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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
The limitation “contact member having a relatively high length-to-width” in claims 1, 12, and 14, is limitation that employs a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the limitation is being understood as the dimensions of the wiper blade require the length be greater than the width.
As claims 2-11 depend upon claim 1, they are similarly rejected.
As claim 13 depends upon claim 12, it is similarly rejected.
As claims 15-20 depend upon claim 14, they are similarly rejected.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takatsuki (JP 20060290220).
In regards to claim 1, Takatsuki discloses
a wiper blade (wiper blade 10, fig. 1-4) comprising:
a contact member (elastic refill 11, fig. 1 and 4; [0013]) having a relatively high length-to-width ratio and sliding along a surface of a contact target (windshield surface S, fig. 4) while maintaining direct contact with the surface; and
[0013] The refill 11 is formed of an elastic member that can slide the wiping surface S without damaging the wiping surface S, and has a long shape. As shown in FIG. 4B, the refill 11 includes a rubber main body portion 11a that is in contact with the wiping surface S
a cover member (at least fin 16, vertebra body 12, holders 13, fig. 1, 3-4) provided across the contact member (elastic refill 11, fig. 1 and 4; [0013]) from the contact target, wherein the cover member (at least fin 16, vertebra body 12, holders 13, fig. 1, 3-4) comprises
a connecting portion (vertebra body 12 and holders 13; fig. 4b; [0014-0017]) connected to the contact member (elastic refill 11, fig. 1 and 4; [0013]) and
an exposed portion (fin 16, fig. 1, 3-4) provided on top of the connecting portion (vertebra body 12 and holders 13; fig. 4b; [0014-0017]), and the exposed portion (fin 16, fig. 1, 3-4) comprises
a plurality of support members (see fig. 3 - ann. 1) longitudinally disposed at intervals and
a finishing member (see fig. 3 - ann. 1) longitudinally connecting the tops of the support members (see fig. 3 - ann. 1), thereby forming an open-frame structure (as shown in plurality of through holes 23).
PNG
media_image1.png
484
1213
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Takatsuki discloses
the wiper blade of claim 1, wherein the exposed portion (fin 16, fig. 1, 3-4) has a tapering lateral cross-section that widens downwards (see fig. 3a/b – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
510
994
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Takatsuki discloses
the wiper blade of claim 1, wherein the exposed portion (fin 16, fig. 1, 3-4) has a lateral flow path for a fluid to flow through between the support members longitudinally disposed at intervals (see fig. 3a/b – ann. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
510
994
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, Takatsuki discloses
the wiper blade of claim 3, wherein the support member comprises a plurality of first support members (see 3a/b – ann. 3) inclining in a first length direction from the bottom to the top, and the flow path is configured as a parallelogram (see fig. 3a/b – ann. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
510
994
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, Takatsuki discloses
the wiper blade of claim 4, wherein the support member further comprises a plurality of second support members (opposite/back side of the fin 16) inclining in a second length direction opposite the first length direction from the bottom to the top.
In regards to claim 6, Takatsuki discloses
the wiper blade of claim 5, wherein the first support member and the second support member intersect at a predetermined point (at the finishing member, see fig. 3 – ann. 1) in the height direction.
In regards to claim 7, Takatsuki discloses
the wiper blade of claim 5, wherein the second support member has a smaller width than the first support member (see fig. 3b – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
520
883
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 8, Takatsuki discloses
the wiper blade of claim 1,
wherein the contact member (elastic refill 11, fig. 1 and 4; [0013]) is concave towards the surface of the contact target (windshield surface S, fig. 4) when not in direct contact with the contact target (see fig. 1, curved in a concave manner) and deforms to conform to the surface of the contact target when in direct contact with the contact target ([0013]: elastic member that slides along the wiping surface S of the windshield; [0030]: wiper blade is given a biasing force toward the wiping surface S (windshield) by a wiper arm),
while the cover member (at least fin 16, vertebra body 12, holders 13, fig. 1, 3-4) has an open-frame structure (see fig. 1, with plurality of through holes 23) so that interference against the deformation of the contact member is reduced.
In regards to claim 12, Takatsuki discloses
a wiper blade (wiper blade 10, fig. 1-4) comprising:
a contact member (elastic refill 11, fig. 1 and 4; [0013]) having a relatively high length-to-width ratio and sliding along a surface of a contact target (windshield surface S, fig. 4) while maintaining direct contact with the surface; and
a cover member (at least fin 16, vertebra body 12, holders 13, fig. 1, 3-4) provided across the contact member (elastic refill 11, fig. 1 and 4; [0013]) from the contact target,
wherein the cover member (at least fin 16, vertebra body 12, holders 13, fig. 1, 3-4) comprises a connecting portion (vertebra body 12 and holders 13; fig. 4b; [0014-0017]) connected to the contact member (elastic refill 11, fig. 1 and 4; [0013]) and
an exposed portion (fin 16, fig. 1, 3-4) provided on top of the connecting portion (vertebra body 12 and holders 13; fig. 4b; [0014-0017]), and the exposed portion (fin 16, fig. 1, 3-4) has
a lateral cross-section in a tapering form that widens downwards to impede fluid flow in the width direction on the contact target and generate a negative pressure on one side
but has an open-frame structure at least along its width to guide the fluid flow from the other side to one side and increase the pressure on the one side (fig. 3a/b – ann. 4).
PNG
media_image6.png
510
1025
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 13, Takatsuki discloses
a wiper device comprising the wiper blade of claim 1 and an adapter (clip base 14, fig. 4; [0030]: the wiper blade is attached to a wiper arm via clip base 14) provided at one point on the wiper blade to be coupled to a wiper arm.
In regards to claim 14, Takatsuki discloses
a wiper blade (wiper blade 10, fig. 1-4) comprising:
a cover member (at least fin 16, vertebra body 12, holders 13, fig. 1, 3-4) having a relatively high length-to-width ratio and
extending on one side relative to a reference point to form the length (see fig. 3a/b – ann. 5); and
a contact member (elastic refill 11, fig. 1 and 4; [0013]) sliding along the cover member (at least fin 16, vertebra body 12, holders 13, fig. 1, 3-4) to be attached or detached, wherein the cover member (at least fin 16, vertebra body 12, holders 13, fig. 1, 3-4) comprises:
a connecting portion (vertebra body 12 and holders 13; fig. 4b; [0014-0017]) connected to the contact member (elastic refill 11, fig. 1 and 4; [0013]);
an exposed portion (fin 16, fig. 1, 3-4) provided on top of the connecting portion (vertebra body 12 and holders 13; fig. 4b; [0014-0017]); and
a flow path opened in a direction orthogonal to the one side, wherein the flow path is formed between a plurality of support members connecting the exposed member and the connecting member (see fig. 3a/b – ann. 5).
PNG
media_image7.png
520
1143
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 17, Takatsuki discloses
the wiper blade of claim 14, wherein the support member comprises a plurality of first support members (see 3a/b – ann. 3) inclining in a first length direction from the bottom to the top.
In regards to claim 18, Takatsuki as modified discloses
the wiper blade of claim 17, wherein the support member further comprises a plurality of second support members (on the opposite side of the first support members, see 3a/b – ann. 3) inclining in a second length direction opposite the first length direction from the bottom to the top (on the back side of the wiper blade, opposite the first/front side).
In regards to claim 19, Takatsuki as modified discloses
the wiper blade of claim 18, wherein the flow path comprises an upper flow path formed above [[the]]an intersection point where the first support member and the second support member intersect, or a lower flow path formed below the intersection point.
PNG
media_image8.png
520
961
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 20, Takatsuki as modified discloses
the wiper blade of claim 18, wherein the first support member connects the exposed portion (fin 16, fig. 1, 3-4) and
the connecting portion (vertebra body 12 and holders 13; fig. 4b; [0014-0017]) and is disposed on the same surface as the side surface of the cover member (at least fin 16, vertebra body 12, holders 13, fig. 1, 3-4) .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatsuki in view of Janssis et al. (WO 2008019903).
In regards to claim 9, Takatsuki discloses
the wiper blade of claim 3, but fails to explicitly disclose that the cover member (at least fin 16, vertebra body 12, holders 13, fig. 1, 3-4) is provided with the “flow path relatively larger at the longitudinal center portion than at either end along its length.” The flow paths appear constant from middle to end.
However, Janssis, which discloses a windshield wiper blade, teaches tapering the form of the windshield wiper form with the middle being taller in height and ends being shorter, with flow path openings (38) tapering with the form of the wiper blade:
PNG
media_image9.png
489
698
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Page 3 lines 21-28: The design and dimensioning of the recesses can also be used to increase the flexibility of the spoiler parts, so that they oppose the contact forces of the spring rails a lower resistance. For this purpose, it may also be advantageous that the height and / or width and / or the material thickness of the spoiler parts to the end of the wiper blade decrease.
Takatsuki and Janssis are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of invention, windshield wipers with openings for allowing flow through.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takatsuki and decrease the height of the wiper blade structure and gaps from center to ends, as shown in Janssis in order to increase flexibility and decrease resistance (Janssis page 4 lines 21-28).
In regards to claim 10, Takatsuki discloses
the wiper blade of claim 3, but fails to explicitly disclose that the flow path in the cover member (at least fin 16, vertebra body 12, holders 13, fig. 1, 3-4) gradually “increases in size as the longitudinal center portion is approached from either end along its length.”
However, Janssis, which discloses a windshield wiper blade, teaches tapering the form of the windshield wiper form with the middle being taller in height and ends being shorter, with flow path openings (38) tapering with the form of the wiper blade (see fig. 1):
Page 3 lines 21-28: The design and dimensioning of the recesses can also be used to increase the flexibility of the spoiler parts, so that they oppose the contact forces of the spring rails a lower resistance. For this purpose, it may also be advantageous that the height and / or width and / or the material thickness of the spoiler parts to the end of the wiper blade decrease.
Takatsuki and Janssis are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of invention, windshield wipers with openings for allowing flow through.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takatsuki and increase the height of the wiper blade structure and gaps from ends to center, as shown in Janssis in order to increase flexibility and decrease resistance (Janssis page 4 lines 21-28).
In regards to claim 15, Takatsuki discloses
the wiper blade of claim 14, but fails to explicitly disclose “the flow path is designed to be relatively larger as the reference point is approached.”
However, Janssis, which discloses a windshield wiper blade, teaches tapering the form of the windshield wiper form with the middle being taller in height and ends being shorter, with flow path openings (38) tapering with the form of the wiper blade (see fig. 1):
Page 3 lines 21-28: The design and dimensioning of the recesses can also be used to increase the flexibility of the spoiler parts, so that they oppose the contact forces of the spring rails a lower resistance. For this purpose, it may also be advantageous that the height and / or width and / or the material thickness of the spoiler parts to the end of the wiper blade decrease.
Takatsuki and Janssis are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of invention, windshield wipers with openings for allowing flow through.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takatsuki and increase the height of the wiper blade structure and gaps from ends to center, as shown in Janssis in order to increase flexibility and decrease resistance (Janssis page 4 lines 21-28).
In regards to claim 16, Takatsuki as modified discloses
the wiper blade of claim 15, wherein the flow path comprises a plurality of flow paths (plurality of openings 23) divided by an intersection point (point between openings) where the support members intersect to be formed in different sizes (as a result of the tapering taught by Janssis).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatsuki in view of Hauser (US PG Pub No. 20160288774)
In regards to claim 11, Takatsuki discloses
the wiper blade of claim 3, wherein the plurality of support members (see fig. 3 – ann. 1) incline in a first length direction from the bottom to the top to form a parallelogram-shaped flow path (see fig. 3a/b – ann. 4).
However, Takatsuki fails to disclose the exposed portion (fin 16, fig. 1, 3-4) further comprises “an interference member provided in the flow path to interfere with the fluid passing through the flow path.”
Hauser, which discloses a windshield wiper, teaches spoilers (76) that interfere with fluid passing through the flow path:
PNG
media_image10.png
453
401
media_image10.png
Greyscale
[0030] In a further variant, there is formed between the upper part and the lower part an intermediate space in which there is arranged a spoiler for influencing an air flow that enters the intermediate space. In this way, the precise wiping of the windshield can advantageously be further improved. For example, the spoiler may be designed such that, even at high travelling speeds of the vehicle, compensation of a wind lift force, which otherwise reduces the contact pressure of the windshield wiper device against the windshield, is realized. The spoiler may furthermore be designed such that a wind lift action is utilized to push the windshield wiper device downward in the direction of the windshield. The contact pressure of the windshield wiper device is increased, and the particularly precise abutment thereof against the curvature of the windshield is ensured.
[0089] FIG. 5A is a schematic illustration of an exemplary embodiment of a windshield wiper device having an integrated spoiler 76. The windshield wiper device has a wiper blade 78, to the lower part 12 of which a rubber lip 80 is attached for the purposes of wiping the windshield. The spoiler 76 is integrated into an intermediate space which is formed between the upper part 10 and the lower part 12. The spoiler 76 serves for influencing an air flow that enters the intermediate space.…
Takatsuki and Hauser are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of invention, windshield wipers with openings for allowing flow through.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takatsuki and provide spoilers as taught by Hauser, to improve wiping of the windshield, compensating for wind lift by increasing contact pressure (Hauser [0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights