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 Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 8 recites “the base member” that should be “the elongated base member”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paulus (2,179,454).
Regarding Claim 1, Paulus teaches a windscreen wiping insert (Fig. 2) for cleaning vehicle windscreen and headlight surfaces (Fig. 7), wherein the windscreen wiping insert comprises:
an elongated base member (Ref. 1, Fig. 1&3) having a connecting element (Ref. 2', Fig. 1) for attaching the windscreen wiping insert to a windscreen wiper adapter (Ref. 2, Fig. 7);
at least one wiping blade (Ref. 3&5, Fig. 1) extending from the base member along a length thereof (Fig. 1-2, lateral length) and being deflected relative to the base member during use (Fig. 3);
wherein the at least one wiping blade has a first longitudinal side (Ref. 3, right side, Fig. 2) and an opposite second longitudinal side (Ref. 3, left side, Fig. 2);
at least one row of brushes (Ref. 4, Fig. 1-4) arranged along the length of the base member (Fig. 1); and
wherein the at least one row of brushes (4) is integrated directly into the at least one wiping blade (Fig. 2) such that the at least one row of brushes projects from either the first longitudinal side or the second longitudinal side of the at least one wiping blade (Fig. 1-3 shows bristles extending from both the first and second longitudinal side (3)).
Regarding Claim 3, Paulus teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the at least one row of brushes (4) is provided with bristles (Ref. 4, Fig. 2-4); and wherein the bristles are threaded through the at least one wiping blade (Fig. 1-2 shows the bristles threaded through the one wiping blade (5)).
Regarding Claim 5, Paulus teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the at least one row of brushes is built into the at least one wiping blade so that a plane (Fig. 2, shows a lateral plane of the brushes) defined by the at least one row of brushes is arranged perpendicular to a center plane (See annotated Fig. 1 below, plane extending through the center of the wiping blade) extending along the length of the at least one wiping blade (Fig. 1, if applicant intended for the plane to have a specific orientation relative to the row of brushes such a limitation was not required).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Paulus teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein a width of the at least one wiping blade (Fig. 2 shows the width of the wiper blade (3&5)) is larger than a width of the at least one row of brushes projecting (Fig. 2 shows the width of the row of brushes (4)) from the wiping blade (Fig. 2) such that when the at least one wiping blade is being deflected relative to the base member during use (Fig. 3), a free end of the at least one wiping blade (Ref. 3, Fig. 2, bottom surface)and a free end of the at least one row of brushes (Ref. 4, bottom surface Fig. 1&2) arranged preceding the at least one wiping blade in a direction of travel thereof (Fig. 3), are in contact with the vehicle windscreen and headlight surfaces to be cleaned (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Paulus teaches A windscreen wiper (Fig. 1) for cleaning an outer surface of a vehicle's windscreens and headlights (fig. 7), wherein the windscreen wiper comprises:
a windscreen wiper adapter (Ref. 2, Fig. 7);
a replaceable windscreen wiping insert (Fig. 1) selectively engageable with the windscreen wiper adapter (Fig. 7), wherein the replaceable windscreen wiping insert comprises:
an elongated base member (Ref. 1, Fig. 1-3) having a connecting element (Ref. 2', Fig 1) for attaching the windscreen wiping insert to the windscreen wiper adapter (Fig. 7);
a wiping blade (Ref. 3&5, Fig. 1) extending from the base member along a length thereof (Fig. 1-2, lateral length) and being deflected relative to the base member during use (Fig. 3), wherein the wiping blade has first longitudinal side (Ref. 3, right side, Fig. 2) opposite a second longitudinal side (Ref. 3, left side, Fig. 2);
a row of brushes (Ref. 4, Fig. 1-4) arranged along the length of the base member (Fig. 1); and
wherein the row of brushes (4) is integrated directly into the wiping blade (Fig. 2) such that the row of brushes projects from either of the first longitudinal side or the second longitudinal side of the wiping blade (Fig. 1-3 shows bristles extending from both the first and second longitudinal side (3)).
Regarding Claim 9, Paulus teaches a windscreen wiping insert (Fig. 1) as part of a windscreen wiper (Fig. 7), said method comprising:
providing a wiping blade (Ref. 3&5, Fig. 1) on the windscreen wiping insert (Fig. 1); and
forming a row of brushes (Ref. 4, Fig. 1-2) on the wiping blade (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Paulus teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further teaches wherein forming the row of brushes on the wiping blade includes threading the row of brushes through the wiping blade (Fig. 1-2 shows the bristles threaded through the one wiping blade).
Regarding Claim 14, Paulus teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further teaches wherein the at least one row of brushes (4) is made integrally with the wiping blade (Fig. 1&3).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feigebaum (5,732,436).
Regarding Claim 2, Paulus teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the at least one wiping blade is made of a rubber material ([Lines 51-52] describes the blade made of rubber). Paulus fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one wiping blade is made of a mixture of natural and synthetic rubber. Feigebaum teaches a windscreen wiping insert and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Feigebaum teaches wherein the at least one wiping blade is made of a mixture of natural and synthetic rubber ([Col. 2, Lines 33-35] describes wiper blades being made of a natural and synthetic rubber blend). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the rubber, as taught by Paulus, to be a natural and synthetic rubber blend, as taught by Feigebaum, by simple substitution since such a modification would yield the predictable result of creating a rubber wiping blade and cleaning a vehicle windscreen.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of White (4,480,350).
Regarding Claim 4, Paulus teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the at least one row of brushes is made from any material that will not mar the windshield wiper ([Lines 22-26]). White teaches a brush assembly with bristles and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to clean a surface. White teaches that bristles for cleaning a surface are made of a mixture of natural and synthetic rubber ([Col. 2, Lines 21-23]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the brush, as taught by Paulus, to be a mixture of natural and synthetic rubber, as taught by White, by simple substitution since such a modification would yield the predictable result of cleaning a surface.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (KR20100119040).
Regarding Claim 7, Paulus teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one wiping blade or the at least one row of brushes are provided with a protective coating. Lee teaches a windscreen wiping insert with a blade and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Lee teaches wherein the at least one wiping blade are provided with a protective coating ([Abstract] describes a cloth coating the wiping blade). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the at least one wiping blade, as taught by Lee, with a protective coating, as taught by Lee, to help defrost a windshield and absorb moisture ([Abstract]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulus as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Altonen (2011/0318518).
Regarding Claim 11, Paulus teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further teaches wherein forming the row of brushes includes the row of brushes integrally with the wiping blade (Fig. 2). Paulus fails to explicitly teach wherein forming the row of brushes includes injection molding the row of brushes integrally with the wiping blade. Altonen teaches manufacturing a brush assembly with bristles and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to provide a tool with bristles to clean a surface. Altonen teaches forming a row of brushes includes injection molding the row of brushes integrally with a body ([0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the row of brushes, as taught by Paulus, to be injection molded, as taught by Altonen, to simplify manufacturing by eliminating steps of bristle formation, bundling, and attachment ([0054]) and since such a modification would yield the predictable result of forming bristles to clean a surface.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulus as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ulbrich (NPL).
Regarding Claim 12, Paulus teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further teaches wherein the at least one row of brushes is made from a material, wherein the material is one of plastic, titanium, tungsten, and any other metal or metal alloy, and wherein the material has a hardness less than that of glass ([Lines 22-25] describes the material will not mar the windshield and to be made of fine wire, examiner notes fine wire is known in the art to be a metal wire such as steel as suggested by Ulbrich).
Regarding Claim 13, Paulus teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further teaches wherein the at least one row of brushes is made from one of copper, brass, aluminum, mild steel, or a combination thereof ([Lines 22-25] describes the material will not mar the windshield and to be made of fine wire, examiner notes fine wire is known in the art to be a metal wire such as steel as suggested by Ulbrich).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulus as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Feigebaum (5,732,436).
Regarding Claim 15, Paulus teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and given the teaching of White that the bristles are made of a mixture of natural and synthetic rubber, Paulus further teaches wherein the at least one wiping blade and the at least one row of brushes is made of rubber is made of a rubber material ([Lines 51-52] describes the wiper made of rubber). Paulus as modified fails to explicitly teach the at least one wiping blade is made of a mixture of natural and synthetic rubber that is the same as the at least one row of brushes. Feigebaum teaches a windscreen wiping insert and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Feigebaum teaches wherein the at least one wiping blade is made of a mixture of natural and synthetic rubber ([Col. 2, Lines 33-35] describes wiper blades being made of a natural and synthetic rubber blend). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the rubber, as taught by Paulus, to be a natural and synthetic rubber blend, as taught by Feigebaum, by simple substitution since such a modification would yield the predictable result of creating a rubber wiping blade and cleaning a vehicle windscreen. Thereby having the at least one wiping blade and the at least one row of brushes being the same material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Szucs (WO 8302756 A1), Currie (5,916,660), Meredith (7,013,525), and Cavenago (5,048,146) teaches a wiper blade with a blade and brushes and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights