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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
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, 3-5, 7-9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Schmid (DE 102012011225).
Schmid teaches an adapter (16) for attaching a wiper blade (14) to an arm (12) of a wiping system, the adapter extends in a longitudinal main direction of extension and is configured to be mounted on a connector (20) of the wiper blade, the adapter comprising at least a base (18) and a cover (56), the base comprising at least two side walls (30) opposite one another in a transverse direction of the adapter perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, wherein the side walls are connected to one another by an upper wall (figure 2 show the sidewalls connected with an upper portion), such that the side walls and the upper wall form a body of the base which partially delimits a receiving space (recess which 20 is received in) for the connector, wherein the base is configured to be pivotably mounted (32/34) about an axis of rotation on the connector, wherein the base comprises a receiving area (42) for the arm (12) of the wiping system in which is formed at least one housing delimited transversely by a support wall (lateral walls of recess 42; figure 4) and a retention wall (lower wall of recess 42; figure 4), wherein the support wall and the retention wall meet in such a way as to form a housing, and wherein the cover is movable on the base between a release position (figure 5) in which access to the receiving area is clear and a locking position (figure 6) in which the cover covers the receiving area for the arm.
With regards to claim 3, the receiving area for the arm of the wiping system and the receiving space for the connector are arranged on either side of the upper wall of the base (the upper wall is the also defined as the retention wall; essentially shown as element 48 in figure 4; receiving area is space above 48 and receiving space is space below 48).
With regards to claim 4, the retention wall of the at least one housing comprises a positioning member (46) configured to interact with a corresponding positioning element of the arm of the wiping system.
With regards to claim 5, wherein the support wall of the at least one housing comprises a recess (best described as element 68 in figure 4), open to the receiving space for the connector.
With regards to claim 7, wherein the adapter comprises interaction means (58/60) for interaction between the base and the cover.
With regards to claim 8, wherein the cover comprises at least one support rail (54/62) which extends longitudinally and which is configured to cover the at least one housing of the receiving area.
With regards to claim 9, wherein the cover is rotatably mounted (50/52) on the base by means of a rotation device of the adapter formed on the base and the cover.
With regards to claim 11, a wiper blade (14) comprising at least one wiper strip (edge of blade), a connector (20) and an adapter (16), wherein the adapter being pivotably mounted (32/34) relative to the connector rigidly secured to a holder for the wiper strip.
With regards to claim 12, a wiping system for a motor vehicle, wherein in the wiping system comprises a wiper blade (14), and an arm (12) which is connected to the wiper blade by means of the adapter, said arm being arranged in the receiving area (42) of the adapter.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (‘225).
Schmid teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that the housing has a v-shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the housing so that it is v-shaped because Applicant has not disclosed that a v-shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the rectangular shaped housing as taught by Schmid or the claimed v-shape housing because both housing shapes perform the same function of securing a wiper arm to the adaptor equally well. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schmid to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (‘225) in view of Caillot (FR3091232).
Schmid teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach the cover is configured to be movable in longitudinal translation on the base. Caillot teaches an adaptor (500) with a cover (600) that slides in a longitudinal direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pivoting cover with a longitudinally sliding cover as taught by Caillot as an alternative means for securing the wiper arm to the adaptor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 includes the limitation of the receiving area that comprises two housings separated from one another by a central wall which extends mainly in the longitudinal direction, each of the housings is configured to receive the arm of the wiping system, said housings are symmetrical about a main plane of the central wall, wherein each housing comprises a support wall and a retention wall extending from the central wall and one of the side walls of the base, respectively.
None of the prior art teach these limitations nor would it have been obvious to modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention since there is no motivation or teaching to do so.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights