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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 April 2026 has been entered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 1 line 3 recites the term “matrix” and this terminology does not have basis in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Azuma et al., DE 19741225 A1 (see also English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Azuma et al. disclose a wiper blade comprising: a blade (1) having an outer surface (outer surface of 1, Figures 1 and 4) and terminating in a lip tip (unlabeled, see Figures 1-4); and a permanent silicone outer coating forming a matrix (4, see English translation for the liquid surface layer cured to form the coating) derived from a composition consisting of: an aqueous elastomeric organopolysiloxane emulsion bonded to at least the lip tip (Figure 4; see English translation paragraph beginning “The organosilicone elastomer of the present invention contains…”, an organosilicone elastomer containing organosiloxane bindings). Regarding claims 2-3, the wiper blade is formed of natural rubber or chloroprene rubber (see English translation, also referred to as NR and CR). Regarding claim 6, the permanent silicone outer covering covers at least one portion of the outer surface of the blade (Figures 1 and 4). Regarding claim 7, the at least one portion of the outer surface of the blade is a lip side, a neck, a head portion, or a combination (Figures 1 and 4). Regarding claims 9-10, the wiper blade further comprises a particulate filler embedded in the permanent silicone outer coating that includes graphite, carbon, boron nitride, polytetrafluoroethylene, and molybdenum disulfide (see English translation). Regarding claim 11, there is residual solvent from the liquid silicone composition (see English translation).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta et al., JP 2012-140090 A (see also English translation) in view of Ikeno, EP 2009059 A2.
Regarding claim 1, Furuta et al. disclose a wiper blade (1) comprising: a blade (2) having an outer surface (outer surface of 2, Figure 1) and terminating in a lip tip (at 6); and a permanent silicone outer coating forming a matrix derived from a composition consisting of: a liquid silicone rubber bonded to at least the lip tip (coating 4, coating at 6a and 6b; see English translation that states “Various silicone rubbers can be used…liquid silicone rubber is preferable in terms of processing the water-repellent layer 4”). Regarding claim 6, the permanent silicone outer covering covers at least one portion of the outer surface of the blade (Figure 1). Regarding claim 7, the at least one portion of the outer surface of the blade is a lip side (Figure 1, at 6a and 6b). Regarding claims 9-10, the wiper blade further comprises a particulate filler embedded in the permanent silicone outer coating that includes graphite (see English translation discussion of graphite and its particle size). Regarding claim 11, there is residual solvent from the liquid silicone composition (see English translation discussion of “reaction mechanism”, alcohol type). Regarding claim 12, the wiper blade further comprises a silicone oil in combination with a lubricant particulate (see English translation, particulate is graphite). Futura et al. fails to disclose that the permanent silicone outer covering forming a matrix is derived from a composition consisting of: (A) an organopolysiloxane containing at least two silicon bonded alkenyl radicals per molecule, an organohydrogen polysiloxane containing Si-H radicals, an addition reaction catalyst, an organosilicon compound containing epoxy and alkoxy radicals or (B) an aqueous elastomeric organopolysiloxane emulsion.
The applicant’s specification paragraph [0025] discusses a conventional liquid silicone rubber coating derived from: a composition consisting of: an organopolysiloxane containing at least two silicon bonded alkenyl radicals per molecule, an organohydrogen polysiloxane containing Si-H radicals, an addition reaction catalyst, an organosilicon compound containing epoxy and alkoxy radicals. The specification points to EP 2009059 (Ikeno et al.) as teaching this.
Ikeno et al. teach a liquid silicone rubber used to form a silicone rubber coating (paragraph [0001]) and the silicone outer covering is derived from a composition consisting of: an organopolysiloxane containing at least two silicon bonded alkenyl radicals per molecule, an organohydrogen polysiloxane containing Si-H radicals, an addition reaction catalyst, an organosilicon compound containing epoxy and alkoxy radicals (paragraph [0008]). The silicone rubber coating has advantages including providing an excellent uniform and thin coating (paragraph [0006]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive the permanent silicone outer coating of Futura et al. with one derived from an organopolysiloxane containing at least two silicon bonded alkenyl radicals per molecule, an organohydrogen polysiloxane containing Si-H radicals, an addition reaction catalyst, an organosilicon compound containing epoxy and alkoxy radicals as taught by Ikeno et al. as being excellent in forming a thin and uniform coating.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta et al., JP 2012-140090 A (see also English translation) and Ikeno et al., EP 2009059 A2 as applied to claim 1 in view of Fang, WO 2020/232323.
Furuta et al. and Ikeno et al. disclose all elements previously discussed above, however does not specify a dimension for the thickness of the outer coating.
Fang teaches a wiper blade comprising a blade having an outer surface and a silicone outer coating that is water repellent (see paragraph [0019]) that is bonded to the outer surface, the outer coating having a thickness of between 0.05 and 3 millimeters (range of 0.5 to 500 microns or 0.005 to 0.5 mm, see claim 13) as being a suitable thickness for an outer coating.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the outer coating of Furuta et al. and Ikeno et al. to be a thickness between 0.05 and 3 millimeters, as Fang teaches, so that the outer layer is suitably thick to prevent wear over time and to achieve the water repelling characteristics of the outer coating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues:
Azuma fails to teach the very specific chemistry of the recitations in parts (A) and (B) of the currently amended claim 1. Claim 1 as amended uses the transitional phrase “consisting of” and is closed to the elements recited therein. As such, the applicant argues that Azuma mentions an epoxy on four occasions and not in the context of a permanent silicone outer coating forming a matrix from a composition of parts (A) and (B) as recited.
The applicant argues that Furuta in view of Ikeno present a number of deficiencies and fail to teach the very specific chemistry of the recitation in parts (A) and (B) recited in claim 1. The applicant states that claim 1 as amended uses the transitional phrase “consisting of” and is closed to the elements recited therein. The applicant argues that on this basis that the prior art combination provides no teaching, suggestion or motivation to arrive at the invention recited in claim 1. Further, the applicant states that Fang fails to overcome the deficiencies of Futura and Ikeno as it relates to claim 8.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. Relating to both arguments (I) and (II), the examiner points to amended claim 1 which the applicant has misrepresented in the arguments. Claim 1 recites “…a permanent silicone outer coating forming a matrix derived from a composition consisting of: (A)…or (B)…” Claim 1 does not require (A) and (B). As stated above, Azuma discloses the composition in clause (B) “an aqueous elastomeric organopolysiloxane emulsion bonded to at least the lip tip” shown in Figure 4 and described within the English translation, specifically at the paragraph beginning “The organosilicone elastomer of the present invention contains…”, an organosilicone elastomer containing organosiloxane bindings. Additionally, Furuta in view of Ikeno in combination teach the composition in clause (A). Ikeno in paragraph [0008] teach an organopolysiloxane containing at least two silicon bonded alkenyl radicals per molecule, an organohydrogen polysiloxane containing Si-H radicals, an addition reaction catalyst, an organosilicon compound containing epoxy and alkoxy radicals.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9,637,670 to Fang is cited as teaching a silicone coating composition for a wiper blade.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg
Prosecution Insights