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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on January 23, 2025. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 11-14 have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claim 1 on January 23, 2025.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are considered sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, which previously indicated the claims as being anticipated by Moneyron (US PG Pub No. 20190031152). However they are not considered to have overcome the art applied in the rejection. See the updated rejection, depending upon Moneyron, addressing the newly added limitations.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-10, filed January 23, 2025 have been fully considered.
Claim Objections: The examiner agrees with the applicant, and the claim objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejection 102: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and its dependents have been considered. The applicant argues that Moneyron fails to disclose the amended limitation a head including first and second studs extending along lateral walls. Upon consideration, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the rejection set forth in this action, wherein the examiner identifies the structure of Moneyron that reads on the limitations, showing that Moneyron does indeed provide structure that reads on a head, studs, and extends longitudinally towards the end of the adapter wherein the lug resides.
New Claims: The examiner agrees that the support for the new claims is present within the applicant’s disclosure and no new matter was added.
Claim Interpretation
Integral: Applicant recites “integral” in claims 1 and 7. Within the “Description” section of the provided specification, the term “integral” is used as follows: “More particularly, the adapter is arranged
between the wiper arm and a connector which is connected to the wiper. The adapter is thus integral with the wiper arm, and more particularly with a cover of the wiper arm. Cooperation of this type between the adapter and the cover is removable, such that it makes it possible to change the wiper arm when it is worn.” As such, “integral” is understood as meaning “connected”.
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 –
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moneyron (US PG Pub No. 20190031152).
In regards to claim 1, Moneyron discloses
an adapter (adapter 26, fig. 1-15; [0064]: adapter 26 provides the connection of the windscreen wiper 12 to the drive are 14) for securing a wiper (windscreen wiper 12, fig. 1-4; [0062]) on an arm of a wiping system, the adapter (adapter 26; fig. 1-15; [0064]) comprising:
a longitudinal direction (see fig. 3 – ann. 1), and is configured to be fitted such as to pivot around an axis of rotation (axis Y-Y, fig. 2-3, 12; [0062]) on a connector (connector 24, fig. 2-3, 12; [0062]) of the wiper (windscreen wiper 12, fig. 1-4; [0062]),
[0062] The adapter 26 which is fixed to the arm 14 is mounted on the connector 24 so as to permit a degree of freedom in rotation about a transverse axis of articulation Y-Y which is substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the windscreen wiper 12.
at least two lateral walls (at least lateral wall 26a, 26b, and branches 65a, 65b; fig. 5-12),
PNG
media_image1.png
313
969
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein:
the at least two lateral walls are opposite one another in a transverse direction of the adapter (see fig. 10 – ann. 1), and
PNG
media_image2.png
404
926
media_image2.png
Greyscale
are connected to one another by an upper wall (upper horizontal wall 26c, fig. 11-12), such that the at least two lateral walls (at least lateral wall 26a, 26b, and branches 65a, 65b; fig. 5-12) and the upper wall (upper horizontal wall 26c, fig. 11-12) form a body of the adapter (see fig. 11 – ann. 1) which delimits at least partly a receipt space for the connector (connector 24, fig. 2-3, 12; [0062]), and such that the upper wall has a level (see fig. 11 – ann. 1),
PNG
media_image3.png
342
839
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the upper wall (upper horizontal wall 26c, fig. 11-12) is extended longitudinally by at least one lug (bar 64, fig. 3, 6, 10-12, 14-15), from which there extends at least one resiliently deformable tongue (at least resilient branch 62a, 62b and longitudinal edge 61a, 61b; fig. 3, 5-12, 14-15; [0104]) supporting a blocking unit (at least rear locking notch 60a, 60b and transverse face 63a, 63b, fig. 3-5, 10-12; [0107-0109]),
the blocking unit (at least rear locking notch 60a, 60b and transverse face 63a, 63b, fig. 3-5, 10-12; [0107-0109]) is designed to lock the adapter relative to the arm;
[0095] These rear locking means of the adapter 26 comprise at least one rear locking notch 60a, 60b which is arranged at one end of an associated resilient branch 62a, 62b of the adapter 26.
at least one limitation unit (vertical guide ramp 66a, 66b, fig. 14-15; [0112-0117]) capable of limitation of the displacement of the resiliently deformable tongue (at least resilient branch 62a, 62b and longitudinal edge 61a, 61b; fig. 3, 5-12, 14-15; [0104]),
the at least one limitation unit extends (see fig. 14 – ann. 1) between the body of the adapter and the blocking unit (at least rear locking notch 60a, 60b and transverse face 63a, 63b, fig. 3-5, 10-12; [0107-0109]).
PNG
media_image4.png
356
848
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the at least one limitation unit (vertical guide ramp 66a, 66b, fig. 14-15; [0112-0117]) comprises a securing end integral with at least one of the two lateral walls (see fig. 14 – ann. 1; the end adjacent to respective branches 65a and 65b) and a connecting end (end adjacent to respective longitudinal ends 61a and 61b) integral with the at least one resiliently deformable tongue (at least resilient branch 62a, 62b and longitudinal edge 61a, 61b; fig. 3, 5-12, 14-15; [0104]), and
wherein the at least one resiliently deformable tongue is integral firstly with [[the]]a free edge of the at least one lug (see fig. 14 – ann. 8) and secondly with the connecting end of the at least one limitation unit (vertical guide ramp 66a, 66b, fig. 14-15; [0112-0117]; see fig. 14 – ann. 8); and
PNG
media_image5.png
356
848
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a head (see fig. 11 – ann. 2) comprising a first stud and a second stud extending along lateral walls of the adapter in the longitudinal direction of the adapter (see fig. 11 – ann. 2) towards an end of the adapter which supports the at least one lug (see fig. 11 – ann. 2).
PNG
media_image6.png
498
753
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s note: Moneyron discloses that the adapter part is formed as an single part:
[0061] The adapter 26 in this case is a part produced by moulding in a single piece and it has a symmetry of design relative to a median longitudinal and vertical plane. Preferably, the adapter according to the invention is produced from plastics material.
As Moneyron is formed of a single part, the limitations of elements being “integral” with each other is anticipated, as the elements would be connected to each other by being a component within a single, molded part.
In regards to claim 2, Moneyron discloses
the adapter (adapter 26; fig. 1-15; [0064]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one limitation unit (vertical guide ramp 66a, 66b, fig. 14-15; [0112-0117]) projects from an outer face of at least one of the at least two lateral walls (at least lateral wall 26a, 26b, and branches 65a, 65b; fig. 5-12) of the body (see fig. 14 – ann. 2).
PNG
media_image7.png
356
848
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Moneyron discloses
the adapter (adapter 26; fig. 1-15; [0064]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one limitation unit (vertical guide ramp 66a, 66b, fig. 14-15; [0112-0117]) projects from the at least one of the at least two lateral walls (at least lateral wall 26a, 26b, and branches 65a, 65b; fig. 5-12) at the level of the upper wall (upper horizontal wall 26c, fig. 11-12).
PNG
media_image8.png
356
1014
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, Moneyron discloses
the adapter (adapter 26; fig. 1-15; [0064]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one limitation unit (vertical guide ramp 66a, 66b, fig. 14-15; [0112-0117]) projects from the at least one of the at least two lateral walls (at least lateral wall 26a, 26b, and branches 65a, 65b; fig. 5-12) while going away from the upper wall (upper horizontal wall 26c, fig. 11-12).
PNG
media_image9.png
356
1014
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, Moneyron discloses
the adapter (adapter 26; fig. 1-15; [0064]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one limitation unit (vertical guide ramp 66a, 66b, fig. 14-15; [0112-0117]) extends in a direction which intersects a plane on which the at least one of the at least two lateral walls (at least lateral wall 26a, 26b, and branches 65a, 65b; fig. 5-12) is inscribed.
PNG
media_image10.png
356
1031
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 6, Moneyron discloses
the adapter (adapter 26; fig. 1-15; [0064]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one limitation unit (vertical guide ramp 66a, 66b, fig. 14-15; [0112-0117]) comprises at least two parts which form a non-zero angle relative to one another.
PNG
media_image11.png
356
1083
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 7, Moneyron discloses
the adapter (adapter 26; fig. 1-15; [0064]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one limitation unit (vertical guide ramp 66a, 66b, fig. 14-15; [0112-0117]) comprises at least one securing end which is integral with the body of the adapter (see fig. 14 – ann. 7), and one connection end which is integral with the tongue (at least resilient branch 62a, 62b and longitudinal edge 61a, 61b; fig. 3, 5-12, 14-15; [0104]).
PNG
media_image12.png
356
1083
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 8, Moneyron discloses
the adapter (adapter 26; fig. 1-15; [0064]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the tongue (at least resilient branch 62a, 62b and longitudinal edge 61a, 61b; fig. 3, 5-12, 14-15; [0104]) comprises at least one grasping area (region adjacent to transverse faces 63a, 63b, fig. 14-15) positioned on the blocking unit (at least rear locking notch 60a, 60b and transverse face 63a, 63b, fig. 3-5, 10-12; [0107-0109]), with the area for grasping of the tongue (at least resilient branch 62a, 62b and longitudinal edge 61a, 61b; fig. 3, 5-12, 14-15; [0104]) comprising at least one guide element (longitudinal edge 61a, 61b, fig. 14-15) which extends in the longitudinal direction (see fig. 3 – ann. 1) of the adapter.
In regards to claim 9, Moneyron discloses
the adapter (adapter 26; fig. 1-15; [0064]) as claimed in claim 8, wherein the guide element (longitudinal edge 61a, 61b, fig. 14-15) comprises a guide surface (surface of 61a, see fig. 14) which is configured to translate along a cover of the arm of the wiping system.
In regards to claim 10, Moneyron discloses
a wiper (windscreen wiper 12, fig. 1-4; [0062]) comprising;
at least one wiper blade (blade 18, fig. 1);
a connector (connector 24, fig. 2-3, 12; [0062]); and
an adapter (adapter 26; fig. 1-15; [0064]) as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the at least one wiper blade is supported directly or indirectly by the connector (connector 24, fig. 2-3, 12; [0062]), and
wherein the adapter (adapter 26; fig. 1-15; [0064]) is fitted such as to pivot relative to the connector (connector 24, fig. 2-3, 12; [0062]).
In regards to claim 11, Moneyron discloses
the adapter as claimed in claim 1, wherein the head further comprises a shoulder extending transversely and longitudinally beyond a body of the adapter (see fig. 11 – ann. 3).
PNG
media_image13.png
511
753
media_image13.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12, Moneyron discloses
the adapter as claimed in claim 1, wherein the blocking unit (at least rear locking notch 60a, 60b and transverse face 63a, 63b, fig. 3-5, 10-12; [0107-0109]) further comprises a first lateral chamfer and a second lateral chamfer (see fig. 11 – ann. 4), each positioned at a longitudinal end (see fig. 11 – ann. 4) of the blocking unit and extends all of a vertical dimension of the blocking unit (the limitation of “a vertical dimension” does not necessitate the entire height, from top to bottom, of the blocking unit. As such, the vertical dimension the chamfer of Moneyron occupies is that of the chamfer’s top and bottom, which appears to be about half of the blocking unit; see fig. 11).
PNG
media_image14.png
537
999
media_image14.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moneyron.
In regards to claim 13, Moneyron discloses
the adapter as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the at least one resiliently deformable tongue (at least resilient branch 62a, 62b and longitudinal edge 61a, 61b; fig. 3, 5-12, 14-15; [0104]) further comprises a bar (see fig. 11 – ann. 5) extending from a free edge of the at least one lug (see fig. 14 – ann. 8), and
extended longitudinally and transversely by the blocking unit (at least rear locking notch 60a, 60b and transverse face 63a, 63b, fig. 3-5, 10-12; [0107-0109]), the at least one resiliently deformable tongue (at least resilient branch 62a, 62b and longitudinal edge 61a, 61b; fig. 3, 5-12, 14-15; [0104]) and the free edge of the at least one lug (see fig. 14 – ann. 8) form a hinge area (see fig. 11 – ann. 5), and a vertical dimension of the blocking unit is greater than a vertical dimension of the hinge area (see fig. 11 – ann. 5).
Examiner’s Note:
While Moneyron doesn’t explicitly disclose the blocking unit being thicker in vertical dimension than a hinge area, pursuant of MPEP 2144.IV.A, 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. As such, to change the hinge area thickness relative to the blocking unit thickness would be a design choice and within the abilities of a skilled artisan.
In regards to claim 14, Moneyron as modified discloses
the adapter as claimed in claim 13, wherein the bar and the blocking unit (at least rear locking notch 60a, 60b and transverse face 63a, 63b, fig. 3-5, 10-12; [0107-0109]) are capable of extending relative to one another according to an angle of between 30° and 175° (see fig. 12 – ann. 1 ).
PNG
media_image15.png
328
807
media_image15.png
Greyscale
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 JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723