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 Merits for claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 20. Claim 4 is cancelled.
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claims 2 or 16 be found allowable, claims 14 or 19, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 8 and 10 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graham et al (US patent application publication 2019/0031150).
The publication to Graham discloses the invention as is claimed. Graham discloses a wiper blade (1, fig. 1) comprising a frame structure (13, fig. 2), a squeegee (50, fig. 10) and a plurality of branches (11a, 11b, fig. 2) extending between the frame structure and the squeegee; wherein the plurality of branches (11a and b) is a unitary structure (Fig. 2) that comprises: two inter-connected members (sidewalls, 18) that are coupled to and extend between the frame structure (13) and the squeegee (50), and a cross-connected member (top portion, 17) that is coupled to and extends between the two inter-connected members (18).
With respect to claims 2 and 19, the branches is a unitary structure are deemed configured to manage compression and tension loads as claimed since they transmit forces from the wiper arm (70, fig. 11) to the squeegee.
With respect to claims 3 and 15, the one or mor of the plurality of branches vary in thickness as claimed. Note figure 2 which show such tapering towards their free ends.
With respect to claims 4, 16 and 19, the branches (11a, 11b) comprise a plurality of interconnected members (18) coupled between the frame structure (13) and the squeegee (50). One or more cross-connected members (17) are coupled between the adjacent interconnected members (18).
With respect to claims 5 and 17, as shown in figures 5 and 10, the frame structure appears curved and the squeegee linear.
With respect to claims 6, 7 and 18, the frame, squeegee and branches are deemed unitary – a unit. At least as far as claimed. Note that the language unitary does not mean the structures are of one-piece construction. Collectively the components act to form the wiper blade. They are thus all deemed unitary.
With respect to claim 8, setting forth the branches as fabricated via an additive manufacturing technique relates to a method of manufactured and does not impart any particular structure to the branches, at least none not disclosed by Graham. How the branches were formed does not appear to provide any particular structural difference to the branches to distinguish from Graham.
With respect to claim 10, the branches are deemed configured as a removable insert, as far as claimed, as they are removable from at least secondary structure (20, fig. 4) relative to the fame structure (10).
With respect to claims 11-13, the branches (11a, 11b) of Graham, particularly when considering the cross-connected lattice structure (17, fig. 4) therewith, are deemed to form a truss structure, “bird’s nest” and woven pattern, at least to the extent such sets forth any particular structure.
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.
Claims 1 – 8, 10 – 12 and 14 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glynn (US patent 3,176,337) in view of Graham (US patent application publication 2019/0031150).
The publication to Glynn discloses the invention as is claimed. Glynn discloses a wiper blade (fig. 2) comprising a resiliently flexible plastic frame structure (2), a squeegee (8, fig. 6) and a plurality of leaf spring branches (7, fig. 3) extending between the frame structure and the squeegee.
Glynn doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the plurality of branches is a unitary structure that comprises: two inter-connected members that are coupled to and extend between the frame structure and the squeegee, and a cross-connected member that is coupled to and extends between the two inter-connected members.
Graham, however, teaches wherein the plurality of branches (11a and b) is a unitary structure (Fig. 2) that comprises: two inter-connected members (sidewalls, 18) that are coupled to and extend between the frame structure (13) and the squeegee (50), and a cross-connected member (top portion, 17) that is coupled to and extends between the two inter-connected members (18).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Glynn to further include the plurality of branches is a unitary structure that comprises: two inter-connected members that are coupled to and extend between the frame structure and the squeegee, and a cross-connected member that is coupled to and extends between the two inter-connected members, as taught by Graham, to manage compression and tension loads they transmit forces from the wiper arm.
With respect to claims 2, 14 and 19, the leaf spring branches are deemed configured to manage compression and tension loads as claimed, in the same manner as applicants, as they can flex during wiping.
With respect to claims 3 and 15, the branches (7, figs. 3, 4) vary in thickness as they taper towards their free ends.
With respect to claims 4, 16 and 19, the plurality of branches (7) are configured as interconnected members coupled between the frame structure (2) and the squeegee via a cross-connected member (5, 5A) coupled between two adjacent such interconnected members.
Glynn does not teach the branch is a removable unitary insert; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wiper of Glynn to further include a removable insert, as claimed, since it has been held that
constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to claims 5 and 17, note the figure 8 embodiment shown by Glynn. Therein, the frame structure is shown as curved with the squeegee (8) linear.
With respect to claims 6, 7 and 18, the frame, squeegee and branches are deemed integrated. At least as far as claimed. Note that the language integrated does not mean the structures are of one-piece construction. Collectively the components act to form the wiper blade. They are thus all deemed integrated.
With respect to claim 8, setting forth the branches as fabricated via an additive manufacturing technique relates to a method of manufactured and does not impart any particular structure to the branches, at least none not disclosed by Glynn. How the branches were formed does not appear to provide any particular structural difference to the branches to distinguish from Glynn.
With respect to claim 10, the branches are deemed configured as a removable insert as they are removable from the squeegee (8). Note that claws (13) enable removable attachment to the squeegee.
With respect to claims 11 and 12, the branches of Glynn are deemed to form a truss structure and “bird’s nest”, at least to the extent such sets forth any particular structure.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glynn (US patent 3,176,337) in view of Graham (US patent application publication 2019/0031150) and Avasiloaie (US patent 9,663,071).
The publication to Glynn discloses all of the above recited subject matter with the exception of the branches being formed of a particular material, for example thermoplastic elastomer.
The publication to Avasiloaie discloses a wiper blade wherein a resiliently flexible support member (30) therein is formed of thermoplastic elastomer (col. 4, lines 55-60). Avasiloaie discloses the use of thermoplastic elastomers to form resiliently flexible support structures.
Initially, while Glynn is silent as to the particular plastics used to make the frame structure and branches, to select a specific plastic, such being on the basis for the intended use thereof, does not appear particularly inventive and is deemed obvious. Mere selection of known plastics to make the frame structure and branches, including as claimed, would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, as a mere choice of materials, lacking any criticality of such material choice.
Additionally, Avasiloaie discloses the use of thermoplastic elastomer to form resiliently flexible support structures. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to form the resiliently flexible support structure (frame structure/branches) of Glynn of thermoplastic elastomer, as clearly suggested by Avasiloaie, to employ a well-known, available material.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham (US patent application publication 2019/0031150) in view of Avasiloaie (US patent 9,663,071).
With respect to claims 14, the branches is a unitary structure are deemed configured to manage compression and tension loads as claimed since they transmit forces from the wiper arm (70, fig. 11) to the squeegee.
Graham does not explicitly teach the plurality of branches is a thermoplastic structure.
The publication to Avasiloaie discloses a wiper blade wherein a resiliently flexible support member (30) therein is formed of thermoplastic elastomer (col. 4, lines 55-60). Avasiloaie discloses the use of thermoplastic elastomers to form resiliently flexible support structures.
Initially, while Graham is silent as to the particular plastics used to make the frame structure and branches, to select a specific plastic, such being on the basis for the intended use thereof, does not appear particularly inventive and is deemed obvious. Mere selection of known plastics to make the frame structure and branches, including as claimed, would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, as a mere choice of materials, lacking any criticality of such material choice.
Additionally, Avasiloaie discloses the use of thermoplastic elastomer to form resiliently flexible support structures. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to form the resiliently flexible support structure (frame structure/branches) of Graham of thermoplastic elastomer, as clearly suggested by Avasiloaie, to employ a well-known, available material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated May 19, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 – Re Glynn - have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Graham.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated May 19, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 – Re Graham - have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Graham further teaches the plurality of branches is a unitary connection that comprises two inter-connected members and a cross connected member, as discussed above.
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
Prosecution Insights