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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Amendments filed 6/16/2026 have been entered, wherein claims 1-19 and 21 are pending. Accordingly, claims 1-19 and 21 have been examined herein. The previous claim objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1, the language recites “wherein the wiping lip comprises a protruding feature that is sized to reside within the recess”. However, the disclosure only provides support for the scraping lip comprising a protruding feature that is sized to reside within the recess 314 (instant fig. 3d). The disclosure does not provide support for the feature of the wiping lip comprising a protruding feature that is sized to reside within the recess. Claims 2-12 and 18 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
3. 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.
Claims 19 and 21 are 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 19, the language recites the term “the length of the wiping lip”. However, the term “the length of the wiping lip” lacks proper antecedent basis because the terms “length” and “wiping lip” have not yet been introduced. Additionally, it is not precisely clear if this instance of “wiping lip” is the same or different from the immediately following instance of “a wiping lip”. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “along a [[the]] length of [[the]] a wiping lip; [[a]] the wiping lip coupled”.
Claim 21 is rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 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);
wherein the squeegee defines a recess in a surface of the squeegee (see annotated fig. 3 below, wherein the squeegee includes a recess in a surface of the squeegee as interpreted below), the surface being perpendicular to the windshield (see annotated fig. 3 below. The surface is perpendicular to a windshield being cleaned);
a wiping lip coupled to the squeegee (fig. 2-3, wiper blade 24. see annotated fig. 3 below); wherein the wiping lip comprises a protruding feature that is sized to reside within the recess (as shown in annotated fig. 3 below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
562
749
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 from 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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, 13-14, 16, 18-19 and 21 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 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_image2.png
672
958
media_image2.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).
Cabak’s embodiment of fig. 3 does not explicitly teach the wiping lip being integrally formed with the squeegee.
However, Cabak teaches an additional embodiment of fig. 6 wherein scrubber 30 includes integrally connected clip 20 (col. 5, lines 50-51). Overall, Cabak’s additional embodiment of fig. 6 teaches it is known to use an integral connection configuration between two structures.
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’s embodiment of fig. 3 to incorporate the teachings of the embodiment of fig. 6 to provide the wiping lip being integrally formed with the squeegee. Specifically, it would have been obvious to integrally form the wiping lip of Cabak’s fig. 3 (as interpreted above) with the squeegee of Cabak’s fig. 3 (as interpreted above). Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known connection configuration for another known connection configuration to obtain the predictable results of connecting the wiping lip to the squeegee structure in order to function as intended and clean a windshield. Additionally, doing so would promote stability and longevity.
Regarding claim 14, Cabak, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13. Additionally, Cabak, as modified, teaches wherein the second height (H2) is less than the first height (H1) (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Cabak, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13. Additionally, Cabak, as modified, 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, as modified, 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 further modified Cabak, as modified, 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. 2-3, element 20 is interpreted as the squeegee) having a single continuous cross-section along the length of the wiping lip (fig. 2-3, the element 20 has a single continuous cross-section along a length of the wiping lip);
a wiping lip coupled to the squeegee (fig. 2-3, wiper blade 24); and
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 less than 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 21, Cabak, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 19. Additionally, Cabak, as modified, teaches wherein the scraping lip is removably coupled to the squeegee (fig. 2, see above rejection of claim 19 for more details and interpretations).
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, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13. Cabak’s embodiment of figs. 1-3, as modified, 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 first 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 further modified Cabak, as modified, 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 first 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.
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, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13. Cabak, as modified, 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 further modified Cabak, as modified, 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].
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Cabak fails to teach the amended language of claim 1 and that the additionally cited prior art fails to remedy the teachings (page 8 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Cabak teaches wherein the squeegee defines a recess in a surface of the squeegee (see annotated fig. 3 below, wherein the squeegee includes a recess in a surface of the squeegee as interpreted below), the surface being perpendicular to the windshield (see annotated fig. 3 below. The surface is perpendicular to a windshield being cleaned);
a wiping lip coupled to the squeegee (fig. 2-3, wiper blade 24. see annotated fig. 3 below); wherein the wiping lip comprises a protruding feature that is sized to reside within the recess (as shown in annotated fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The interpretations of the teachings of Cabak qualify as Broadest Reasonable Interpretations (BRI). The examiner recommends amending the language to more specifically claim the recess feature in order to overcome the art of record.
Applicant argues Cabak fails to teach the amended language of claim 13. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The embodiment of fig. 3 of Cabak alone was not relied upon to teach the amended language. Rather, Cabak’s embodiment of fig. 6 was also relied upon, wherein Cabak’s embodiment of fig. 6 teaches a known integral connection configuration. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues Cabak fails to teach the amended language of claim 19. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In view of the amendments, Cabak was reinterpreted such that the structure 20 is interpreted as the squeegee having a single continuous cross-section along a length of the wiping lip. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of dependency. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The respective independent claims have been rejected above. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
7. 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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights