DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merit for claims 1 and 3 – 12. Claim 2 is cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the fluid line and the spray line can be connected to each other in a non-destructive and detachable fluidic connection via the line coupler” in lines 8 – 9. “Can be” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear if the limitation is required or optional. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as optional.
Claims 3 – 12 are further rejected as dependents of rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schaeuble (EP 2803540 A1) in view of Grasso (EP 3124336 A1) as cited by Applicant.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Schaeuble teaches a windshield wiper system (wiping system, 1; Fig. 1) for a vehicle (Paragraph [0001]), comprising a wiper blade (wiper blade, 2; Fig. 1) having a spraying device (spraying device of the mechanical connector, 7; Fig. 1), a fluid line (fluid line connecting with connecting interface, 5; Abstract – in order to supply fluid to wiper, the connector interface, 5 is connected to a fluid line in the arm; Paragraph [0018]), a wiper arm (arm, 3) on which the fluid line is arranged or retained (Fig. 1), and a retaining device (adapter, 8), wherein the spraying device (Fig. 1) comprises a spraying device connector (the mechanical connector, 7; Fig. 1), wherein the fluid line comprises a line coupler (connecting interface, 5), wherein the fluid line and the spraying device (Fig. 1) can be connected to each other in a non-destructive and detachable fluidic connection via the line coupler (5) and the spraying device connector (7; Fig. 1), wherein the retaining device (8) is arranged on the wiper blade (2), wherein the retaining device (8) in a first state is configured to enable non- destructive detachment of a fluidic connection between the line coupler (5) and the spraying device connector (7; Fig. 3; Paragraphs [0023] – [0025]), and wherein the retaining device (8) in a second state is configured to prevent non-destructive detachment of the fluidic connection coupling (Fig. 2; Paragraphs [0023] – [0025]).
Schaeuble does not explicitly teach wherein retaining device is rotatably arranged on the wiper blade, the first state corresponds to a first position of the retaining device, and the second state corresponds to a second position of the retaining device.
Grasso, however, teaches wherein retaining device (8) is rotatably arranged on the wiper blade (Paragraph [0027]), the first state corresponds to a first position of the retaining device (Fig. 2b), and the second state corresponds to a second position of the retaining device (Fig. 2c).
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 system of Schaeuble to further include wherein retaining device is rotatably arranged on the wiper blade, the first state corresponds to a first position of the retaining device, and the second state corresponds to a second position of the retaining device, as taught by Grasso, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 3, Schaeuble, as modified, teaches the windshield wiper system (wiping system, 1; Fig. 1) wherein the retaining device (8) comprises at least one latch (sliding element, 6; notch, 10; or excrescence 11), wherein the latch (6) is, in a first position of the retaining device (8), configured to enable a pull-off movement of the line coupler (5) from the spraying device connector (7) in order to detach the fluidic connection coupling along a pull-off direction (Fig. 3), and wherein the latch (10) is, in a second position (Fig. 2) of the retaining device (8), configured to prevent the pull-off movement of the line coupler from the spraying device connector (7) .
Regarding Claim 4, Schaeuble, as modified, teaches the windshield wiper system (wiping system, 1; Fig. 1) wherein the latch (6) is configured to engage into at least one recess of the retaining device in the second position of the retaining device (Fig. 2; flaps, 13 of slide engage first slot, 12).
Regarding Claim 5, Schaeuble, as modified, teaches the windshield wiper system (wiping system, 1; Fig. 1) wherein in the second position (Fig. 3) of the retaining device (8), the latch (6) is arranged at an end of the line coupler (5) opposite the fluidic connection coupling in order to prevent the pull-off movement of the line coupler (5) along the pull-off direction from detaching the fluidic connector coupling (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Schaeuble, as modified, teaches the windshield wiper system (wiping system, 1; Fig. 1) wherein the wiper arm (3) is mechanically connected to the wiper blade (2) by the retaining device (8; Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding Claim 7, Schaeuble teaches the windshield wiper system according to claim 2 as discussed above.
Schaeuble teaches an angular range as shown in Fig. 4, but fails to explicitly teach the second position of the retaining device comprises at least an angular range of 0° to 5° with respect to a pull-off direction.
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schaeuble to further include the second position of the retaining device comprises at least an angular range of 0° to 5° with respect to a pull-off direction, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/angle of a component. A change in size/angle is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 8, Schaeuble, as modified, teaches the windshield wiper system (wiping system, 1; Fig. 1) wherein the second position (Fig. 3) of the retaining device (8) corresponds to an operating position in which the wiper blade (2) can be placed against a surface being cleaned (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Schaeuble, as modified, teaches the windshield wiper system (wiping system, 1; Fig. 1) wherein the retaining device (8) is configured to be mechanically connected to the wiper arm (3) in the first state in a non-destructive and detachable manner (Paragraphs [0023] – [0025]).
Regarding Claim 10, Schaeuble, as modified, teaches the windshield wiper system (wiping system, 1; Fig. 1) wherein the retaining device (8) in the second state (Fig. 3) is configured to prevent non-destructive detachment of a mechanical connection to the wiper arm (3; Paragraphs [0023] – [0025]).
Regarding Claim 11, Schaeuble, as modified, teaches the windshield wiper system (wiping system, 1; Fig. 1) wherein the line coupler (5) and the spraying device connector (7) can be mechanically connected to one another via a snap connection (via notch, 16; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Schaeuble, as modified, teaches the windshield wiper system (wiping system, 1; Fig. 1) wherein, in the second position (Fig. 3) of the retaining device (8), the latch (6) is arranged at an end of the line coupler (5) opposite the fluidic connection coupling in order to prevent the pull-off movement of the line coupler along the pull-off direction from detaching the fluidic connector coupling Paragraphs [0023] – [0025]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated June 25, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Grasso.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights