CTNF 18/598,433 CTNF 96248 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains legal phraseology such as “configured to” and “configured for”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 2, 7, and 10-16 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. The term “generally stationary” in claim 2 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally stationary” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to the examiner the degree required for structures to be “generally stationary”. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “stationary”. The term “generally aligned” in claim 7, and 10 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally aligned” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to the examiner the degree required for structures to be “generally aligned”. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “aligned”. Claims 11-16 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 7-11, 13-17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Eustache (EP 1186493 A1) . Regarding Claim 1, Eustache teaches a cleaning system (Fig. 1), comprising: an arm (Ref. 28, Fig. 1) configured for connection to a wiper blade (Ref. 30, Fig. 1-2, [0022]); and a base (Ref. 62, Fig. 2-3) that is spaced apart from the arm (28) in an extension direction (Fig. 2&3 the vertical direction that the arm moves) such that the wiper blade is positionable between the arm (28) and the base (62) in the extension direction (Fig. 2), wherein the base and the arm are each configured to move in the extension direction (Fig. 2-3) between a recessed position (Fig. 3) and a raised position (Fig. 2) relative to an exterior surface of a vehicle (Ref. 12&16, Fig. 1), the arm is configured to rotate relative to the base when the base and the arm are in the raised position (Fig. 1), and relative motion between the base and the arm is limited when the base and the arm move in the extension direction between the recessed position and the raised position (Fig. 2-3 shows the movement between the recessed and raised position that relative motion between the first arm and the base are limited in a lateral direction). Regarding Claim 2, Eustache teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the base (62) is configured to remain generally stationary relative to the exterior surface of the vehicle during rotation of the arm relative to the exterior surface of the vehicle (Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 7, Eustache teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein an exterior surface of the arm (Ref. 28, top surface, fig. 2-4) is generally aligned with the exterior surface of the vehicle when the arm is in the recessed position (Fig. 3). Regarding Claim 8, Eustache teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein an outer surface of the base (Ref. 64, fig. 2 ) is spaced apart from the exterior surface of the vehicle in the extension direction when the base is in the recessed position (fig. 2), and the outer surface of the base is generally aligned with the exterior surface of the vehicle when the base is in the raised position (Fig. 2). Regarding Claim 9, Eustache teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein a contact surface of the wiper blade is recessed from the exterior surface of the vehicle in the extension direction when the base is in the recessed position (Fig. 3), and the contact surface of the wiper blade is generally aligned with the exterior surface of the vehicle when the base is in the raised position (Fig. 2). Regarding Claim 10, Eustache teaches A vehicle (Ref. 10, Fig. 1), comprising: a body (Ref. 12, 16, 18, Fig. 1) having an exterior surface (Ref. 12&16, Fig. 1); and a cleaning system (Ref. 20, Fig. 1, [0021]), comprising: a first arm (Ref. 28, Fig. 1, examiner notes the first cleaning arm and blade are the left configuration) configured for connection to a first wiper blade (Ref. 30, Fig. 1-2, [0022]), a base (Ref. 62, Fig. 2-3) that is spaced from the first arm in an extension direction (Fig. 2&3 the vertical direction that the arm moves) such that the first wiper blade (30) is positionable between the first arm (28) and the base (62) in the extension direction (Fig. 2), and an actuator (Ref. 20&72, Fig. 5) configured to move the first arm and the base in the extension direction between a recessed position (Fig. 3) and a raised position (Fig. 2) relative to the exterior surface of the body (12&16, Fig. 2), wherein relative motion between the first arm and the base is limited when the first arm and the base move in the extension direction between the recessed position and the raised position (Fig. 2-3 shows the movement between the recessed and raised position that relative motion between the first arm and the base are limited in a lateral direction), wherein an exterior surface of the first arm (Ref. 28, top surface, fig. 2-4) is generally aligned with the exterior surface of the body when the first arm is in the recessed position (Fig. 3), and an outer surface of the base (Ref. 64, fig. 2 ) is generally aligned with the exterior surface of the body when the base is in the raised position (Fig. 2). Regarding Claim 11, Eustache teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further teaches wherein the cleaning system further comprises: a second arm (Ref. 28, Fig. 1, examiner notes the first cleaning arm and blade are the right configuration) configured for connection to a second wiper blade (Ref. 30, Fig. 1-2, [0022]) that is positionable between the second arm (36) and the base (62, Fig. 2), wherein the second arm and the base are each configured to move in the extension direction between a recessed position (Fig. 3) and a raised position (Fig. 2) relative to the exterior surface of the body, wherein relative motion between the second arm and the base is limited when the second arm and the base move in the extension direction between the recessed position and the raised position (Fig. 2-3 shows the movement between the recessed and raised position that relative motion between the first arm and the base are limited in a lateral direction), wherein the first arm is located adjacent to the second arm when the first arm and the second arm are in the recessed position (Fig. 1 shows the recesses (46) are adjacent to each other and would have the first and second arms are adjacent to each other when in the recessed positions) Regarding Claim 13, Eustache teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further teaches wherein a portion of the first wiper blade (Ref. 30, left, Fig. 1-2, [0022]) is located between the second arm and the base in the extension direction as the first arm and the base move between the recessed position and the raised position (Fig. 2-3) and as the second arm and the base move between the recessed position and the raised position (Fig. 2-3), and a portion of the second wiper blade (Ref. 30, right, Fig. 1, [0022]) is located between the first arm and the base in the extension direction as the second arm and the base move between the recessed position and the raised position (Fig. 2-3) and as the first arm and the base move between the recessed position and the raised position (Fig. 2-3). Regarding Claim 14, Eustache teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further teaches wherein: the first arm (28, left side) is configured to position the first wiper blade in a first position (fig. 1 shows the wiper blade in a first position), the second arm (28, right side) is configured to position the second wiper blade in a second position (fig. 1 shows the wiper blade in a second position), and the first position and the second position are spaced apart along an axis of the vehicle (Fig. 1 shows the positions are spaced laterally along a lateral axis of the vehicle). Regarding Claim 15, Eustache teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further teaches a first seal (Ref. 36&14, left side, Fig. 1-3, [0030]) coupled to the exterior surface of the body (Fig. 3, examiner interprets coupled as near); and a second seal (Ref. 36&14, right side, Fig. 1-3, [0030]) coupled to the exterior surface of the body (Fig. 3, examiner interprets coupled as near), wherein the first seal (36&14) and the second seal (36&14) are configured to limit fluid from entering the vehicle between the body and the first arm when the first arm is in the recessed position ([0030&0020], Fig. 3), and the first seal (14) and the second seal (14) are configured to limit fluid from entering the vehicle between the body and the base when the first arm is in the raised position ([0020] describes the seal to prevent fluids from entering the vehicle in both a raised and lowered position of the base and first arm, if applicant intended for the seal to be on the base such a limitation is not required). Regarding Claim 16, Eustache teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further teaches wherein the exterior surface of the body includes a glazing (Ref. 12, Fig. 1), and the glazing is transparent to visible light ([0021] describes a windscreen that is transparent). Regarding Claim 17, Eustache teaches a vehicle (Ref. 10, Fig. 1), comprising: a body (Ref. 12, 16, 18, Fig. 1) having an exterior surface (Ref. 12&16, Fig. 1); and a cleaning system (Ref. 20, Fig. 1, [0021]), comprising: an arm (Ref. 28, Fig. 1) configured for connection to a wiper blade (Ref. 30, Fig. 1-2, [0022]), a base (Ref. 62, Fig. 2-3) that is spaced from the arm in an extension direction (Fig. 2&3 the vertical direction that the arm moves) such that the wiper blade is positionable between the arm (28) and the base (62) in the extension direction (Fig. 2), and an actuator (Ref. 20&72, Fig. 5) configured to move the arm and the base in the extension direction between a recessed position (Fig. 3) and a raised position (Fig. 2) relative to the exterior surface of the body (12&16, Fig. 2), to rotate the arm relative to the exterior surface of the body with the arm in the raised position (Fig. 1, [0022] describes the wiper rotates around a sweeping axis and carrying the free end and blade), and to adjust a force applied by the wiper blade to the exterior surface of the body with the arm in the raised position ([0042-0043] describes the blade exerting a force when in the raised position). Regarding Claim 22, Eustache teaches the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further teaches wherein the exterior surface of the body includes a glazing (Ref. 12, Fig. 1), and the glazing is transparent to visible light ([0021] describes a windscreen that is transparent) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3-6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eustache as applied to claim s 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Leger (FR 2600293 A1) . Regarding Claim 3, Eustache teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein when the arm (28) and the base (62) are in the raised position (Fig. 2), the arm has a home position (Fig. 2, when the blades and arms are over the base) and a cleaning position (Fig. 1, when the blades and arms are over the windscreen (12)), wherein in the home position(Fig. 2, when the blades and arms are over the base), the arm and the base are approximately aligned in the extension direction (Fig. 2), wherein in the cleaning position (Fig. 1, when the blades and arms are over the windscreen (12)), the arm is rotated relative to the base (Fig. 1), wherein a cleaning angle (See annotated Fig. 1 below) is defined between the arm and the base and a value of the cleaning angle increases as the arm rotates away from the base until the cleaning angle reaches a maximum value ([0022&0035] describes the wiper rotates around a sweeping axis and carrying the free end and blade in an alternating sweeping motion that would have a maximum angle). Eustache fails to explicitly teach the arm has a service position. Leger teaches a wiperblade with an actuator and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Leger teaches a windshield wiper having an arm (4) that is rotated via an actuator ([0004] describes motorizing the arm) to rotate and sweep the windshield ([0004]) from a home position ([0004] starting position of the sweeping motion), a cleaning position ([0004-0005] describes the arm to be rotated at a certain angle) and move to a service position ([0006-0007] the position beyond one of the normal sweeping positions) the arm is rotated such that a service angle is defined, and the service angle is larger than the maximum value of the cleaning angle ([0006-0007] describes the angle of the service position would be beyond one of the normal sweeping positions (home and cleaning position)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the arm to be rotated relative to the base, as taught by Eustache, to a service position such that a service angle is defined between the arm and the base, and the service angle is larger than the maximum value of the cleaning angle, as taught by Leger, to prevent deformation of the wiper blade ([0009]). PNG media_image1.png 324 719 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 4, Eustache as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and given the teaching of the service position as taught by Leger, Eustache as modified further teaches an actuator (Ref. 72&20, Fig. 1&5, Eustache) configured to move the arm and the base between the recessed position and the raised position (Fig. 2-3, Eustache), the actuator further configured to rotate the arm relative to the base between the home position, the cleaning position ([0022] describes the wiper rotates around a sweeping axis and carrying the free end and blade, Eustache), and the service position when the arm and the base are the raised position (([0004-0009] describes the movement of the arm from an actuator from a cleaning position (touching the windshield) to the service position (not touching the windshield) adjusts the distance and the force of the wiper on the windscreen, Leger). Regarding Claim 5, Eustache as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and given the teaching of the arm moving into the service position by an actuator, as taught by Leger, Leger further teaches wherein the actuator is configured to rotate the arm relative to the exterior surface of the vehicle between the home position and the service position ([0004-0007]). Regarding Claim 6, Eustache as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and given the teaching of the arm moving into the service position by an actuator, as taught by Leger, Leger further teaches wherein the actuator ([0004] describes motorizing the arm) is configured to adjust a distance between the arm and the exterior surface of the vehicle when the arm is in the cleaning position to adjust a force applied by the wiper blade to the exterior surface of the vehicle ([0004-0009] describes the movement of the arm from a cleaning position (touching the windshield) to the service position (not touching the windshield) adjusts the distance and the force of the wiper on the windscreen). Regarding Claim 12, Eustache teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further teaches wherein when the first arm (28, left arm), the second arm (28, right arm), and the base (62) are in the raised position (Fig. 2), the first arm and the second arm have a home position (Fig. 2, when the blades and arms are over the base), and a cleaning position (Fig. 1, when the blades and arms are over the windscreen (12)), wherein in the home position (Fig. 2, when the blades and arms are over the base), the first arm and the base are approximately aligned in the extension direction and the second arm and the base are approximately aligned in the extension direction (Fig. 2), wherein in the cleaning position (Fig. 1, when the blades and arms are over the windscreen (12)), the first arm is rotated relative to the base (Fig. 1) and the second arm is rotated relative to the base (Fig. 1), wherein a first cleaning angle (see annotated Fig. 1 below, left side) is defined between the first arm and the base (Fig. 1) and a value of the first cleaning angle increases as the first arm rotates away from the base until the first cleaning angle reaches a maximum value ([0022&0035] describes the wiper rotates around a sweeping axis and carrying the free end and blade in an alternating sweeping motion that would have a maximum angle), wherein a second cleaning angle (see annotated Fig. 1 below) is defined between the second arm and the base (Fig. 1) and a value of the second cleaning angle increases as the second arm rotates away from the base until the second cleaning angle reaches a maximum value ([0022&0035] describes the wiper rotates around a sweeping axis and carrying the free end and blade in an alternating sweeping motion that would have a maximum angle). Eustache fails to explicitly teach the arm has a service position. Leger teaches a wiperblade with an actuator and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Leger teaches a windshield wiper having an arm (4) that is rotated via an actuator ([0004] describes motorizing the arm) to rotate and sweep the windshield ([0004]) from a home position ([0004] starting position of the sweeping motion), a cleaning position ([0004-0005] describes the arm to be rotated at a certain angle) and move to a service position ([0006-0007] the position beyond one of the normal sweeping positions) the arm is rotated such that a service angle is defined, and the service angle is larger than the maximum value of the cleaning angle ([0006-0007] describes the angle of the service position would be beyond one of the normal sweeping positions (home and cleaning position)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the arm to be rotated relative to the base, as taught by Eustache, to a service position such that a service angle is defined between the arm and the base, and the service angle is larger than the maximum value of the cleaning angle, as taught by Leger, to prevent deformation of the wiper blade ([0009]) . PNG media_image2.png 324 719 media_image2.png Greyscale 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eustache as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Meier (6,057,660) and Buschur (5,304,936) . Regarding Claim 18, Eustache teaches the limitations of claim 17, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach a sensor configured to generate a signal indicative of a wear level of the wiper blade. Meier teaches a vehicle with a wiper blade and arm and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Meier teaches a sensor (Ref. 5, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Lines 55-60], teach a rain sensor used to detect wear) configured to generate a signal indicative of a wear level of the wiper blade ([Col. 2, Lines 55-60] describes detecting the state of wear of the wiper blades). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the vehicle, as taught by Eustache, with a sensor configured to generate a signal indicative of a wear level of the wiper blade, as taught Meier, to provide further benefit of helping determine when to change the wiper blades and improve safety ([Col. 1, Lines 8-17]). Meier further teaches the data used to trigger a response based upon the signal from the sensor ([Col. 1, Lines 61-63]). Eustache as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the force applied by the wiper blade to the exterior surface of the body based on the signal. Buschur teaches a vehicle with a wiper blade and arm and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Buschur teaches the concept of using a rain sensor (Fig. 1) to send a signal to an actuator (Ref. 13, Fig. 1) configured to adjust the wiper blade to the exterior surface of the body based on the signal (Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Lines 45-64]). Given the teaching of Eustache to that the actuator adjusts a force applied by the wiper blade to the exterior surface of the body, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the actuator, as taught by Eustace as modified, to adjust the force applied by the wiper blade to the exterior surface of the body based on the sensor signal, as taught by Buschur, to provide further benefit of allowing automatic control of the wiper operation ([Col. 1, Lines 23-25]). Regarding Claim 19, Eustache teaches the limitations of claim 17, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach a sensor configured to generate a signal indicative of an upcoming weather condition. Meier teaches a vehicle with a wiper blade and arm and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Meier teaches a sensor (Ref. 5, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Lines 55-60], teach a rain sensor) configured to generate a signal indicative of an upcoming weather condition ([Col. 2, Lines 46-52] describes detecting the weather condition such as rain). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the vehicle, as taught by Eustache, with a sensor configured to generate a signal indicative of an upcoming weather condition, as taught Meier, to provide further benefit of helping determine when to change the wiper blades and improve safety ([Col. 1, Lines 8-17]). Meier further teaches the data used to trigger a response based upon the signal from the sensor ([Col. 1, Lines 61-63]). Eustache as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the actuator is configured to move the arm and the base to the raised position based on the signal. Buschur teaches a vehicle with a wiper blade and arm and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Buschur teaches the concept of a rain sensor (Fig. 1) to send a signal to an actuator (Ref. 13, Fig. 1) configured to adjust the wiper blade to the exterior surface of the body based on the signal (Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Lines 45-64]). Given the teaching of Eustache that the actuator moves the wiper blade, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the actuator, as taught by Eustace as modified, to adjust the force applied by the wiper blade to the exterior surface of the body based on the sensor signal, as taught by Buschur, to provide further benefit of allowing automatic control of the wiper operation ([Col. 1, Lines 23-25]). Regarding Claim 21, Eustache teaches the limitations of claim 17, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach a sensor configured to generate a signal indicative of a cleanliness level of the exterior surface of the body. Meier teaches a vehicle with a wiper blade and arm and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Meier teaches a sensor (Ref. 5, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Lines 55-60]) configured to generate a signal indicative of a cleanliness level of the exterior surface of the body ([Col. 1, lines 65-67 - Col. 2, Lines 1-12] describes detecting the cleanliness of the exterior surface of the body). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the vehicle, as taught by Eustache, with a sensor configured to generate a signal indicative of a cleanliness level of the exterior surface of the body, as taught Meier, to provide further benefit of helping determine when to change the wiper blades and improve safety ([Col. 1, Lines 8-17]). Meier further teaches the data used to trigger a response based upon the signal from the sensor ([Col. 1, Lines 61-63]). Eustache as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the actuator is configured to move the arm and the base to the raised position based on the signal. Buschur teaches a vehicle with a wiper blade and arm and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Buschur teaches the concept of a rain sensor (Fig. 1) to send a signal to an actuator (Ref. 13, Fig. 1) configured to adjust the wiper blade to the exterior surface of the body based on the signal (Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Lines 45-64]). Given the teaching of Eustache that the actuator moves the wiper blade, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the actuator, as taught by Eustache as modified, to adjust the force applied by the wiper blade to the exterior surface of the body based on the sensor signal, as taught by Buschur, to provide further benefit of allowing automatic control of the wiper operation ([Col. 1, Lines 23-25]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eustache as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Thebault (FR3071794A1) and Buschur (5,304,936) . Regarding Claim 20, Eustache teaches the limitations of claim 17, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach a sensor configured to generate a signal indicative of a speed of the vehicle. Thebault teaches a vehicle with a wiper blade and arm and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Thebault further teaches a sensor (Ref. 11&15, Fig. 2-3) configured to generate a signal indicative of a speed of the vehicle ([0010] describes the sensor comprises an accelerometer capable of detecting speed and environmental conditions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the vehicle, as taught by Eustache, with a sensor configured generate a signal indicative of a speed of the vehicle, as taught Thebault, to provide further benefit of helping determine when to change the wiper blades ([0003]). Eustache as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the force applied by the wiper blade to the exterior surface of the body based on the signal. Buschur teaches a vehicle with a wiper blade and arm and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Buschur teaches the concept of using a sensor (Fig. 1) to send a signal to an actuator (Ref. 13, Fig. 1) configured to adjust the wiper blade to the exterior surface of the body based on the signal (Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Lines 45-64]). Given the teaching of Eustache to that the actuator adjusts a force applied by the wiper blade to the exterior surface of the body, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the actuator, as taught by Eustace as modified, to adjust the force applied by the wiper blade to the exterior surface of the body based on the sensor signal, as taught by Buschur, to provide further benefit of allowing automatic control of the wiper operation ([Col. 1, Lines 23-25]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lystad (4,475,263), Kocourek (2,895,157), Katou (2008/0301898) teach vehicles with wiper blades and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-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, David Posigian can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/598,433 Page 2 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/598,433 Page 3 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/598,433 Page 4 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/598,433 Page 5 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/598,433 Page 6 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/598,433 Page 7 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/598,433 Page 8 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/598,433 Page 9 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/598,433 Page 10 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/598,433 Page 11 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/598,433 Page 12 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/598,433 Page 13 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/598,433 Page 14 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/598,433 Page 15 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/598,433 Page 16 Art Unit: 3723
Prosecution Insights