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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/10/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. The examiner is re-opening and thus sending out a non-final action.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (KR 101782092; See English Machine Translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a wiper blade control system for a vehicle (abstract, figs 1-3), said wiper blade control system comprising: a wiper blade (6a/11); a control unit (300); a temperature sensor (400); and a wiper blade elevation actuator (100/200) coupled to the wiper blade and operable to move the wiper blade onto and off a vehicle windshield (para 0018), wherein the control unit is connected to the temperature sensor and to the wiper blade elevation actuator (para 0019 and 0025).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches wherein the temperature sensor provides an indication of an external temperature to the control unit (para 0017-0018 and 0025).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches wherein the wiper blade elevation actuator is operable to lift the wiper blade to a raised position in which the wiper blade is raised off and away from a windshield in response to a first signal from the control unit (para 0025), and to lower the wiper blade from the raised position onto the windshield so that the wiper blade is again in contact with the windshield in response to a second signal from the control unit (para 0027).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches wherein, in the raised position, the wiper blade overlaps the windshield and is not in contact with the windshield (para 0018-0019 and 0025; separated from windshield).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches wherein the wiper blade is part of a set of wiper blades that are connected to the wiper blade elevation actuator (para 0007, 0011, and 0030) and wherein the wiper blade elevation actuator is configured to raise the set of wiper blades off a windshield in response to a first signal from the control unit and to lower the wiper blades (para 0007, 0011, and 0030).
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 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 101782092; See English Machine Translation provided) and further in view of Brown et al. (U.S Patent 9,783,166).
Regarding claim 3, Park fails to teach at least one windshield monitoring camera and at least one windshield precipitation monitor both of which provide an output to the control unit. However, Brown also teaches a windshield cleaning and wiping system wherein at least one windshield monitoring camera (26) and at least one windshield precipitation monitor (24) (col 2 lines 2-10) both of which provide an output to the control unit (col 2 lines 25-35 and lines 45-50) in order to determine an action to be taken on the windshield. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Park such that there is at least one windshield monitoring camera and at least one windshield precipitation monitor both of which provide an output to the control unit as taught by Brown in order to determine an action to be taken on the windshield.
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches temperature sensor, but fails to teach wherein said temperature sensor provides an indication of an internal temperature to the control unit. However, Brown also teaches a windshield cleaning and wiping system wherein said temperature sensor provides an indication of an internal temperature to the control unit (claim 10 and col 2 lines 45-50; temperature of the windshield reads on internal temperature) in order to achieve the predicable result of detecting a condition of the windshield for determining an action to be taken. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park such that wherein said temperature sensor also provides an indication of an internal temperature to the control unit as taught by Brown in order to detect a condition of the windshield for determining an action to be taken.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADHUMAN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached on 571-272-1344. 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.
/P.P/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights