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 .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. The previous rejections are withdrawn. The amendments are fully addressed herein and the rejections are made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “leaf spring shaped”. Upon review of the specification, there is no disclosure or drawing showing a leaf spring shaped vertebrae. As such the claim is viewed as new matter. Claims 2-6 are also rejected due to dependency.
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.
Claims 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a leaf spring shaped vertebrae”. It is unclear what is meany by a leaf spring shaped vertebrae. As such, the claim is determined to be indefinite. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as flat shaped vertebrae. Claims 2-6 are also rejected due to dependency.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Banu (WO2010016000A1).
Regarding claim 1, Banu discloses a wiper blade connected to an arm swung by a driving source and wiping a wiped surface, the wiper blade comprising:
a connecting member (Item 10 and 50), connected to the arm;
a flat-shaped vertebra (Item 70), held by the connecting member and curved with a prescribed curvature; and
a blade rubber (Item 60), held by the vertebra and in contact with the wiped surface,
the connecting member comprising: a first holding part (Item 12a) and a second holding part (Item 12b), holding the vertebra with an interval in a lengthwise direction of the vertebra; and a protruding part (Item 55), provided between the first holding part and the second holding part and protruding toward the vertebra, and
the vertebra comprising an engagement hole (Figure 3e Item 72) to which the protruding part is engaged, the engagement hole extending through the vertebra in a thickness direction of the vertebra.
Regarding claim 2, Banu discloses the wiper blade according to claim 1, wherein when the wiper blade is viewed from a direction perpendicular to the wiped surface, the blade rubber and the protruding part are provided in non-overlapping positions, respectively (Item 12 holds the outer most edges while Item 56 holds and inner width of the vertebrae).
Regarding claim 3, Banu discloses the wiper blade according to claim 1, wherein the connecting member has an arm part that is elastically deformable in a direction perpendicular to the wiped surface, and the protruding part is provided on a tip end side of the arm part (Figure 8a shows an arm 16’ being deformed toward the glass. Figure 12c shows an arm piece being deformable towards a different direction than vertical. “has an arm part that is elastically deformable in a direction perpendicular to the wiped surface” is viewed broadly the first interpretation can be vertical since the wiping surface is along an x – y axis. The second interpretation is applicant trying to claim a lateral direction since towards the wiping surface would be perpendicular).
Regarding claim 5 Banu discloses the wiper blade according to claim 1, wherein a connecting pin (Item 91) to which the arm (Item 93)is rotatably connected is provided between the first holding part and the second holding part of the connecting member, and the protruding part and the connecting pin are provided offset in a lengthwise direction of the vertebra (Figure 11 shows 4 projecting parts).
Regarding claim 6 Banu discloses the wiper blade according to claim 1, wherein in a lateral direction of the vertebra, a first distance between a vertebra end part and a connecting member opposing part is shorter than a second distance between a protruding end part and an engagement hole opposing part, wherein the vertebra end part is provided on an end of the vertebra, the connecting member opposing part is provided on the connecting member and opposing the vertebra end part, the protruding end part is provided on the protruding part on a side opposite to a side on which the connecting member opposing part is disposed, and the engagement hole opposing part is provided in the engagement hole and opposing the protruding end part.
PNG
media_image1.png
442
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banu (WO2010016000A1) in view of Walworth (US 2007/0113366).
Regarding claim 4, Banu discloses the wiper blade according to claim 1. Banu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the engagement hole is an elongated hole extending in a lateral direction of the vertebra, and the protruding part is movable inside the elongated hole only in a lateral direction of the vertebra (Figure 8b shows a lateral gap in the elongated hole).
Walworth teaches a wiper blade wherein the engagement hole can be any configuration (Paragraph 83). This is possible because Item 32 restricts lateral movement but would allow the protruding part to move since plastic is relatively elastic. 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 Banu to include the elongated hoes as taught by Walworth. Such a modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Modifying the hole to fit the protruding part is a matter of design tolerances. As long as the connecting member and the vertebrae are properly held together, the exact relationship between the hole and the protruding part wouldn’t matter much since a hole is designed to be oversized for the peg placed inside of it. For instance, one might design an elongated protrusion to fit inside and elongated hole which would meet the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claim 7 Banu discloses a wiper blade connected to an arm swung by a driving source and wiping a wiped surface, the wiper blade comprising:
a connecting member (Items 10 and 50) , connected to the arm;
a vertebra (Item 70), held by the connecting member and curved with a prescribed curvature; and
a blade rubber (Item 60), held by the vertebra and in contact with the wiped surface,
the connecting member comprising: a first holding part (Item 12a) and a second holding part (Item 12b), holding the vertebra with an interval in a lengthwise direction of the vertebra; and a protruding part (Item 55), provided between the first holding part and the second holding part and protruding toward the vertebra, and
the vertebra comprising an engagement hole (Figure 3e Item 72) to which the protruding part is engaged, the engagement hole extending through the vertebra in a thickness direction of the vertebra.
Banu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the engagement hole is an elongated hole extending in a lateral direction of the vertebra ((Figure 8b shows a lateral gap in the elongated hole).
Walworth teaches a wiper blade wherein the engagement hole can be any configuration (Paragraph 83). This is possible because Item 32 restricts lateral movement but would allow the protruding part to move since plastic is relatively elastic. 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 Banu to include the elongated hoes as taught by Walworth. Such a modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Modifying the hole to fit the protruding part is a matter of design tolerances. As long as the connecting member and the vertebrae are properly held together, the exact relationship between the hole and the protruding part wouldn’t matter much since a hole is designed to be oversized for the peg placed inside of it. For instance, one might design an elongated protrusion to fit inside and elongated hole which would meet the limitations of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights