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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 8, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3 – 21 are pending. Claim 2 is cancelled.
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.
Claims 1 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houssat et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0097653 A1) in view of Pieters (DE102021210090 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Houssat teaches a wiper blade (wiper, 102; Fig. 2) for a windshield (glazed surface, 2) of a vehicle (vehicle, 1; Fig. 1), the wiper blade (102) comprising: a spoiler (spoiler, 125), wherein the spoiler (125) comprises a reservoir (circulation canal, 126) configured to hold a chemical solution (Abstract); a squeegee (wiper blade, 122) coupled to the spoiler (125; Fig. 3), wherein the squeegee (122) comprises a wiping lip (Fig. 3); and a plurality of dispensing ports (plurality of orifices, 128; Fig. 3) distributed along a length of the wiper blade (102; Fig. 3), wherein the plurality of dispensing ports (128) is fluidly coupled to the reservoir (126; Abstract) and configured to dispense the chemical solution onto a surface of the windshield (2; Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Houssat does not explicitly teach a reservoir defined by the spoiler cross-section; wherein the spoiler further comprises one or more filler ports fluidly coupled to the reservoir and configured to allow the reservoir to be replenished, and wherein each of the one or more filler ports comprises a closeable structure configured to mitigate evaporation and spillage of the chemical solution.
Pieters, however, teaches a reservoir (50) defined by the spoiler cross-section (Fig. 2); wherein the spoiler (50) further comprises one or more filler ports (Paragraph [0026]) fluidly coupled to the reservoir (50) and configured to allow the reservoir to be replenished (Paragraph [0026]).
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 blade of Houssat to further include a reservoir defined by the spoiler cross-section, as taught by Pieters, to provide a reservoir that allows the reservoir to be filled on an outside of the vehicle, thus saving time in changing the fluid.
Pieters does not explicitly teach each of the one or more filler ports comprises a closeable structure, however, Pieters explicitly teaches a filing opening; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would appreciate that in order for Pieters to teach an openable spoiler installed on a wiper blade would have to teach the closing of the opening to prevent the spillage of the cleaning fluid as the arm is swung in a back and forth positions.
Regarding the limitation, a closable structure configured to mitigate evaporation and spillage of the chemical solution, the limitation is directed to the intended use of the structure and further “It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations”. Pieters satisfies the structural limitations of the claim and therefore is configured to mitigate evaporation and spillage of the chemical solution.
Regarding Claim 2, Houssat, as modified, teaches the wiper blade (wiper, 102; Fig. 2), wherein the spoiler (125) further comprises one or more filler ports (cannula, 104) fluidly coupled to the reservoir (126; Abstract).
Regarding Claim 3, Houssat, as modified, teaches the wiper blade (wiper, 102; Fig. 2), wherein the spoiler (125) is removably coupled to the squeegee (122; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Houssat, as modified, teaches the wiper blade (wiper, 102; Fig. 2), wherein the reservoir (126) is configured to fluidly couple to a windshield washer system of the vehicle (1; Abstract).
Claims 5 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houssat et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0097653 A1) in view of Pieters (DE10202121009 A1) and Wynen (DE102008043283 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Houssat, as modified, teaches the wiper blade of claim 1 as discussed above.
Houssat does not explicitly teach each of the plurality of dispensing ports comprises a valve configured to control a release of the chemical solution therethrough.
Wynen, however, teaches the plurality of dispensing ports (ports formed in bottom wall, 38 that hold valve, 52) comprises a valve (52) configured to control a release of the chemical solution therethrough (Paragraph [0042]).
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 blade of Houssat to further include a valve, as taught by Wynen, to reduce strain on the washer pump by eliminating the need for the washer pump to re-prime the lines every time the fluid is sprayed.
Regarding Claim 6, Houssat, as modified, teaches the wiper blade of claim 5 as discussed above.
Houssat does not explicitly teach the valve is a pressure valve.
Wynen, however, teaches the valve is a pressure valve (Paragraph [0042]).
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 blade of Houssat to further include a pressure valve, as taught by Wynen, to reduce strain on the washer pump by eliminating the need for the washer pump to re-prime the lines every time the fluid is sprayed.
Regarding Claim 7, Houssat, as modified, teaches the wiper blade of claim 5 as discussed above.
Houssat as modified by Wynen does not explicitly teach the valve is a weighted valve.
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 blade of Houssat to further include a weighted valve, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 8, Houssat, as modified, teaches the wiper blade of claim 5 as discussed above.
Houssat as modified by Wynen does not explicitly teach the valve is a check valve.
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 blade of Houssat to further include a check valve, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 9, Houssat, as modified, teaches the wiper blade of claim 5 as discussed above.
Houssat does not explicitly teach wherein the valve is controlled as a function of a position of the wiping lip as the wiper blade translates across the windshield in a first direction and a second direction that is opposite that of the first direction.
Wynen, however, teaches wherein the valve (52) is controlled as a function of a position of the wiping lip as the wiper blade translates across the windshield in a first direction and a second direction that is opposite that of the first direction (Paragraph [0043]).
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 blade of Houssat to further include a valve, as taught by Wynen, to reduce strain on the washer pump by eliminating the need for the washer pump to re-prime the lines every time the fluid is sprayed.
Regarding Claim 10, Houssat, as modified, teaches the wiper blade of claim 9 as discussed above.
Houssat does not explicitly teach wherein the valve is open while in the first direction and is closed while in the second direction.
Wynen, however, teaches wherein the valve is open while in the first direction and is closed while in the second direction (Paragraphs [0043] and [0044].
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 blade of Houssat to further include a valve, as taught by Wynen, to reduce strain on the washer pump by eliminating the need for the washer pump to re-prime the lines every time the fluid is sprayed.
Claims 11 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houssat et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0097653 A1) in view of Pieters (DE10202121009 A1) and Harrington (U. S. Patent No. 1,502,821).
Regarding Claim 11, Houssat, as modified, teaches the wiper blade of claim 1 as discussed above.
Houssat does not explicitly teach wherein the chemical solution comprises a wax.
Harrington, however, teaches the chemical solution comprises a wax (Lines 42 – 47; Harrington teaches any suitable water repellant liquid; and such liquids include liquid wax-based solution designed to create a hydrophobic, water-repelling barrier as taught by the art).
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 blade of Houssat to further include the chemical solution comprises a wax, as taught by Harrington, to improve visibility and reduce maintenance.
Regarding Claim 12, Houssat, as modified, teaches the wiper blade of claim 1 as discussed above.
Houssat does not explicitly teach wherein the chemical solution comprises a non-stick coating.
Harrington, however, teaches the chemical solution comprises a non-stick coating (Lines 42 – 47; Harrington teaches any suitable water repellant liquid; and such liquids include non-stick coating designed to create a hydrophobic, water-repelling barrier as taught by the art).
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 blade of Houssat to further include the chemical solution comprises a non-stick coating, as taught by Harrington, to improve visibility and reduce maintenance.
Regarding Claim 13, Houssat, as modified, teaches the wiper blade of claim 1 as discussed above.
Houssat does not explicitly teach wherein the chemical solution comprises a water repellant.
Harrington, however, teaches the chemical solution comprises a water repellant (Lines 42 – 47).
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 blade of Houssat to further include the chemical solution comprises a water repellent, as taught by Harrington, to improve visibility and reduce maintenance.
Claims 14 – 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houssat et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0097653 A1) in view Wynen (DE102008043283 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 14, Houssat teaches a wiper blade (wiper, 102; Fig. 2) for a windshield (glazed surface, 2) of a vehicle (vehicle, 1; Fig. 1), the wiper blade (102) comprising: a spoiler (spoiler, 125) comprising a reservoir (circulation canal, 126) configured to hold a chemical solution (Abstract); a squeegee (wiper blade, 122) removably coupled (via 120 where the squeegee is slid into) to the spoiler (125; Fig. 3; Paragraph [0048]), wherein the squeegee (122) comprises a wiping lip (Fig. 3); and a plurality of dispensing ports (plurality of orifices, 128; Fig. 3) distributed along a length of the wiper blade (102; Fig. 3), wherein the plurality of dispensing ports (128) is fluidly coupled to the reservoir (126; Abstract) and configured to dispense the chemical solution onto a surface of the windshield (2; Abstract).
Houssat does not explicitly teach each of the plurality of dispensing ports comprises a valve configured to control a release of the chemical solution therethrough; wherein the check valve is configured to open in response to movement of the wiper blade .
Wynen, however, teaches the plurality of dispensing ports (ports formed in bottom wall, 38 that hold valve, 52) comprises a valve (52) configured to control a release of the chemical solution therethrough (Paragraph [0042]); wherein the check valve is configured to open in response to movement of the wiper blade (Paragraphs [0033] and [0034]).
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 blade of Houssat to further include a valve, as taught by Wynen, to reduce strain on the washer pump by eliminating the need for the washer pump to re-prime the lines every time the fluid is sprayed.
Regarding Claim 15, Houssat, as modified, teaches the wiper blade (wiper, 102; Fig. 2), wherein the spoiler (125) further comprises one or more filler ports (cannula, 104) fluidly coupled to the reservoir (126; Abstract).
Regarding Claim 16, Houssat, as modified, teaches the wiper blade of claim 14 as discussed above.
Houssat does not teach the spoiler is partially hollow and the reservoir is defined by the spoiler cross-section.
Pieters, however, teaches the spoiler (26) is partially hollow (Fig. 2) and a reservoir (50) defined by the spoiler cross-section (Fig. 2).
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 blade of Houssat to further include a reservoir defined by the spoiler cross-section, as taught by Pieters, 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.
Regarding Claim 17, Houssat, as modified, teaches the wiper blade of claim 14 as discussed above.
Houssat does not explicitly teach wherein the valve is a pressure valve, a weighted valve, or a check valve.
Wynen, however, teaches the valve is a pressure valve (Paragraph [0042]).
Wynen does not explicitly teach a check valve, however, Wynen teaches flow of the fluid in one direction – which is the definition oof a check valve, therefore, 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 blade of Houssat to further include a valve, as taught by Wynen, to reduce strain on the washer pump by eliminating the need for the washer pump to re-prime the lines every time the fluid is sprayed.
Regarding Claim 21, Houssat, as modified, teaches the wiper blade of claim 14 as discussed above.
Houssat does not explicitly teach wherein the check valve is configured to allow the chemical solution to flow outward from the reservoir through the dispensing port and to prevent flow of liquid into the reservoir.
Wynen, however, teaches the check valve is configured to allow the chemical solution to flow outward from the reservoir through the dispensing port and to prevent flow of liquid into the reservoir (Paragraph [0019] and [0035]).
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 blade of Houssat to further include the check valve is configured to allow the chemical solution to flow outward from the reservoir through the dispensing port and to prevent flow of liquid into the reservoir, as taught by Wynen, to reduce waste of the fluid, thus reducing cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Although Houssat et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0097653 A1) in view of Wynen (DE102008043283 A1) and Steller (U. S. Patent Publication No 2017/0088101 A1) teach a wiper blade for a windshield of a vehicle, the references – alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest or make obvious wherein each of the plurality of dispensing ports comprises a self-closing slit seal valve configured to be opened by deflection wiping lip as the wiper blade translates across the windshield in a first direction, and configured to close upon deflection of the wiping lip as the wiper blade translates in a second direction that is opposite that of the first direction, wherein each of the plurality of dispensing ports is configured such that the chemical solution is dispensed as the wiper blade translates in the first direction and not in the second direction.
Claims 19 – 20 are allowed as dependent of claim 18.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated September 8, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3 – 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues Pieters fails to teach closing the reservoir.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as Pieters explicitly teaches a filing opening; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would appreciate that in order for Pieters to teach an openable spoiler installed on a wiper blade would have to teach the closing of the opening to prevent the spillage of the cleaning fluid as the arm is swung in a back and forth positions.
Applicant argues the teaching of a check valve. Examiner notes that the definition of a check valve is to ensure one way movement of fluid. Wynen does not explicitly teach a check valve, however, Wynen teaches flow of the fluid movement in one direction – which is the definition oof a check valve, therefore, 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 blade of Houssat to further include a valve, as taught by Wynen, to reduce strain on the washer pump by eliminating the need for the washer pump to re-prime the lines every time the fluid is sprayed.
Regarding Applicant arguments for independent claim 18, Examiner agrees with the arguments presented and Claim 18 is allowed.
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