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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Inconsistent recitation of “through” and “though” slots.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
“though slot” should be “through slots” (Examiner notes that it appears the first 5 recitations of through slots is cited as “though slot”)
“pivoted to the pivot portion” should be “pivotably connected to the pivot portion”
“respectively configured to corresponding to” should be “respectively configured to correspond to”
“the main body of each of the fasteners penetrates the second through slot of the corresponded wing strip and the corresponded first through slot of the wing strip,” should be “the main body of each of the fasteners penetrates the second through slot of the corresponding wing strip through the corresponding second [See 112(b) rejection below] through slot of the wing strip,”.
“the blocking portion and the upper cover in each of the fasteners respectively are abutted to opposite sides of the corresponded wing strip and the medium frame” Should be “the corresponding blocking portion of each fastener abuts the opposite side of the corresponding wing strip, and the corresponding upper cover of each fastener abuts the corresponding opposite side of the medium frame”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 1, Claim 1 cites the limitation “the main body of each of the fasteners penetrates the second through slot of the corresponded wing strip and the corresponded first through slot of the wing strip” which is unclear, as the “first through slot” is defined to be a part of the medium frame. It appears this is intending to claim that the fastener penetrates through the second through slot of the wing strip and the corresponding first through slot of the medium frame to couple them together and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
Regarding Claims 5, 6, 7 these claims cited limitations pointed towards the positioning of the stopping block(s), with claim 5 requiring “the stopping blocks are respectively arranged on two opposite sides of the second through slot and located on a same side with the corresponded blocking portion.”
Claim 6 Requiring “The stopping blocks are arranged on a same side of the second through slot and located two opposite sides of the corresponded blocking portion.”
And Claim 7 requiring “two of the stopping blocks are respectively arranged on two opposite sides of the second through slot, the other two stopping blocks are respectively located on two opposite sides of the corresponded blocking portion.”.
This is unclear, firstly, regarding the portion concerning the relationship between the stopping blocks and the second through slots, it is unclear what is required by being on the same or opposite sides of the slot, as this could require that both are on the bottom side of the wing strip, opposite of the medium frame, or one on the top side and one on the bottom, or it could require that both are on the outer side of the slot (the outer direction with respect to the ends of the main or medium frame) or the inner side, or one on each side.
With respect to the portion concerning the relationship of the stopping blocks with respect to the blocking portions, the blocking portion is a part of the fastener component, which is a separate component from the wing strip, and lacks antecedent basis for being attached to the wing strips outside of when the wiper skeleton assembly is locked, and it is ambiguous if the claims in question are meant to be interpreted under the condition of “when the wiper skeleton assembly is locked” additionally similar concerns to the relationship between the stopping blocks and second through slots.
Applicants’ specification, Page 10 Lines 18- Page 11 line 2 discusses an embodiment wherein the stopping blocks are positioned on the same side of the second through slot, and opposite sides of the corresponding blocking portion, seen in Fig. 11 of applicant’s disclosure. Below is an annotated reproduction of Fig. 11. Applicant’s specification states that this shows the stopping blocks positioned on the same side of the second through slot (both North of the slot or on the bottom side of the slot) and on opposite sides of the blocking portion (east and west side). However, this image also shows the inverse, as the stopping blocks are also on opposite sides of the through slot (east and west sides) and on the same side of the blocking portion (above the blocking portion or to the north of the blocking portion).
As such the metes and bounds of these claims are unclear.
Applicants’ specification on page 10 Lines 9-17 disclose that the intention of the positioning of the stopping blocks are to prevent rotation of fasteners during use when the wiper skeleton assembly is locked. As such for the purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as “wherein when the wiper skeleton assembly is locked, the stopping blocks are configured to prevent the rotation of the fasteners”.
Examiner additionally notes that under this interpretation, claims 5 and 6 are identical and claim 6 would additionally be rejected for being a duplicate claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. A (Fig. 11 of Applicants disclosure)
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, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young (US 20180119170 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Young discloses A wiper skeleton assembly, comprising:
a medium frame (30), comprising a pivot portion (31 See Para [0098] “The secondary frame 30 preferably has a central pivot connection portion 31, which connects the secondary frame 30 to the primary frame 20 via a pivot structure.”) and defining a pair of first though slots (37, see Fig. 7), the pivot portion located between the first though slots (See Fig. 7 showing pivot portion between through slots 37), the first though slots respectively arranged on two ends of the medium frame (See Fig. 7);
a main frame (20), one end of the main frame pivoted to the pivot portion (See Para [0098] cited above);
a pair of wing strips (40) , respectively configured to corresponding to each of the first though slots (See Para [0107] “The ends of the secondary frame 30 may either be provided with a wiper strip holder, such as the claws 43 on the tertiary frames 40, 41, or may with a connection extension 36 having a structure to connect to a tertiary frame 40, 41. in certain embodiments, as shown in FIGS. 6-7 and 17-21 the connection between the secondary frame 30 and the tertiary frame(s) 41, 42 is formed by passing a pivoting stud 44 through a hole 42 in the central joint connection portion of the tertiary frame and a hole 37 in the connection extensions 36 on the secondary frame 30.”), each of the wing strips defining a second though slot (42) and comprising a stopping block (outer side wall of 42), the stopping block in each of the wing strips arranged on a side of the wing strip away from the medium frame and adjacent to the second through slot (See Fig. 18); and
a pair of fasteners (44), respectively configured to corresponding to each of the wing strips (See Para [0107] “the connection between the secondary frame 30 and the tertiary frame(s) 41, 42 is formed by passing a pivoting stud 44 through a hole 42 in the central joint connection portion of the tertiary frame and a hole 37 in the connection extensions 36 on the secondary frame 30.”), each of the fasteners comprising a main body (46), an upper cover (48), and a blocking portion (47), the upper cover and the blocking portion respectively connected to two ends of the main body in each of the fasteners (See Fig. 21);
wherein when the wiper skeleton assembly is locked, the main body of each of the fasteners penetrates the second through slot of the corresponded wing strip and the corresponded first through slot of the wing strip (See Fig. 18 and 21 and Para [0107] cited above), the blocking portion and the upper cover in each of the fasteners respectively are abutted to opposite sides of the corresponded wing strip and the medium frame, each of the stopping blocks being configured to block a side of each of the blocking portions (See Para [0107] “As shown in FIG. 21, the pivoting stud 44 has a tertiary base portion 45 sized to fit in the hole 42 of the tertiary frame 40, 41, and a bottom portion 47 that is wider than the hole 42 in the tertiary frame 40, 41. Thus tertiary frame 40, 41, is supported on the bottom portion 47 of the pivoting stud 44 when the wiper blade is assembled. Accordingly, the base portion 47 may be curved (as shown in FIG. 21) or angled in order to facilitate the pivoting of the tertiary frame 40, 41. The pivoting stud 44 is also provided with a top portion 48 and a neck 46 wherein the diameter of the neck is approximately the same as the width of top portion 48 and smaller than the length of the top portion. Both are the top portion and the neck are sized to fit into the hole 37 of the secondary frame, and the height of the neck is approximately the same as the thickness of the connection extension 36 of the secondary frame 30.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Young discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein a shape of the blocking portion is corresponding to a shape of the first through slot and the second through slot (See rectangular first through slot 37 in Fig. 7, rectangular second through slot 42 in Fig. 18 and the rounded rectangular blocking portion for 47 in Fig. 21).
Regarding Claim 9, Young discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses further comprising a pivot shaft (See Para [0093] cited below, the main frame (20) defines a pair of through holes (24), the pivot portion defines a pair of pivot holes (See Item (2) in Para [0098] “The central pivot connection portion 31 may have connecting structures, such as recesses 32; projections; or pivot joint wings having either (1) a rivet or projections to attach to corresponding recesses, holes or clips in the primary frame's 20 pivot extension walls 23 or other connection to a pivot structure; or (2) recesses to receive corresponding projections, rivets, etc. in the primary frame's 20 pivot extension walls 23 or other connection to a pivot structure.”), the pivot shaft penetrates the through holes and the pivot holes such that the main frame is pivoted on the pivot portion (See Para [0093] “These pivot extension walls 23 extend from the side walls 22 of the primary frame 20 and facilitate the connection of the primary frame 20 to the pivot structure. The pivot extension walls may be provided with holes 24 which will form part of the pivot structure, wherein a rivet, or protrusions may be placed to facilitate the pivoting of the secondary frame 30.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Young discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein a number of the medium frame is two (See both elements 30 in Fig. 2 and 3), a number of the wing strip is two pairs (See both pairs 40 and 41 in Figs. 2 and 3), a number of the fastener is two pairs (each individual wing strip is connected to the medium frame via a fastener 44, See Para [0107] “in certain embodiments, as shown in FIGS. 6-7 and 17-21 the connection between the secondary frame 30 and the tertiary frame(s) 41, 42 is formed by passing a pivoting stud 44 through a hole 42 in the central joint connection portion of the tertiary frame and a hole 37 in the connection extensions 36 on the secondary frame 30.”), two ends of the main frame is pivoted to the pivot portions (See Portions of [0098] and [0093] cited in the rejection of claim 9 above, and further see Fig. 4 showing the main frame with two connection points (23 and 24) for each wing strip), the medium frames, the wing strips, and the fasteners are symmetrically arranged on the two ends of the main frame (See Fig. 2 showing all the elements symmetrically arranged).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US 20180118170 A1) in view of Kim (US 20100281645 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Young discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses but does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the fasteners further comprises a locking portion extended from the main body and located between the upper cover and the blocking portion, each of the locking portions is accommodated in each of the corresponded first through slots when the wiper skeleton assembly is locked.
However, Young does suggest a locking portion (45) located between the upper cover (48) and blocking portion (47)
However, Kim discloses a similar wiper blade assembly, including a plurality of fastener (40), each of the plurality of fasteners comprising a locking portion (43) extending from the main body (See Fig. 4), each of the locking portions is accommodated in each of the corresponding first through slots (103 and 104) when the wiper assembly is locked.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the fasteners of Young to include a locking portion extending from the main body, and located between the upper cover and the blocking portion, each of the locking portions is accommodated in each of the corresponded first through slots when the wiper skeleton assembly is locked. As doing so would allow for the fastener to be fixed to the medium frame when the wiper assembly is locked as advantageously suggested by Kim (See Para [0057]), by preventing rotation in the axis direction of the main body of the fastener when the wiper skeleton assembly is locked, preventing the wing strips or medium frame from becoming misaligned in the axial rotational direction.
Regarding Claim 3, Young as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 2 and in addition discloses wherein in each of the fasteners (44 of Young), the locking portion (43 of Kim) and the blocking portion (45 of Young) are arranged on the main body in an intersecting and staggered manner (as modified in claim 2, Young is modified with a locking portion that corresponds to the first through slot when in the locked position, Para [0107] discusses the locking position, “During assembly, the pivoting stud's 44 top portion 48 and neck 46 are inserted into hole 37 in the connection extension 36 of the secondary frame 30, and then turned such that the top portion 48 is perpendicular to the long side of the hole 37 in the connection extension 36.”. The top portion is perpendicular to the slot 37, as the locking portion corresponds to the first slot, it would be parallel, and Fig. 21 shows that the top portion and blocking portion are parallel to each other, resulting in an intersecting and staggered manner similar to that seen in applicants’ disclosure.).
Regarding Claim 4, Young as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein in each of the fasteners, a shape of the locking portion is corresponding to a shape of the first through slot (as modified in claim 2, Young is modified with a locking portion that corresponds to the first through slot when in the locked position, Para [0107] discusses the locking position, “During assembly, the pivoting stud's 44 top portion 48 and neck 46 are inserted into hole 37 in the connection extension 36 of the secondary frame 30, and then turned such that the top portion 48 is perpendicular to the long side of the hole 37 in the connection extension 36.”. as such the locking portion would be located in the first through slot when in the locking position, and would correspond to the shape of the first through slot, similarly see Kim Fig. 2 showing the locking portions having a corresponding shape to the first through slots).
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US 20180118170 A1) in view of Tufts (US 20200139937 A1) and Curtwright (US 20220388483 A1).
Regarding Claim 5 and 6, As best understood by examiner, Young discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein in each of the wing strips, a number of the stopping block is two (opposite sidewalls of 42). But does not disclose the stopping blocks are respectively arranged on two opposite sides of the second through slot and located on a same side with the corresponded blocking portion.
However, Tufts discloses a windshield wiper adapter (50) including a stop (51) that is arranged to prevent rotation of the adapter in such a way that would allow disengagement of the adapter (See Para [0138] “For example, when configured in operation mode, the adapter 50 is permitted to pivot or rotate to the first inclusive angle 53, while the limit edge 49 and stop member 51 prevent the adapter 50 from being further rotated to a larger angle that would allow disengagement of the adapter 50.”).
And Curtwright discloses a similar stopping structure (104 mating with 110) with a plurality of sides arranged on a side of a through slot (48) while allowing for vertical movement (See Para [0073] “Securement of the receptacle with that of the receiving block is advanced by a pair of fasteners 114 that pass through an equal number of elongate apertures 104b extending through end walls 104c of the receptacle and into apertures 106a extending into the receiving block, whereby the elongate apertures aptly provide for upward and downward movement of the receiving block.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the location of the stopping blocks in view of Curtwright in order to prevent rotation that would allow undesirable disengagement of the fastener when the wiper skeleton assembly is locked in order to prevent malfunction during operation as advantageously discussed in Tufts as cited above.
Regarding Claim 7, Young discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein in each of the wing strips, a number of the stopping block is four (All 4 side walls of 42), but does not disclose two of the stopping blocks are respectively arranged on two opposite sides of the second through slot, the other two stopping blocks are respectively located on two opposite sides of the corresponded blocking portion.
However, Tufts discloses a windshield wiper adapter (50) including a stop (51) that is arranged to prevent rotation of the adapter in such a way that would allow disengagement of the adapter (See Para [0138] “For example, when configured in operation mode, the adapter 50 is permitted to pivot or rotate to the first inclusive angle 53, while the limit edge 49 and stop member 51 prevent the adapter 50 from being further rotated to a larger angle that would allow disengagement of the adapter 50.”).
And Curtwright discloses a similar stopping structure (104 mating with 110) with a plurality of sides arranged on a side of a through slot (48) while allowing for vertical movement (See Para [0073] “Securement of the receptacle with that of the receiving block is advanced by a pair of fasteners 114 that pass through an equal number of elongate apertures 104b extending through end walls 104c of the receptacle and into apertures 106a extending into the receiving block, whereby the elongate apertures aptly provide for upward and downward movement of the receiving block.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the location of the stopping blocks in view of Tuft in order to prevent rotation that would allow undesirable disengagement of the fastener when the wiper skeleton assembly is locked in order to prevent malfunction during operation as advantageously discussed in Tufts as cited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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.
/T.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights