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 .
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In particular, in the preamble of independent claim 1 a wiping apparatus for removing a liquid from a surface of strip of metal being conveyed. It appears that the wiping apparatus is being claimed as intended to be used for contacting a strip of metal. However, several dependent claims require flat face of the first wiper be contactable with rolled face of the strip (claim 2); a first wiper extends along a strip width direction of the strip (claim 3) or in direction oblique to strip width direction (claim 4); conveying direction of the strip (claim 5 and 7); and strip thickness direction (claim 8). It is not clear based on independent claim 1 and dependent claims whether the invention relates to a wiping apparatus having a wiping member and strip of metal or wiping apparatus that is configured to wipe a strip of metal.
Moreover, the Applicant’s amendment to the preamble regarding the surfaces of the strip does not overcome the issues with this rejection as it relates to indefiniteness since the specification at paragraph [0014] identifies the wiping apparatus as numeral (10) and the strip is “S”. For purposes of the examination, the claims are interpreted as a wiping apparatus that is configured to clean a strip.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
2. 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 1-4, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication (2017/0080901) to Houssat et al. in view of U.S. Patent (11,577,700) to Kim.
Regarding independent claim 1, Houssat et al. teaches a wiping member (1) having a flat face disposed to be contactable with the surface of the strip (See paragraphs [0025] and [0043] of Houssat et al.). However, Houssat et al. is silent regarding that the wiping member is formed from a graphite fiber reinforced resin composite material. Kim teaches a method of making a wiper blade. Kim teaches that the blade composition may include graphite reinforced with resin powder (See Col. 1 lines 15-20; Col. 4 lines 34-40 and claim 7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Houssat et al. with Kim to include the combination of graphite reinforced with resin powder in order to improve the durability of the wiper blade as taught in Kim.
Regarding claim 2, Houssat et al. with Kim teaches having a first wiper (8) including the wiping member (1) having the flat face (See FIG. 3) disposed to be contactable with a rolled face of the strip (configured to contact a metal strip). As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Houssat et al. with Kim to include the combination of graphite reinforced with resin powder in order to improve the durability of the wiper blade as taught in Kim.
Regarding claim 3, Houssat et al. with Kim teaches that the wiping member (1) of the first wiper (3) extends along a strip width direction of the strip (configured to contact the strip).
Regarding claim 4, Houssat et al. with Kim teaches that the wiping member (1) of the first wiper (8) extends in a direction oblique to a strip width direction of the strip (capable when tilted at 90 degree angle relative to the metal strip). As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Houssat et al. with Kim to include the combination of graphite reinforced with resin powder in order to improve the durability of the wiper blade as taught in Kim.
Regarding claim 9, Houssat et al. with Kim teaches a second wiper (8) including the wiping member (1) having the flat face disposed to be contactable with an end face of the strip in a strip width direction.
Regarding claim 11, Houssat et al. with Kim teaches a pressing part (8) configured to press the wiping member (1) toward the surface of the strip (configured to press towards a metal strip). As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Houssat et al. with Kim to include the combination of graphite reinforced with resin powder in order to improve the durability of the wiper blade as taught in Kim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication (2017/0080901) to Houssat et al. in view of U.S. Patent (5,777,700) to Kim and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication (2003/0146418) to Chacko.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Houssat et al. and Kim are silent regarding that the graphite fiber reinforced resin composite material includes a polyimide graphite fiber reinforced composite. However, Chacko teaches a wiper (20) that includes polyimide graphite fiber. Chacko teaches that polyimides are useful for bonding that can withstand high temperatures (See paragraph [0016]; [0046] and claim 9). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Houssat et al. and Kim with Chacko in order to polyimide graphite fiber in order to provide better bonding as taught in Chacko.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed on May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 fails to overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections despite Applicant’s assertion. The Applicant’s amendment to the preamble regarding the surfaces of the strip does not overcome the issues with this rejection as it relates to indefiniteness since the specification at paragraph [0014] identifies the wiping apparatus as numeral (10) and the strip is “S.
Further, the Applicant contends that the combination of U.S. Patent Publication (2017/0080901) to Houssat et al. in view of U.S. Patent (11,577,700) to Kim fails to render claim 1 obvious. The Applicant argues that neither Houssat et al. and Kim to teach a wiper blade formed a graphite fiber reinforced resin composite material, as required in independent claim 1. The Applicant alleges that Kim in particular, teaches that the graphite function as a solid lubricant and does not reinforce a resin material. The Applicant further contends that Kim does not disclose graphite fiber and even assuming that Kim discloses “graphite reinforced with resin powder” such resin powder does not correspond to a “graphite fiber reinforced resin composite material”, as required in claim 1 (See Remarks at page 6).
Kim is the present rejection is used to teach a wiper blade formed with a graphite fiber reinforced resin composite material since Houssat et al. is silent regarding that element of claim 1. However, Kim teaches a wiper blade made with a solid lubricant. The solid lubricant may include boron nitride alone or in combination of two or more as long as it satisfies performance. The solid lubricant may include a graphite, silicon resin powder, silicone rubber powder (See Col. 4 lines 25-40 and claim 7 of Kim). The solid lubricant described in Kim is a graphite material that is reinforced with resin composite material as made clear in the teachings of Kim. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. 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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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 D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights