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 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.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoyama et al (US patent application publication 2014/0331434).
The publication to Shimoyama discloses the invention substantially as is claimed. Shimoyama discloses a wiper of a wiper system (fig. 1). The wiper comprising a wiper blade (2, fig. 3) carried by a support (generally 4) and configured to wiper a glazed surface of a vehicle (para. 2). A spoiler (generally 3, fig. 3) is configured to be connected to a cleaning system (generally 13, fig. 2) distributing cleaning liquid. The spoiler comprises a body (5), wherein a spray manifold (15, fig. 2) is configured to be connected to the cleaning system. The spray manifold extends in a main direction of extension of the spoiler and comprises at least one row of spray holes (16) therealong. Either the spray hole size (cross-sectional area) or the spacing between holes (pitch) can be varied to achieve desired wetting of the surface to be wiped (paras. 8, 9, 21).
The publication to Shimoyama discloses all of the above recited subject matter with the exception of a particular spacing between spray holes, a particular size for the spray holes, a particular number of spray holes per row over a portion of the spoiler, and a total section area of spray holes. Note that the particular number of spray holes per row appears to essentially relate to a particular spacing between holes.
While Shimoyama does not specify a particular spacing between spray holes, a particular size or particular number of holes per row/particular portion of the spoiler (essentially spacing for the holes), to select such does not appear inventive. Shimoyama clearly sets forth that the size of the holes, and thus total section area, and the spacing therebetween (pitch) holes can be selected (para. 8 and 9) to achieve desired wetting of the surface to be wiped. The particulars of such spacing, size, number of holes per row (spacing) and section area appears little more than that which would be discovered by routine experimentation when optimizing the wetting of the wiper. The selection of particular spacing between holes, particular sizes for the holes, particular number or holes per row (spacing), and total section area of the holes does not appear to produce an unexpected result that is different in kind and not merely in degree from that which is disclosed by Shimoyama. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to select particular spacing, size, and thus total section area, and number of holes per row of Shimoyama, including as claimed, to optimize wetting of the surface to be wiped.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Shimoyama discloses that the spray holes can be either slit shaped (rectangular) or a combination of slit shaped and circular holes (fig. 5, para. 12).
With respect to claim 6, the manifold (15, fig. 2) comprises only one row of spray holes.
With respect to claim 7, the manifold (15) of the figure 6 embodiment includes two separate rows of holes (16, 17) aligned along the extension of the spoiler (3).
With respect to claim 8, the manifold (15, fig. 6a) comprises a distribution tube, in the same manner as applicant, with a plurality of channels, in the same manner as applicant, leading to the spray holes. Figure 6a of Shimoyama appears to illustrates such.
With respect to claim 10, while the plurality of row defined by holes (16, 17) in the figure 6a embodiment are distributed radially around the distribution tube of the manifold (15) by what appears as greater than 30 degrees, to vary such, including as claimed does not appear inventive. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to select a particular radially spacing of the rows of holes (16, 17) of Shimoyama, including as claimed, to optimize spray direction and thus wetting of the surface to be wiped.
With respect to claim 11, looking to figure 6a, the channels extending between the distribution tube and each hole (16, 17) are deemed staggered. At least to the extent claimed.
With respect to claim 12, Shimoyama suggests (para. 21) that hole size or spacing varies to achieve desired wetting. As such, Shimoyama suggests uniform distribution when hole size varies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY K GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1274. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:00pm M-F.
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 D Keller can be reached on 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.
/Gary K. Graham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
GKG
25 February 2025
Prosecution Insights