DETAILED ACTION
Pushing and Pulling Squeegee
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05-29-2026 has been entered. Claims 1-1 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 3-4,13 have been cancelled. Applicant’s amendment overcomes specification objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office action mailed 04-01-2026. The previous rejection has been updated due to applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05-29-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument that prior art combination of Reiser and Tyroler does not teach wherein the squeegee base portion, the first wiping portion, the second wiping portion and the handle receptacle are formed as a single-piece molded article. Specifically, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Tryoler in is same the field endeavor and specifically discloses a squeegee that can be constructed to have the wiping portions, base portions and handle receptacle formed as single piece molded article. (see claim 5, para 0028, 0031), a person with ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply this teaching to a squeegee with a wide range amounts of wiping portions.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to teach the lengths of first and second wiping portions are different lengths, examiner respectfully disagrees. Resier discloses the first and second wiping portions (see 22 and 32, figure 3a) extend from the base portion (21, figure 3a) at different amounts , where the second wiping portion extends at a greater extent than the first wiping portion as required by the claim.
Further, examiner respectfully indicates that the claim does not require different lengths of second and first wiping portions. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., asymmetrical lengths of second and first wiping portions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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) 1-2,5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiser (WO2021062567A1) cited in IDS in view of Tyroler (US20170100012A1) and Getefo (FR792411A).
Regarding claim 1, Reiser teaches a squeegee base portion (21,figure 1) extending between first and second ends along a base axis (figure 1);
a first wiping portion (22, figure 2) defining a first wiping portion plane (E1, figure 2) extending from the base portion and having a first wiping edge (figure 2);
a second wiping portion (32, figure 2) defining a second wiping portion plane (E2, figure 2) extending from the base portion and having a second wiping edge (figure 2), the second wiping portion plane forming an angle with the first wiping portion plane (α + β, figure 2);
a handle receptacle (see 1, figure 1) protrudes from the squeegee base portion and is configured to receive a handle, the handle receptacle defines a handle receptacle axis (A, figure 2);
wherein the handle receptacle axis is (i) substantially parallel (discloses α is angle of between 10-45 degrees) to the first wiping portion plane and (ii) substantially normal (discloses β is angle of between 70-90 degrees) to the second wiping portion plane; wherein the second wiping portion extends from the base portion to a greater extent than the first wiping portion extends from the base portion. (according to FIGS. 1, 2 and 3, the second lip holder 31 is fastened to the end of the extension 211 of the first lip holder 21)
Reiser fails to teach wherein the squeegee base portion, the first wiping portion, the second wiping portion and the handle receptacle are formed as a single-piece molded article.
Tyroler teaches a squeegee that has a handle receptacle and wiping portions formed as a single-piece molded article. (see para 0028)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Resier to have the squeegee base portion, the first wiping portion, the second wiping portion and the handle receptacle are formed as a single-piece molded article based on the teachings of Tyroler. This modification would help improve wiping efficiency. (see Tyroler para 0025,0037)
Reiser fails to teach wherein the first wiping portion plane and the second wiping portion plane form an angle of about 65° therebetween.
However, Reiser does disclose the angle therebetween first wiping portion plane and second wiping plane can form an angle can varied and be less than 90 degrees to have angle have 80 degrees. (see first lip 22 lies, has a first angle of at least 10 ° and which the second lip 32 lies, has a second angle ß of at least 70 °, figure 2)
Getefo teaches a wiper, that has two wiper edges (see figures 18-26) that can have wide range of wiper designs with varying angles between (see figures 18-26), suitable for large areas to be wiped and for areas with high resistance to sweeping. This wide range of wiper designs allow for control from several points (see npl Getefo)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have optimized Resier angle between the first wiping portion plane and the second wiping portion plane to form an angle of about 65° therebetween as taught by Getefo to wipe large areas, areas with high resistance to sweeping, and allow for control from several points. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 2, Reiser, as modified, teaches wherein the squeegee base comprises a planar face defining a face plane, the handle receptacle (see 1, figure 1) protrudes from said planar face (figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Reiser, as modified, teaches wherein the squeegee is made of rubber or silicone rubber. (“For this purpose, they are essentially shaped as flat strips are preferably made of flexible material such as rubber”)
Regarding claim 6, Reiser as modified above teaches all limitations stated above, but fails to teach wherein each of the first and second wiping portions comprises a tapered portion ending at first and second wiping edges, respectively.
Tyroler teaches a squeegee that has a handle receptacle and wiping portions formed as a single-piece molded article (see para 0028); wherein wiping portions comprises a tapered portion ending at wiping edges (see para 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Resier to have wherein each of the first and second wiping portions comprises a tapered portion ending at first and second wiping edges based on the teachings of Tyroler. This modification would help improve wiping efficiency. (see Tyroler para 0025,0037)
Regarding claim 7, Resier as modified in claim 6 teaches wherein the first (see Resier E1, figure 1) and second wiping portion planes (see Resier E2, figure2) are defined by the first and second wiping edges, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, Resier as modified above teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach explicitly wherein part of the handle receptacle protrudes from the base portion and part of it protrudes from the second wiping portion.
Tyroler teaches that construction of base portion and handle affect how the wiping force exerted by an user can change the wiping efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Resier to have wherein part of the handle receptacle protrudes from the base portion and part of it protrudes from the second wiping portion since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the wiping efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Reiser, as modified, teaches wherein at least one of the first and second wiping portions extends between the first and second ends (see 22, figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Reiser, as modified, teaches wherein the handle receptacle axis forms (i) an acute angle with the first wiping portion of about 15° (discloses A is angle of between 10-45 degrees) and (ii) an acute angle (discloses B is angle of between 70-90 degrees) with the second wiping portion of about 85°.
Regarding claim 11, Resier as modified above teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach wherein the handle receptacle comprises a main receptacle body and two supporting legs that are integral with the main receptacle body and the base portion for providing additional support to the handle receptacle, each of the supporting legs protrude from an opposite side of the main receptacle body and is integral with a part of the base portion.
Tyroler teaches a squeegee that has a handle receptacle and wiping portions formed as a single-piece molded article (see para 0028); wherein wiping portions comprises a tapered portion ending at wiping edges (see para 0056); the handle receptacle comprises a main receptacle body and two supporting legs that are integral with the main receptacle body and the base portion for providing additional support to the handle receptacle, each of the supporting legs protrude from an opposite side of the main receptacle body and is integral with a part of the base portion. (see para 0062)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Resier to have the handle receptacle comprises a main receptacle body and two supporting legs that are integral with the main receptacle body and the base portion for providing additional support to the handle receptacle, each of the supporting legs protrude from an opposite side of the main receptacle body and is integral with a part of the base portion based on teachings of Tyroler. This modification would help improve wiping efficiency. (see Tyroler para 0025,0037).
Regarding claim 12, Reiser as modified in claim 11 teaches wherein the supporting legs and the main receptacle body define together a handle receptacle plane (see Tyroler para 0062), the handle receptacle axis (see Reiser A, figure 2) lies on said plane, wherein the handle receptacle plane forms an acute angle with the first wiping portion plane of about 15° (see Resier discloses α is angle of between 10-45 degrees) and forms an acute angle with the second wiping portion plane of about 85° (see Resier discloses β is angle of between 70-90 degrees).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm.
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.
/SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights