the operation signal exceeds a predetermined threshold value, and to change the operation mode to a standby position operation mode where the wiper blade performs half-wiping of the wiped surface and change the standby position of the wiper blade in a case when the operation time indicated by the operation signal is equal to or less than the predetermined threshold value.
However, Murthy does disclose a half-wiping operation (Murthy is concerned with a 4-quadrant control method of a wiper, see Para [0011] “Using a four-quadrant control architecture, motor drive 16 and controller 18 regulate rotational speed and three-phase current delivery to motor 14 during forward motoring operation (quadrant 1), forward braking operation (quadrant 2), reverse motoring operation (quadrant 3), and reverse braking operation (quadrant 4).” With each quadrant being a half-wiper operation, going from an inboard to outboard location or vice versa.).
And de Almeida discloses a similar discloses a wiping apparatus with switch wherein a user can set the device to do a single sweep cycle, and can choose between two parking positions (See Para [0083] “The wiper switch 44 may be manually actuated to activate the wipers 28R, 28L to move once, i.e., to complete a single sweep cycle. For example, if a passing vehicle drives through water in the road, and the water strikes the windshield 24 obstructing the operator's view, then it may be beneficial to actuate the wipers 28R, 28L just once, or perhaps a few times until the obstruction has been cleared, as desired by the vehicle's operator. The wiper switch 44 may also have an option to dock the wipers 28R, 28L in either the Park 1 or Park 2 positions as desired by the operator.”).
And Park discloses a similar wiper device (400) with a multi-function switch (100), wherein the wiper performs a function when an operation signal is less than a predetermined threshold value (See Para [0025] “The Mist is a function in which the wiper 400 operates once when the multi-function switch 100 is operated for less than a particular period of time, the OFF is a function that ends the driving or operation of the wiper 400, the INT is a function in which the wiper is operated intermittently at regular intervals, rather than continuously moving the wiper 400, and LO and HI refer to the function of adjusting the rotational speed of the wiper 400. The multi-function switch 100 may be configured to receive a user command for adjusting the on or off of the wiper driver 300.”)
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 of Murthy such that wherein the drive part is configured to change an operation mode of the wiping device to a normal mode where the wiper blade performs continuous wiping of the wiped surface in a case when an operation time indicated by the operation signal exceeds a predetermined threshold value, and to change the operation mode to a standby position operation mode where the wiper blade performs half-wiping of the wiped surface and change the standby position of the wiper blade in a case when the operation time indicated by the operation signal is equal to or less than the predetermined threshold value. As doing so would allow for the beneficial application of a single sweep as discussed by de Almeida Para [0083] cited above and because Park discusses that utilizing time a switch is being actuated as an operation signal to be compared to a predetermined time amount to activate functions of a wiper device is known in the art.
Examiner notes that modifying Murthy in view of de Almeida would result in the drive part (controller 18 of Murthy or wiper switch 44 of de Almeida) configured to change an operation mode of the wiping device to a normal mode where the wiper blade performs continuous wiping of the wiped surface in a case when an operation time indicated by the operation signal exceeds a predetermined threshold value (controller 18 of Murthy providing as given operation instruction or see Para [0034] of de Almeida “The wipers 28R and 28L can perform these movements at a faster or slower rate, and may further perform these movements sporadically (aperiodically), or just once, such as upon manual actuation by the vehicle operator. This function may be executed by: 1) manually actuating a windshield wiping control actuator, which may be in the form of a bar, knob, button, etc., 2) automatically actuating the wipers based on a signal from the vehicle, or 3) any other action causing the wipers 28R and 28L to perform their intended function.” ) And Park discusses using the period of time which a switch is operated to activate specific functions of the cleaner (Para [0025] of Park cited above) with the particular period of time being the threshold value and the time the switch is operated being the operation signal.
Regarding Claim 6, Murthy as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 2 and in addition discloses wherein the wiping device is configured to being disposed on the wiped surface, which is a surface of a vertical long front windshield in a mobility vehicle, wherein the first reciprocating position is set to a left end of the wiped surface, and the second reciprocating position is set to a right end of the wiped surface (See Figs. 1, 3a and 3b of Murthy, showing the wipers capable of sweeping from both outboard to inboard (left to right on the left hand window 20), and inboard to outboard (left to right on right hand window 20)) .
Claim(s) 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murthy (US 20230163707 A1) in view of Mizuno (US 20150076925 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Murthy 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 Murthy 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) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murthy (US 20230163707 A1) in view of de Almeida (US 20170225654 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Mizuno (US 20150076925 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Murthy as modified 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 Murthy as modified 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights