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 Merits for claims 1 – 2, 4 – 6, 9 – 10 and 13 – 21. Claims 3, 7 – 8, 11 – 20 and 22 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/12/2024 was filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4 – 6, 9 – 10 and 13 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westermann et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,658,690 B1) in view of Bex (U. S. Patent No. 9,517,752 B2).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Westermann teaches a wiper blade (Fig. 1), comprising; a wiper strip (wiper blade, 11a) extending in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 1) and a fastening element (connecting piece, 10) for fastening the wiper strip (11a) to a wiper arm (wiper arm, 11), the fastening element (10) including at least a first adapter element (rear end, 18), having a first guide surface (upper face, 14a) and a second guide surface (lower face, 14c) for longitudinally guiding the wiper arm (11, Figs. 12 and 13), the first guide surface (14a) and the second guide surface (14c) being located on respective opposite outer faces of the fastening element (38; Figs. 2 and 3), wherein the first guide surface (14a) is formed as a substantially fixed positioning element (Fig. 2) and the second guide surface (14c) is formed as a resilient coupling element (yielding plateau, 53; Col. 3, lines 48 – 57), wherein the coupling element (53) has a first and second spring elements (spring like oblique ribs, 52; Fig. 2), the spring elements (52) being compressed in a main extension direction (Figs. 2 and 12).
Westermann does not explicitly teach wherein the first spring element is compressible in a first main extension direction that is oblique to the longitudinal direction, and the second spring element is compressible in a second main extension direction that is oblique to the longitudinal direction.
Bex, however, teaches a wiper blade (Fig. 1), comprising; a wiper strip (wiper blade of 10) extending in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 1) and a fastening element (main part, 16) and a resilient coupling element (plateau, 20) including wherein the first spring element (oblique web, 94) is compressible in a first main extension direction (Fig. 3) that is oblique to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3), and the second spring element (oblique web, 94) is compressible in a second main extension direction (Fig. 3) that is oblique to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3).
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 wiper blade of Westermann to further include the first spring element is compressible in a first main extension direction that is oblique to the longitudinal direction, and the second spring element is compressible in a second main extension direction that is oblique to the longitudinal direction, as taught by Bex, 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 (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 4, Westermann teaches the wiper blade (Fig. 1) of claim 3 as discussed above.
Although Westermann teaches the first main extension direction (Fig. 2) and the second main direction each enclose with a longitudinal direction (Fig. 2) and a respective spring angle (Fig. 2), a spring angle of less than 90 degrees (Col. 1, lines 41 – 43), the reference fails to explicitly teach the spring angles being between 20 and 40 degrees.
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 wiper blade of Westermann to further include the spring angle being between 20 and 40 degrees, 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 (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 5, Westermann teaches the wiper blade (Fig. 1) wherein the first adapter element (18) has at least a first mounting position (Fig. 7) and a second mounting position (Fig. 12), wherein the coupling element (53) has a first distance from the positioning element (14a) in the first mounting position and a second distance from the positioning element in a second mounting position (Fig. 12; Col. 3, lines 48 – 57).
Regarding Claim 6, Westermann teaches the wiper blade (Fig. 1) of claim 5 as discussed above.
Although Westermann teaches an adjustable difference between the first distance (Fig. 7) and the second distance (Fig. 12), the reference fails to explicitly teach the distance to be between 1 mm and 5 mm.
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 wiper blade of Westermann to further include an adjustable difference between the first distance and the second distance between 1 mm and 5 mm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/distance of a component. A change in size/distance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 9, Westermann teaches the wiper blade (Fig. 1) wherein the first and second spring element (52) each comprise a force application section (third elastic region, 49; Fig. 12), the force application sections (49) being provided for transmitting the mounting force of the wiper arm (11).
Westermann does not explicitly teach the force application sections are each formed in a substantially arcuate shape.
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 wiper blade of Westermann to further include the force application section is formed in a substantially arcuate shape, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 10, Westermann teaches the wiper blade (Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Westermann teaches a first wall thickness of the positioning element (14a; Fig. 2) and a second wall thickness of the coupling element (53) but does not explicitly teach a first wall thickness of the positioning element is between 150% and 400% of a second wall thickness of the coupling element.
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 wiper blade of Westermann to further include a first wall thickness of the positioning element is between 150% and 400% of a second wall thickness of the coupling element, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape/thickness of a component. A change in shape/thickness is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Independent Claim 13, Westermann teaches a windshield (windshield, 11b) wiper arrangement (Fig. 1) comprising a wiper blade (Fig. 1) and a wiper arm (11), wherein the wiper blade (Fig. 1) comprises a wiper strip (11a) and a fastening element (10) for fastening the wiper strip to the wiper arm (11; Fig. 1), wherein the fastening element (10) comprises a first guide surface (14a) and a second guide surface (14c) for longitudinally guiding the wiper arm (11), wherein the first guide surface (14a) and the second guide surface (14c) are each arranged on respective opposite outer faces of the fastening element (10; Fig. 2), wherein the first guide surface (14a) is formed as a substantially fixed positioning element (Fig. 2) and the second guide surface (14c) is formed as a resilient coupling element (yielding plateau, 53; Col. 3, lines 48 – 57) wherein the coupling element (53) has a first and second spring elements (spring like oblique ribs, 52; Fig. 2), the spring elements (52) being compressed in a main extension direction (Figs. 2 and 12).
Westermann does not explicitly teach wherein the first spring element is compressible in a first main extension direction that is oblique to the longitudinal direction, and the second spring element is compressible in a second main extension direction that is oblique to the longitudinal direction.
Bex, however, teaches a wiper blade (Fig. 1), comprising; a wiper strip (wiper blade of 10) extending in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 1) and a fastening element (main part, 16) and a resilient coupling element (plateau, 20) including wherein the first spring element (oblique web, 94) is compressible in a first main extension direction (Fig. 3) that is oblique to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3), and the second spring element (oblique web, 94) is compressible in a second main extension direction (Fig. 3) that is oblique to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3).
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 wiper blade of Westermann to further include the first spring element is compressible in a first main extension direction that is oblique to the longitudinal direction, and the second spring element is compressible in a second main extension direction that is oblique to the longitudinal direction, as taught by Bex, 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 (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 14, Westermann teaches the windshield wiper arrangement (Fig. 1) wherein the wiper arm (11) comprises a fastening section (@ 10; Fig. 1) configured to couple with the first (14a) and second (14c) guide surfaces of the fastening element (10; Fig. 2) of the wiper blade for fastening the wiper strip (11a) to the wiper arm (11).
Regarding Claim 15, Westermann teaches the wiper blade of claim 3 as discussed above.
Westermann does not teach wherein the first and second spring element are wave-shaped.
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 wiper blade of Westermann to further include the first and second spring element is wave-shaped, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 16, Westermann teaches the wiper blade (Fig. 1) of claim 4 as discussed above.
Although Westermann teaches a spring angle of less than 90 degrees (Col. 1, lines 41 – 43), the reference fails to explicitly teach the spring angle being between 25° and 35°.
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 wiper blade of Westermann to further include the spring angle being between 25° and 35°, 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 (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 17, Westermann teaches the wiper blade (Fig. 1) of claim 4 as discussed above.
Although Westermann teaches a spring angle of less than 90 degrees (Col. 1, lines 41 – 43), the reference fails to explicitly teach the spring angle is 30°.
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 wiper blade of Westermann to further include the spring angle is 30°, 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 (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 18, Westermann teaches the wiper blade (Fig. 1) of claim 6 as discussed above.
Although Westermann teaches an adjustable difference between the first distance (Fig. 7) and the second distance (Fig. 12), the reference fails to explicitly teach the distance to be between 2 mm and 4 mm.
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 wiper blade of Westermann to further include an adjustable difference between the first distance and the second distance between 2 mm and 4 mm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/distance of a component. A change in size/distance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 19, Westermann teaches the wiper blade (Fig. 1) of claim 6 as discussed above.
Although Westermann teaches an adjustable difference between the first distance (Fig. 7) and the second distance (Fig. 12), the reference fails to explicitly teach the distance is 3 mm.
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 wiper blade of Westermann to further include an adjustable difference between the first distance and the second distance is 3 mm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/distance of a component. A change in size/distance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 20, Westermann teaches the wiper blade (Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Westermann teaches a first wall thickness of the positioning element (14a; Fig. 2) and a second wall thickness of the coupling element (53) but does not explicitly teach a first wall thickness of the positioning element is between 200% and 350% of a second wall thickness of the coupling element.
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 wiper blade of Westermann to further include a first wall thickness of the positioning element is between 200% and 350% of a second wall thickness of the coupling element, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape/thickness of a component. A change in shape/thickness is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 21, Westermann teaches the wiper blade (Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Westermann teaches a first wall thickness of the positioning element (14a; Fig. 2) and a second wall thickness of the coupling element (53) but does not explicitly teach a first wall thickness of the positioning element is between 250% and 350% of a second wall thickness of the coupling element.
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 wiper blade of Westermann to further include a first wall thickness of the positioning element is between 250% and 350% of a second wall thickness of the coupling element, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape/thickness of a component. A change in shape/thickness is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westermann et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,658,690 B1) in view of Bex (U. S. Patent No. 9,517,752 B2) and Schaeuble et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0246860 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Westermann teaches the wiper blade (Fig. 1) wherein the coupling element (53) is formed displaceable in a longitudinal direction (Col. 3, lines 48 – 57).
Westermann does not teach a displacement transversely to the longitudinal direction, so that a distance transversely to the longitudinal direction between the first guide surface and the second guide surface is adjustable.
Schaeuble, however, teaches the coupling element (41) is formed displaceable in a longitudinal direction a displacement transversely to the longitudinal direction (detent tongue, 41 is displaced by pressing in and pressing down, thus providing longitudinal and traverse displacement), so that a distance transversely to the longitudinal direction between the first guide surface (planar section, 46) and the second guide surface (planar section, 46) is adjustable (Figs. 6 and 7).
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 wiper blade of Westermann to further include a displacement transversely to the longitudinal direction, so that a distance transversely to the longitudinal direction between the first guide surface and the second guide surface is adjustable, as claimed, to provide a wiper blade that allows a secure connection to the adapter, thus avoiding damage to the wiper blade.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated June 26, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 2, 4 – 6, 9 – 10 and 13 – 21 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 Bex.
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