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 .
Claims 1-8 are pending
Claims 6-7 are withdrawn
Claims 1-5 are amended
Claim 8 is new
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Almeida et al. US 2017/0225654 (US’654) in view of Natsume US 2010/0139025 (US’025).
Regarding claim 1, US’654 teaches a method for operating a wiper device of a vehicle (a wiper motor to move a wiper over a vehicle exterior surface, abstract), which has a wiper arm for receiving a wiper blade (wiper components include a wiper arm that holds a wiper blade, para. 32, see fig. 1-2), a wiper drive for driving the wiper arm (a motor or other mechanism for powering movement of the wiper arm and blade, para. 11-14 and 32, see fig. 3) and a computer for controlling a wiping movement of the wiper arm by the wiper drive (wiper control module, para. 44-58, see fig. 3), the computer having a memory on which a park position assigned to a position of the wiper drive for the vehicle when moving is stored (the wiper control module 34 can rely on the vehicle speed data to place the wipers 28R, 28L in the proper position, the wiper control module has two Park positions, Park 1 and Park 2, saved and uses information to decide which of the two positions to park the wipers, the wiper control module 34 may also be programmed to park in more positions than two to provide enhanced aerodynamics, para. 55-60 and 102-103, see fig. 4).
US’654 does not teach wherein, in a adjustment step, the computer corrects the park position as a function of a speed parameter of the vehicle, wherein the speed parameter is a non-zero speed.
US’025 teaches a wiper system and a wiper control method (abstract). The control unit 22 increases the rotational force of the wiper motor 18 when the head wind, which is applied to the traveling vehicle, is increased due to an increase in the speed of the vehicle. Contrary to this, the control unit 22 decreases the rotational force of the wiper motor 18 when the head wind, which is applied to the traveling vehicle, is reduced due to a decrease in the speed of the vehicle. The control unit 22, controls the rotational direction of the wiper motor 18 to apply the rotational force to the wiper 14, 16 in the downward direction, and the control unit 22 also controls the rotational force of the wiper motor 18 in response to the speed of the vehicle in such a manner that the wiper 14, 16 is substantially maintained at the lower return position P2. as shown in FIG. 5, a duty ratio of the PWM signal, which is outputted to the wiper motor 18, is proportional to the speed (vehicle speed) of the vehicle. Furthermore, the duty ratio of this PWM signal is set to be smaller than the duty ratio immediately before starting of the movement of the wiper 14, 16. The rotational direction of the wiper motor 18 is controlled to apply the rotational force to the wiper 14, 16 in the downward direction. In this way, it is possible to limit the upward lifting of the wiper 14, 16 from the lower return position P2 toward the upper return position P1 caused by the wind pressure of the head wind, which is applied to the traveling vehicle (para. 28-58). Therefore, US’025 teaches that the wiper blades are pushed in the downward direction as the vehicle speed increases and that different wiper positions will require different counter acting forces proportional to the vehicle speed due to increased wind force. As discussed above, US’654 teaches the wiper control module 34 may also be programmed to park in more positions than two to provide enhanced aerodynamics, para. 102-103. As a result, the combined teachings of US’654 and US’025 suggest to select the more than two park positions of US’654 to provide enhanced aerodynamics based on vehicle speed to counteract the known higher wind pressure at higher speed as taught by US’025.
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 method of US’654 to include wherein, in a adjustment step, the computer corrects the park position as a function of a speed parameter of the vehicle, wherein the speed parameter is a non-zero speed because the combined teachings of US’654 and US’025 suggest to select the more than two park positions of US’654 to provide enhanced aerodynamics based on vehicle speed to counteract the known higher wind pressure at higher speed as taught by US’025.
Regarding claim 2, the modified method of US’654 teaches the method of claim 1 of operating a wiper device. The modified method of US’654 further teaches wherein the computer, in the adjustment step, drives the wiper drive to move from the park position to a corrected park position as a function of a speed of the vehicle (as discussed above, the combined teachings of US’654 and US’025 suggest to select the more than two park positions of US’654 to provide enhanced aerodynamics based on vehicle speed to counteract the known higher wind pressure at higher speed as taught by US’025).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of US’654 teaches the method of claim 2 of operating a wiper device. The modified method of US’654 further teaches wherein the corrected park position is located in an upswing direction relative to the park position (as discussed above the combined teachings of US’654 and US’025 suggest to select the more than two park positions of US’654 based on vehicle speed to counteract the known higher wind pressure at higher speed, therefore at least one of the positions would be positioned higher than the other).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of US’654 teaches the method of claim 2 of operating a wiper device. The modified method of US’654 further teaches wherein the computer, in the adjustment step, drives the wiper drive to move from the park position into the corrected park position at a defined speed of the vehicle stored on the memory (as discussed above, the combined teachings of US’654 and US’025 suggest to select the more than two park positions of US’654 to provide enhanced aerodynamics based on vehicle speed to counteract the known higher wind pressure at higher speed as taught by US’025).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method of US’654 teaches the method of claim 2 of operating a wiper device. The modified method of US’654 further teaches the wiper arm is moved at speeds greater than or equal to the defined speed by an air incident flow acting on a wiper blade connected to the wiper arm, from the corrected park position into a further rest position which corresponds at least approximately to the park position (As discussed above, the wind pressure acting on the wiper blade resulting from the vehicle speed is taken into account when selecting the wiper blade position, therefore an air incident flow acting on a wiper blade induces the controller to move the wiper blade because the air flow is directly related to the vehicle speed).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method of US’654 teaches the method of claim 5 of operating a wiper device. The modified method of US’654 further teaches wherein the wiper drive remains in the corrected park position (US’654 teaches the wiper control module 34 may also be programmed to park in more positions than two to provide enhanced aerodynamics, para. 102-103, therefore the programed positions are park positions and will require the wiper blade to remain in the corrected position for at least some amount of time)
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1 to incorporate subject matter regarding the park position and speed parameter has changed the scope of claim 1. However, the teachings of US’654 in view of US’025 still reads on the limitation recited. Therefore, a new ground(s) of rejection of claim 1 is made under 103 as obvious over US’654 in view of US’025 which includes both the rejection of claim 1 as stated in the non-final office action and additional discussion regarding the teachings of US’025 regarding the newly added subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-15-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., movement to the lower return position is achieved aerodynamically only and moving the wiper to Park 1 position by the actions of the wind force only.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As discussed above, the wind pressure acting on the wiper blade resulting from the vehicle speed is taken into account when selecting the wiper blade position, therefore an air incident flow acting on a wiper blade induces the controller to move the wiper blade because the air flow is directly related to the vehicle speed. Therefore, the assertion is not that the wind force acts to push the wiper blades, but that as a result of the wind force, the wiper blades are moved. The recitation of “the wiper arm is moved ... by an air incident flow acting on a wiper blade ...from the corrected park position into a further rest” can broadly read on the air incident flow being a variable taken into account when moving the blade and not the sole or only movement inducing force.
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 ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713