The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Pre-Exam Formalities
The Applicant filed a response to Pre-Exam Formalities on 9/18/2024 that included a new specification and new claims that superseded all previously submitted versions. Therefore, consistent with the most current Claims Worksheet, the most recent claims, filed 9/18/2024, are examined in this office action. It is also important to point out the Failure Status Report from 11/04/2024 that indicated that the USPTO was unable to obtain a copy of the foreign priority document.
Specification
The specification is objected to since the written description only implicitly or inherently discloses the structure, material, or acts for performing the function recited in a claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph.
Specifically, Claim 1 contain element "means of a rotating device" This element is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Rather than clearly linking a specific scope of structural features related to the claim limitations, the written description only implicitly or inherently sets forth the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function. Therefore, the Specification does not provide a clear boundary for the interpretation of the operation means and therefore the specification does not allow the scope of the claims to be bounded. Regarding the “means of a rotating device", the Specification is silent as to corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function and therefore the specification does not allow the scope of the claims to be bounded.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181, applicant should:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) State on the record what corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: dependent Claims 5-12 are multiple dependents of Claim 3. Therefore, Claims 5-12 are not treated on the merits in this office action.
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, and therefore dependent Claims 2-12, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim element “means of a rotating device” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. The written description only implicitly or inherently sets forth the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function, however, the claim elements are not specifically and distinctly identified and tied to the specific structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. Therefore, the specification does not provide a clear boundary for the interpretation of the " means of a rotating device” and therefore the specification does not allow the scope of the claims to be bounded. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite since it is not specifically bounded.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant may:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a) ); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.175(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181 .
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wiping system” in Claims 1, 9, 10, and 12, and “rotation device” in Claims 1 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
As previously presented, the claim element “means of a rotating device” presented in Claim 1 cannot be properly interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the specification does not provide a clear boundary regarding the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For the purpose of examination of Claim 1, and dependent Claims 2-10, the Examiner will attempt, as best understood, to match the claim elements to structure in the prior art that is similar to the Applicant's device with similar/equivalent operation.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kramer et al. DE 102018216439 A1 (hereafter Kramer et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Kramer et al. anticipates:
[Claim 1] An adapter (adapter unit 12) for fastening a wiper (wiper blade 16) to an arm (wiper arm 14) of a wiping system (wiper assembly 10), the adapter extending in a longitudinal direction (shown in Figure 1), the adapter being configured to be rotatably mounted on a connector (wiper arm adapter unit 22) of the wiper about an axis of rotation (bearing axis 38) transverse to the longitudinal direction by means of a rotation device (unlabeled pins shown in Figure 2), the adapter comprising at least one lateral wall (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) and a curved upper wall (wind deflector surface 28) comprising at least a first end edge (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) and a second end edge (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) that extend (into and out of the page as shown in Figure 2) substantially in the longitudinal direction, the adapter being defined by a vertical and transverse section (labeled in attached Figure 2 below), the section being delimited by a first straight line (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) parallel to the axis of rotation (shown in attached Figure 2 below) and passing through at least one point of the second end edge (shown in attached Figure 2 below), by a second straight line (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) perpendicular to the first straight line (shown in attached Figure 2 below) and passing through at least one point of the first end edge (shown in attached Figure 2 below), and by the curved upper wall taken in the vertical and transverse section, the adapter being characterized in that the lateral wall extends from the upper wall (shown in attached Figure 2 below) and so that at least one point of a free end (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) of the lateral wall is contained in the vertical and transverse section (shown in attached Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
710
895
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Kramer et al. anticipates:
[Claim 2] The adapter (adapter unit 12) as claimed in the preceding claim, wherein the lateral wall (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) extends from the first end edge (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the upper wall (wind deflector surface 28) so as to extend in a longitudinal (along straight profile shown in Figure 1 into and out of page as shown in attached Figure 2 above) and vertical (along rounded profile as shown in Figure 1) plane.
Regarding Claim 3, Kramer et al. anticipates:
[Claim 3] The adapter (14) as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the point of the free end (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) of the lateral wall (labeled in attached Figure 2 below) is positioned in a longitudinal (into and out of page as shown attached Figure 2 below) and vertical (parallel to page as shown attached Figure 2 below) plane passing through the first end edge (labeled in attached Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
710
895
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Kramer et al. anticipates:
[Claim 4] The adapter as claimed in claim 1, wherein the point of the free end (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) of the lateral wall (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) is positioned in the vertical and transverse section (labeled in attached Figure 2 above) and a non-zero distance from a longitudinal (labeled first end edge into and out of page as shown attached Figure 2 below) and vertical (parallel to page as shown attached Figure 2 below) plane passing through the first end edge (labeled in attached Figure 2 below).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of adapters for wiper attachment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights