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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s RCE amendment dated February 11, 2026. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 is amended to read “wherein the the wiper mode is selected”, with the word “the” twice.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is amended to include “parking the wiper (4) is a position that allows precipitation impacting the windshield (8) to drain off”. The Specification at [0027] describes only that the “wipers 4 are placed in a position that enables precipitation impacting the windshield 9 to drain off”. There is no description of the position that would satisfy the claim or description of how precipitation would be prevented from draining off the windshield. Wipers do not prevent rain or dust from draining off the windshield.
Claim 8 is amended to include “parking the wiper (4) is a position that allows precipitation impacting the windshield (8) to drain off”. The Specification at [0027] describes only that the “wipers 4 are placed in a position that enables precipitation impacting the windshield 9 to drain off”. There is no description of the position that would satisfy the claim or description of how precipitation would be prevented from draining off the windshield. Wipers do not prevent rain or dust from draining off the 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.
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 1-3, 5-7, and 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al., U.S. Patent 11,904,908 B2 (2024) in view of Kwon, U.S. Patent 7,528,500 B2 (2009).
As to claim 1, Kobayashi et al. discloses a windshield wiper system (1) for a vehicle (2), the windshield wiper system (1) comprising:
a drive (3) (wiper drive unit 94,Figure 1) configured to drive a wiper (4) (wiper 98, Figure 1),
the wiper (4) (wiper 98, Figure 1), and
a control device (5) configured to be connected to a continuous power supply of the vehicle (2), and to communicate with at least one control unit (6) of the vehicle (2) via a predefined data transfer protocol (wiper control device 90, Figure 1), the control device (5) being further configured to
receive from the control unit (6), a wiper mode determined based on a detected condition of an environment of the vehicle (2) (“controls the operating state of the wiper 98 on the basis of the rainfall information acquired from the rain sensor”, “increases the speed of operation of the wiper 98” high speed, medium speed, low speed Column 7, Lines 24-43),
and
operate the wiper (4) via the drive according to the wiper mode (Column 7, Lines 24-43).
Kobayashi et al. does not disclose the ignition of the vehicle being switched off, as claimed.
Kwon discloses operation while the vehicle (2) is in an inactive state, the inactive state being where an ignition of the vehicle (2) is switched off (Column 3, Lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Kobayashi et al., with the use of a wiper with the ignition turned off, as claimed, as disclosed by Kwon, with a reasonable expectation of success, allowing operation when the ignition is off, or operating the wipers to return them to a stored position, allowing greater usage of the system for the user.
As to claim 2, Kobayashi et al., as modified by Kwon, discloses the windshield wiper system (1) according to claim 1, and Kobayashi et al. further discloses wherein the the wiper mode is selected from a plurality of predetermined wiper modes based on the detected condition (high speed, medium speed, low speed Column 7, Lines 24-43).
As to claim 3, Kobayashi et al., as modified by Kwon, discloses the windshield wiper system (1) according to claim 1, and Kobayashi et al. further discloses wherein the control device (5) is configured to monitor the environment of the vehicle (2) via at least one sensor (7) of the vehicle (2), and to control the drive (3) according to the conditions in the environment of the vehicle (2) (Column 7, Line 24 – Column 8, Line 6).
Kobayashi et al. does not disclose operation in the inactive state, as claimed.
Kwon discloses operation in the inactive state (“turn on/off the wiper system even when the ignition key is turned off” Column 1, Lines 43-54, Column 3, Lines 10-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of claim 1, as disclosed by Kobayashi et al., as modified by Kwon, with the use of a wiper with the ignition turned off, as claimed, as disclosed by Kwon, with a reasonable expectation of success, allowing operation when the ignition is off, or operating the wipers to return them to a stored position, allowing greater usage of the system for the user.
As to claim 5, Kobayashi et al., as modified by Kwon, discloses a method for controlling a windshield wiper system (1) of a vehicle (2), said system configured to clean a windshield (8) of the vehicle (2) by means of at least one wiper (4), said method comprising the following steps:
monitoring an environment of the vehicle (2) while the vehicle (2) is in a parked state (Column 7, Line 24 – Column 8, Line 6),
determining a wiper mode based on a detected condition of the environment of the vehicle (2) in the parked state (Column 7, Lines 6-43), and
operated the wiper via a drive (3) of the windshield wiper system (1) according to the wiper mode while the vehicle (2) is in the parked state (Column 7, Lines 6-43, Column 11, Lines 57-63).
Kobayashi et al. describes a stopped state, which may be considered a parked state. Kobayashi et al. does not disclose operation of the wipers in the parked state.
Kwon discloses while the vehicle (2) is in the parked state (Column 3, Lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Kobayashi et al., with the use of a wiper with the vehicle in the parked state, as claimed, as disclosed by Kwon, with a reasonable expectation of success, allowing operation when the ignition is off, or operating the wipers to return them to a stored position, allowing greater usage of the system for the user.
As to claim 6, Kobayashi et al., as modified by Kwon, discloses the method according to claim 5, and Kobayashi et al. further discloses wherein monitoring the environment of the vehicle (2) comprises identifying weather data for the environment of the vehicle, wherein the wiper mode is established as a function of the weather data (Column 7, Line 24 – Column 8, Line 6).
As to claim 7, Kobayashi et al., as modified by Kwon, discloses the method according to claim 6, and Kobayashi et al. further discloses wherein the wiper mode is selected from a plurality of predetermined wiper modes based on the detected condition (Column 7, Lines 24-43)
As to claim 10, Kobayashi et al. discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium containing instructions that when executed by a computer cause the computer to
monitor, via a sensor, an environment of a vehicle (2)(Column 7, Lines 24-43),
determining a wiper mode based on a detected condition in the environment of the vehicle (2) (Column 7, Lines 6-43, high speed, medium speed, low speed), and
operate a wiper (4) of a windshield wiper system (1) of the vehicle (2),
via a drive (3) of the windshield wiper system (1) according to the wiper mode (Column 7, Lines 6-43).
Kobayashi et al. does not disclose the ignition of the vehicle is switched off, as claimed.
Kwon discloses an ignition of the vehicle (2) is switched off (Column 3, Lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the medium of Kobayashi et al., with the use of a wiper with the vehicle switched off, as claimed, as disclosed by Kwon, with a reasonable expectation of success, allowing operation when the ignition is off, or operating the wipers to return them to a stored position, allowing greater usage of the system for the user.
As to claim 11, Kobayashi et al., as modified by Kwon, discloses a vehicle (2) comprising a windshield wiper system (1) according to claim 1 (claim 1), and Kobayashi et al. further discloses wherein the windshield wiper system (1) is connected to a server or integrated into a cloud to control the windshield wiper system via the server or via the cloud (Column 5, Lines 35-40, Column 16, Line 52 – Column 17, Line 3).
As to claim 12, Kobayashi et al., as modified by Kwon, discloses the method of claim 7. Kobayashi et al. further discloses wherein the plurality of predetermined wiper modes includes a snow wiper mode and a precipitation wiper mode (Column 7, Lines 6-43).
As to claim 14, Kobayashi et al., as modified by Kwon, discloses the method of claim 6. Kobayashi et al. further discloses wherein the wiper mode is a snow wiper mode that includes wiping of the windshield (8) with the wiper (4) in response to determining that the weather data includes a snowfall (Column 7, Line 24 – Column 8, Line 6).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al., U.S. Patent 11,904,908 B2 (2024), as modified by Kwon, U.S. Patent 7,528,500 B2 (2009), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Drake, U.S. Patent 7,337,750 B2 (2008).
As to claim 9, Kobayashi et al., as modified by Kwon, discloses the method according to claim 6. Kobayashi et al. does not disclose startling animals or persons, as claimed.
Drake discloses wherein monitoring the environment of the vehicle (2) includes detecting persons and/or animals, wherein a startle wiper mode comprises moving the wiper (4) in order to startle the animal and/or the human (Column 6, Line 65 – Column 7, Line 31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of claim 6, as disclosed by Kobayashi et al., as modified by Kwon, with the use of a wiper to startle animals, as claimed, as disclosed by Drake, with a reasonable expectation of success, allowing the back and forth motion of the wiper to startle an animal by means of the motion of the motor moving and the natural response of the animal, depending on the speed of the vehicle, if the motion will actually startle the animal.
As to claim 13, Kobayashi et al., as modified by Kwon, discloses the method of claim 12. Kobayashi et al. does not disclose a startle mode, as claimed.
Drake discloses wherein the plurality of predetermined wiper modes includes a startle wiper mode (Column 6, Line 65 – Column 7, Line 31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of claim 12, as disclosed by Kobayashi et al., as modified by Kwon, with the use of a wiper to startle animals, as claimed, as disclosed by Drake, with a reasonable expectation of success, allowing the back and forth motion of the wiper to startle an animal by means of the motion of the motor moving and the natural response of the animal, depending on the speed of the vehicle, if the motion will actually startle the animal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Kwon, U.S. Patent 7,528,500 B2 (2009) discloses control of a wiper system with the vehicle switched off. The amendment to include operation when the vehicle ignition is off would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art attempting to operate the wipers with the ignition off. Kwon explicitly describes operation with the ignition off. Combination of the references to include operation when the vehicle ignition was off would be a simple change to the disclosure of Kobayashi et al. This is further shown by Kwon et al., U.S. Patent 7,795,831 B2 (2010).
Applicant argued the amendments were not disclosed in Kobayashi et al. because of the plurality of wiper modes. Kobayashi et al. discloses “high speed”, “medium speed”, and “low speed” modes based on the amount of rainfall (Column 7, Lines 24-57).
Kobayashi et al. does not operate the modes while the vehicle is stopped. Kwon discloses operation of the wiper when the vehicle is stopped or not. The combination of the two yields the present invention.
Applicant argued the position that allows precipitation to drain off was not disclosed, but the Specification fails to disclose what position that means. A definition and a drawing would be helpful to understand the limitation of how the wiper stops precipitation from draining off the windshield.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The newly cited reference mad of record, Kwon et al., U.S. Patent 7,795,831 B2 (2010) discloses another invention from the same inventor showing wiper operation when the ignition of the vehicle is off.
Muller et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0036859 A1 discloses operation of wipers based on a rain sensor independently of the operating state of the vehicle, e.g., in the state when the engine is not running.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/MICHAEL A BERNS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667