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 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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al. (JP 2007/083798) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2013/0076073) and Nakamura et al. (EP 0099115).
Regarding claim 1, Fukumoto et al. discloses a vehicle front structure (Fig. 1) comprising: a windshield (2) disposed on a front surface of a vehicle cabin and extending in a vehicle width direction (Fig. 1); an engine hood (6) disposed in front of the windshield and covering an engine compartment (Fig. 1); a cowl top garnish (1) disposed between the windshield and the engine hood (Fig. 2); and a wiper mechanism (4) attached to the cowl top garnish (Fig. 1), wherein: the wiper mechanism includes; a connection point protruding forward of a vehicle from a through hole provided in the cowl top garnish (Fig. 1 shows the connection point of the wiper (4)), an arm (41) having one end connected to the connection point and extending in the vehicle width direction (Fig. 1), and a blade (42) connected to another end of the arm and extending in the vehicle width direction (Figs. 1-2); and the cowl top garnish includes; an exposed surface including a front end (front end of top surface portion (11)) equal in height to a rear end of an exposed surface of the engine hood (Figs. 1-2) and extending in a planar shape from the front end to the windshield (Fig. 2, top surface portion (11) and rear surface portion (13)), and a rib (10) that is provided in front of the connection point (Fig. 1), protrudes from the exposed surface of the cowl top garnish, and extends along the blade in the vehicle width direction (Fig. 1, 2, and 4), wherein a width of the rib (10) extending in the vehicle width direction is a portion of a total width of the cowl top garnish (Fig. 1); and wherein the exposed surface of the engine hood and the exposed surface of the cowl top garnish are arranged so that the exposed surface of the cowl top garnish is not higher than the rear edge of the engine hood (paragraph [0005] of the machine translation).
Fukumoto et al. does not explicitly disclose the wiper pivot and a wiper rubber; wherein the width of the rib is 60% or more and less than 80% of the total width of the cowl top garnish; and wherein the exposed surface of the engine hood and the exposed surface of the cowl top garnish are arranged without forming a substantial step.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the width of the rib to be within 60% to 80% of the total width of the cowl top garnish, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to optimize and cover enough of the area in front of the blades to be effective, and to not interfere with the air flow along the sides of the vehicle. Further, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Additionally, no criticality has been provided as to the specific dimensions of the width of the rib.
Tanaka et al., like Fukumoto et al., teaches a vehicle front structure and further details a wiper pivot ((33), (34)) protruding forward of a vehicle from a through hole ((51), (52)) provided in the cowl top garnish (24), and the blade including a wiper rubber that abuts against the windshield (paragraph [0041] teaches wiper rubbers attached to the wiper blades to abut the windshield (18)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Fukumoto et al. to include a wiper pivot and wiper rubber as taught by Tanaka et al., with a reasonable expectation, in order to provide a location for the movement of the wiper blades, as well as provide a safe material to clean the windshield on the vehicle. Please note in the combination, the connection point is the wiper pivot taught by Tanaka et al.
Nakamura et al., like Fukumoto et al., teaches a vehicle front structure, and further teaches wherein the exposed surface of the engine hood and the exposed surface of the cowl top garnish are arranged without forming a substantial step (Fig. 1, p. 3, line 27 – p. 4, line 3 teaches the exposed surfaces are on the same plane, i.e. same height, therefore having to fall within a set assembly tolerance when built per the definition listed in the instant specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heights of the exposed surface of the engine hood and the exposed surface of the cowl top garnish to be within a set tolerance as taught by Nakamura et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a smooth air flow path prior to the rib introduction to allow for maximum effectiveness of the rib for adjusting the air flow with respect to the blades.
Regarding claim 2, Fukumoto et al. as modified by Tanaka et al. and Nakamura et al. teaches the structure of claim 1, and teaches (references to Fukumoto et al.) wherein: the rib is provided with a rear inclined surface (13a) extending obliquely forward from a bottom to a top of the rib and facing the windshield (Fig. 4); and a washer nozzle (3) is attached to the rear inclined surface (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Fukumoto et al. as modified by Tanaka et al. and Nakamura et al. teaches the structure of claim 1, and teaches (references to Fukumoto et al.) wherein: the rib includes a front inclined surface (Fig. 4, generally starting around where the line from (10) contacts the surface (11)) extending obliquely rearward from a bottom to a top of the rib (Fig. 4); and an intersection point between an extension line of the front inclined surface extending from an upper end of the front inclined surface and the windshield in a side view of the vehicle is disposed above the blade (Fig. 2 shows that an extended line would be positioned above the blade while being viewed from a side angle).
Regarding claim 4, Fukumoto et al. as modified by Tanaka et al. and Nakamura et al. teaches the structure of claim 1, and teaches (references to Fukumoto et al.) wherein the width of the rib is a percentage of a total width of a pair of blades arranged in the vehicle width direction (Fig. 1, roughly at least over 50%).
However, Fukumoto et al. as modified by Tanaka et al. and Nakamura et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the width of the rib is 80% or more and 100% or less of a total width of a pair of blades arranged in the vehicle width direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the width of the rib to be 80% or more and 100% or less of a total width of a pair of blades arranged in the vehicle width direction, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to optimize and cover enough of the area in front of the blades to be effective, and to not interfere with the air flow along the sides of the vehicle. Further, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Additionally, no criticality has been provided as to the specific dimensions of the width of the rib.
Regarding claim 5, Fukumoto et al. as modified by Tanaka et al. and Nakamura et al. teaches the structure of claim 1, and teaches (references to Fukumoto et al.) wherein a discharge surface (31) of the washer nozzle (Fig. 4, along (13a)) and the rear inclined surface (13a) are arranged on a same plane such that no substantial step is formed therebetween (Figs. 4-6, show the discharge surface along the same plane as the inclined surface, therefore having to fall within a set assembly tolerance when built per the definition listed in the instant specification).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Koyama (JP 2005119456) teaches vehicle front structures including similar hood/cowl/windshield interactions.
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 CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate 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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.W.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643