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 Objections
1. Claims 2, 13 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 3, “form” should read “[[form]] from” to avoid the grammar issue and provide increased clarity
Claim 13, second to last line, “different form the” should read “different [[form]] from the” to avoid the grammar issue and provide increased clarity
Claim 19, third line from bottom, “different form the” should read “different [[form]] from the” to avoid the grammar issue and provide increased clarity
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 19 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 18 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 § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, the language recites “the scraping lip is a second rubber element that is more rigid than the second rubber element”. However, it is not precisely clear how the second rubber element can be more rigid that itself. Therefore, it is not precisely clear what is required by the claim language. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “the scraping lip is a second rubber element that is more rigid than the [[second]] first rubber element”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cabak (US Patent 7707681).
Regarding claim 1, Cabak teaches a dual-blade wiper blade (figs. 1-3) for a windshield of a vehicle (abs), the dual-blade wiper blade comprising:
a frame structure (fig. 2, structure indicated by element 20 is interpreted as the frame structure);
a squeegee coupled to the frame structure (fig. 2, elements 22 and 32 are together interpreted as the squeegee);
a wiping lip coupled to the squeegee (fig. 2-3, wiper blade 24. see annotated fig. 3 below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
672
958
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a scraping lip coupled to the squeegee (fig. 2-3, element 30 is interpreted as the scraping lip) and positioned in parallel with the wiping lip (col. 5, lines 17-20).
Regarding claim 2, Cabak teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Cabak teaches wherein the wiping lip extends from the squeegee at a first height (H1) (fig. 3) and the scraping lip extends from the squeegee at a second height (H2) (fig. 3) that is different form the first height (H1) (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Cabak teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2. Additionally, Cabak teaches wherein the second height (H2) is less than the first height (H1) (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Cabak teaches a dual-blade wiper blade (figs. 1-3) for a windshield of a vehicle (abs), the dual-blade wiper blade comprising:
a squeegee (fig. 2, elements 22 and 32 are together interpreted as the squeegee);
a wiping lip coupled to the squeegee (fig. 2-3, wiper blade 24. see annotated fig. 3 below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
672
958
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a scraping lip coupled to the squeegee (fig. 2-3, element 30 is interpreted as the scraping lip) and positioned in parallel with the wiping lip (col. 5, lines 17-20),
wherein the wiping lip extends from the squeegee at a first height (H1) (fig. 3) and the scraping lip extends from the squeegee at a second height (H2) (fig. 3) that is different form the first height (H1) (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Cabak teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13. Additionally, Cabak teaches wherein the second height (H2) is less than the first height (H1) (fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 6-8, 10-11, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabak (US Patent 7707681).
Regarding claim 6, Cabak teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Cabak teaches the scraping lip is a brush (col. 2, line 35; wherein Cabak references the structure as a removable brush).
The embodiment of figs. 1-3 does not explicitly teach wherein the wiping lip is a rubber element.
However, in the background section, Cabak teaches wiper blades are usually constructed of rubber in order to conform to the sloped surface of the windshield for effective removal of water (col. 1, lines 45-50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cabak to incorporate the additional teachings from the background section of Cabak to provide wherein the wiping lip is a rubber element. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the wiping lip 24 is a rubber element. Doing so would allow the wiper lip to conform to the sloped surface of the windshield for effective removal of water (col. 1, lines 45-50 of Cabak).
Regarding claim 7, Cabak teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Cabak teaches the scraping lip is a sponge (col. 5, line 1).
The embodiment of figs. 1-3 does not explicitly teach wherein the wiping lip is a rubber element.
However, in the background section, Cabak teaches wiper blades are usually constructed of rubber in order to conform to the sloped surface of the windshield for effective removal of water (col. 1, lines 45-50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cabak to incorporate the additional teachings from the background section of Cabak to provide wherein the wiping lip is a rubber element. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the wiping lip 24 is a rubber element. Doing so would allow the wiper lip to conform to the sloped surface of the windshield for effective removal of water (col. 1, lines 45-50 of Cabak).
Regarding claim 8, Cabak teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Cabak teaches the scraping lip is a scrubbing pad (fig. 3, elements 38 and 40 are interpreted as a scrubbing pad).
The embodiment of figs. 1-3 does not explicitly teach wherein the wiping lip is a rubber element.
However, in the background section, Cabak teaches wiper blades are usually constructed of rubber in order to conform to the sloped surface of the windshield for effective removal of water (col. 1, lines 45-50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cabak to incorporate the additional teachings from the background section of Cabak to provide wherein the wiping lip is a rubber element. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the wiping lip 24 is a rubber element. Doing so would allow the wiper lip to conform to the sloped surface of the windshield for effective removal of water (col. 1, lines 45-50 of Cabak).
Regarding claim 10, Cabak teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2.
As such, Cabak and the instant claimed invention both provide a dual-blade wiper blade wherein the only difference between Cabak and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Cabak does not explicitly teach wherein the first height (H1) is between 50% and 100% greater than the second height (H2).
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 device of Cabak to include wherein the first height (H1) is between 50% and 100% greater than the second height (H2) since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Cabak would not operate differently with the claimed height ratio since the dual-blade wiper blade would continue to be capable of cleaning a windshield. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range merely stating the height difference allows the scraping lip to better perform [0032 of instant specification].
Regarding claim 11, Cabak teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2.
As such, Cabak and the instant claimed invention both provide a dual-blade wiper blade wherein the only difference between Cabak and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Cabak does not explicitly teach wherein the first height (H1) is between 60% and 90% greater than the second height (H2).
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 device of Cabak to include wherein the first height (H1) is between 60% and 90% greater than the second height (H2) since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Cabak would not operate differently with the claimed height ratio since the dual-blade wiper blade would continue to be capable of cleaning a windshield. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range merely stating the height difference allows the scraping lip to better perform [0032 of instant specification].
Regarding claim 16, Cabak teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13. Additionally, Cabak teaches the scraping lip is a brush (col. 2, line 35; wherein Cabak references the structure as a removable brush), a sponge (col. 5, line 1), or a scrubbing pad (fig. 3, elements 38 and 40 are interpreted as a scrubbing pad).
The embodiment of figs. 1-3 does not explicitly teach wherein the wiping lip is a rubber element.
However, in the background section, Cabak teaches wiper blades are usually constructed of rubber in order to conform to the sloped surface of the windshield for effective removal of water (col. 1, lines 45-50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cabak to incorporate the additional teachings from the background section of Cabak to provide wherein the wiping lip is a rubber element. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the wiping lip 24 is a rubber element. Doing so would allow the wiper lip to conform to the sloped surface of the windshield for effective removal of water (col. 1, lines 45-50 of Cabak).
Regarding claim 18, Cabak teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2.
As such, Cabak and the instant claimed invention both provide a dual-blade wiper blade wherein the only difference between Cabak and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Cabak does not explicitly teach wherein the first height (H1) is between 50% and 100% greater than the second height (H2).
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 device of Cabak to include wherein the first height (H1) is between 50% and 100% greater than the second height (H2) since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Cabak would not operate differently with the claimed height ratio since the dual-blade wiper blade would continue to be capable of cleaning a windshield. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range merely stating the height difference allows the scraping lip to better perform [0032 of instant specification].
Regarding claim 19, Cabak teaches a dual-blade wiper blade (figs. 1-3) for a windshield of a vehicle (abs), the dual-blade wiper blade comprising:
a squeegee (fig. 2, elements 22 and 32 are together interpreted as the squeegee);
a wiping lip coupled to the squeegee (fig. 2-3, wiper blade 24. see annotated fig. 3 below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
672
958
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a scraping lip coupled to the squeegee (fig. 2-3, element 30 is interpreted as the scraping lip) and positioned in parallel with the wiping lip (col. 5, lines 17-20),
wherein the wiping lip extends from the squeegee at a first height (H1) (fig. 3) and the scraping lip extends from the squeegee at a second height (H2) (fig. 3) that is different form the first height (H1) (fig. 3), and
wherein the scraping lip comprises a brush (col. 2, line 35; wherein Cabak references the structure as a removable brush), a sponge (col. 5, line 1), or a scrubbing pad (fig. 3, elements 38 and 40 are interpreted as a scrubbing pad).
The embodiment of figs. 1-3 does not explicitly teach wherein the wiping lip is a rubber element.
However, in the background section, Cabak teaches wiper blades are usually constructed of rubber in order to conform to the sloped surface of the windshield for effective removal of water (col. 1, lines 45-50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cabak to incorporate the additional teachings from the background section of Cabak to provide wherein the wiping lip is a rubber element. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the wiping lip 24 is a rubber element. Doing so would allow the wiper lip to conform to the sloped surface of the windshield for effective removal of water (col. 1, lines 45-50 of Cabak).
Regarding claim 20, Cabak teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 19. Additionally, Cabak teaches wherein the second height (H2) is less than the first height (H1) (fig. 3).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabak (US Patent 7707681) in view of Hall (US PGPUB 20230150454).
Regarding claim 4, Cabak teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Cabak’s embodiment of figs. 1-3 does not explicitly teach wherein the wiping lip is a first rubber element and the scraping lip is a second rubber element.
However, Hall teaches a dual-blade windshield wiper (fig. 2-3), wherein the first and second blade inserts 160 and 170 are rubber elements [0026]. Hall also teaches the attachment 180 is a rubber element [0030]. Overall, Hall teaches wherein the wiping lip (fig. 3, element 160) is a first rubber element [0026] and the scraping lip (fig. 3, element 180 and 170, [0028]) is a second rubber element [0026 and 0030].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cabak to incorporate the teachings of Hall to provide wherein the wiping lip is a first rubber element and the scraping lip is a second rubber element. Specifically, it would have been obvious to form the wiping lip of Cabak and the scraping lip of Cabak of rubber. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known material for another known material in order to obtain the predictable results of functioning as a wiping lip and a scraping lip. Additionally, doing so would provide known materials for the elements to function as a wiping lip and a scraping lip as intended and as taught by Hall [0028 of Hall].
Regarding claim 12, Cabak teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Cabak does not explicitly teach wherein the scraping lip is removably coupled to the squeegee.
However, Hall teaches a dual-blade windshield wiper (fig. 2-3), wherein the scraping lip (fig. 3, element 180, [0028]) is removably coupled to the squeegee (fig. 3, Hall teaches the element 180 is removably attached to the structure 174 [0029], wherein structure 174 is interpreted as the squeegee).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cabak to incorporate the teachings of Hall to provide wherein the scraping lip is removably coupled to the squeegee. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the scraping lip of Cabak is removably coupled to the squeegee of Cabak (as taught by Hall). Doing so would allow the squeegee of Cabak to be reusable, thereby reducing costs, and allow the scraping lip of Cabak to be replaced when it is worn, which promotes increased cleaning.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabak (US Patent 7707681) in view of Hall (US PGPUB 20230150454) and further in view of Shoup (US Patent 7523523).
Regarding claim 5, Cabak, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 4. Cabak, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the first rubber element is less rigid than the second rubber element.
However, Shoup teaches a dual-blade wiper (fig. 1-5), wherein the first element (wiping lip 20) is less rigid than the second element (wherein scraper 24 is interpreted as the second element, wherein Shoup teaches the scraper is constructed of a material more rigid than the wiper 20 (col. 2, lines 35-40)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Cabak, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Shoup to provide wherein the first rubber element is less rigid than the second rubber element. Specifically, it would have been obvious to construct the scraping lip of Cabak, as modified, to be more rigid than the wiping lip of Cabak, as modified (as taught by Shoup). Doing so would promote increased removal of debris via the scraping lip due to the increased rigidity and promote a form fitting configuration of the wiping lip in order to effectively remove liquid from the windshield.
Regarding claim 15, Cabak teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13. Cabak’s embodiment of figs. 1-3 does not explicitly teach wherein the wiping lip is a first rubber element and the scraping lip is a second rubber element that is more rigid than the second rubber element.
However, Hall teaches a dual-blade windshield wiper (fig. 2-3), wherein the first and second blade inserts 160 and 170 are rubber elements [0026]. Hall also teaches the attachment 180 is a rubber element [0030]. Overall, Hall teaches wherein the wiping lip (fig. 3, element 160) is a first rubber element [0026] and the scraping lip (fig. 3, element 180 and 170, [0028]) is a second rubber element [0026 and 0030].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cabak to incorporate the teachings of Hall to provide wherein the wiping lip is a first rubber element and the scraping lip is a second rubber element. Specifically, it would have been obvious to form the wiping lip of Cabak and the scraping lip of Cabak of rubber. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known material for another known material in order to obtain the predictable results of functioning as a wiping lip and a scraping lip. Additionally, doing so would provide known materials for the elements to function as a wiping lip and a scraping lip as intended and as taught by Hall [0028 of Hall].
Cabak, as modified, does not explicitly teach the scraping lip is a second rubber element that is more rigid than the second rubber element.
However, Shoup teaches a dual-blade wiper (fig. 1-5), wherein the second element (wherein scraper 24 is interpreted as the second element) is more rigid than the first element (wherein wiping lip 20 is interpreted as the first element, wherein Shoup teaches the scraper is constructed of a material more rigid than the wiper 20 (col. 2, lines 35-40)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Cabak, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Shoup to provide wherein the scraping lip is a second rubber element that is more rigid than the first rubber element. Specifically, it would have been obvious to construct the scraping lip of Cabak, as modified, to be more rigid than the wiping lip of Cabak, as modified (as taught by Shoup). Doing so would promote increased removal of debris via the scraping lip due to the increased rigidity and promote a form fitting configuration of the wiping lip in order to effectively remove liquid from the windshield.
As best understood by the examiner, in view of the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the prior art teaches the claim limitations.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabak (US Patent 7707681) in view of Bretagnol et al. (US PGPUB 20160297405), hereinafter Bretagnol.
Regarding claim 9, Cabak teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Cabak does not explicitly teach wherein the wiping lip comprises a hard coating.
However, Bretagnol teaches a wiper blade, wherein it is known to cover a wiper blade with a relatively hard coating, in order to increase its durability, that is to ensure an effective wiping over a long period [0003].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cabak to incorporate the teachings of Bretagnol to provide wherein the wiping lip comprises a hard coating. Specifically, it would have been obvious to cover the wiping lip of Cabak with a hard coating. Doing so would increase its durability, thereby ensuring an effective wiping over a long period [0003 of Bretagnol].
Regarding claim 17, Cabak teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13. Cabak does not explicitly teach wherein the wiping lip comprises a hard coating.
However, Bretagnol teaches a wiper blade, wherein it is known to cover a wiper blade with a relatively hard coating, in order to increase its durability, that is to ensure an effective wiping over a long period [0003].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cabak to incorporate the teachings of Bretagnol to provide wherein the wiping lip comprises a hard coating. Specifically, it would have been obvious to cover the wiping lip of Cabak with a hard coating. Doing so would increase its durability, thereby ensuring an effective wiping over a long period [0003 of Bretagnol].
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brown (US PGPUB 20140359962) teaches a dual-blade wiper similar to the disclosed invention
Cooper (US PGPUB 20120291217) teaches a dual-blade wiper similar to the claimed invention.
Nelson (US PGPUB 20110197387) teaches a dual-blade wiper similar to the claimed invention (fig. 3)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723