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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merit for claims 1, 4 – 8 and 10 – 13. Claims 2 – 3 and 9 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US patent application publication 2015/0020341).
The publication to Huang discloses the invention as is claimed.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Huang teaches a windscreen wiper (Fig. 2) for a vehicle (para. 2). The wiper comprising a longitudinal wiper blade (soft wiper strip, 5), a longitudinal fairing (Fig. 2) including a central mounting (main cover, 1); an end cap (auxiliary covers, 3) disposed at a distal end of the central mounting (1); a caliper (frames, 4 with main frame, 4a and subframe, 4b; Fig. 2) with at least two claws (claws, 42) for retaining the longitudinal wiper blade (5; Fig. 5), the caliper (Fig. 2) combined with a reinforcing portion (4a) secured together by a pivot pin to form a body portion (Fig. 5); an adapter element (fixing seat, 2) fixed to the central mounting (1) at a distal end thereof (Fig. 3), wherein the adapter element (2) further includes the reinforcing portion (4a) and the caliper (4b) extending with said claws (42) extending from a distal end of the adapter element (2, as assembled, the reinforcing portion extends from a distal end of fixed seat, 2); the caliper (4b) nested within the reinforcing portion (4a);;and the body portion (Fig. 5) configured to clip within each cavity of the central mounting and end cap and be configured to retain the central mounting and end cap together (Paragraph [0029]).
Huang further teaches the reinforcing portion (4a) having a reduced width relative to a width of the adapter element (2; as shown in Fig. 2; further 4a is inserted into fixing seat, 2, thus would have to have a reduced width relative to a width of adapter); the reinforcing portion (4a) engaging a complementary structure in the end cap (3; Paragraph [0041]): a proximal end of the end cap (3) and the caliper (4) being pivotably articulated to the adapter element (2; Paragraph [0041]) but does not explicitly teach walls of the caliper taper into a form of an elongated hexagonal shape within the reinforcing portion and along a longitudinal direction of the adapter element.
Examiner, however, notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in having the specific shape to provide any unexpected result and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering an optimum shape involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art; therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the caliper of Huang to further include walls of the caliper taper into a form of an elongated hexagonal shape within the reinforcing portion and along a longitudinal direction of the adapter element, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the
shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, the reinforcing portion (4a) engaging a complimentary structure in the end cap (3), wherein the complimentary structure comprises two parallel ribs extending from a lower surface of the end caps where the reinforcing portion is lodged therebetween and engages such at least via pins (31) which extend from the ribs. Note figure 2 which shows the end caps as U-shaped in cross section which establishes side walls or ribs thereof extending from an upper wall. The caliper (4) is accommodated in a space provided between such ribs (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, the reinforcing portion noted above is U-shaped around the aperture provided in the side walls (2b).
Regarding claim 6, note the pivot pin clearly shown in figure 3 for joining the caliper (4) with the adapter element (2).
Regarding claim 7, note pivot portions (25) for the end caps and pivot portions (26) for the calipers establish distinct axes for such. Note articulation pins (31, fig. 2) for the end caps which engage the pivot portions (25).
Regarding claim 10, the wiper of Huang (fig. 2) is for a vehicle as noted above.
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Huang teaches a windscreen wiper (Fig. 2) for a vehicle (para. 2). The wiper comprising a longitudinal wiper blade (soft wiper strip, 5), a longitudinal fairing (Fig. 2) including a central mounting (main cover, 1); an end cap (auxiliary covers, 3) disposed at a distal end of the central mounting (1); a caliper (frames, 4 with main frame, 4a and subframe, 4b; Fig. 2) with at least two claws (claws, 42) for retaining the longitudinal wiper blade (5; Fig. 5), the caliper (Fig. 2) combined with a reinforcing portion (4a) secured together by a pivot pin to form a body portion (Fig. 5); an adapter element (fixing seat, 2) fixed to the central mounting (1) at a distal end thereof (Fig. 3), wherein the adapter element (2) further includes the reinforcing portion (4a) and the caliper (4b) with said claws (42) extending from a distal end of the adapter element (2, as assembled, the reinforcing portion extends from a distal end of fixed seat, 2); and the body portion (Fig. 5) configured to clip within each cavity of the central mounting and end cap and be configured to retain the central mounting and end cap together (Paragraph [0029]).
Huang further teaches the reinforcing portion (4a) having a reduced width relative to a width of the adapter element (2; as shown in Fig. 2; further 4a is inserted into fixing seat, 2, thus would have to have a reduced width relative to a width of adapter); the reinforcing portion (4a) engaging a complementary structure in the end cap (3; Paragraph [0041]): a proximal end of the end cap (3) and the caliper (4) being pivotably articulated to the adapter element (2; Paragraph [0041]) but does not explicitly teach walls of the caliper taper into a form of an elongated hexagonal shape within the reinforcing portion and along a longitudinal direction of the adapter element.
Examiner, however, notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in having the specific shape to provide any unexpected result and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering an optimum shape involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art; therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the caliper of Huang to further include walls of the caliper taper into a form of an elongated hexagonal shape within the reinforcing portion and along a longitudinal direction of the adapter element, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the
shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 12 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US patent application publication 2015/0020341) in view of Beelan et al. (U. S. Patent Publication 2012/0297565 A1).
Regarding claim 12 and 13, Huang teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Huang does not teach a staple clip extends across flanks of the end cap.
Beelan, however, teaches a staple clip (46) extends across flanks (50) of the end cap (44; Fig. 2).
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the caliper of Huang to further include a staple clip extends across flanks of the end cap, as claimed by Beelan, to provide securing measures that permit the wiper strip to be reliably secured in a variety of ways at just one end relative to the carrier element with the result that during the operation of the wiper blade the carrier element cannot move out of the wiper strip
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated November 20, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 8 and 9 – 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 11 to further include walls of the caliper form an elongated hexagonal shape within the reinforcing portion and along a longitudinal direction of the adapter element.
Examiner, however, notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in having the specific shape to provide any unexpected result and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering an optimum shape involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art; therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the caliper of Huang to further include walls of the caliper taper into a form of an elongated hexagonal shape within the reinforcing portion and along a longitudinal direction of the adapter element, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the
shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 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, Monica 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723