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 § 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) 1-4, 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shima (US 20220073034 A1) in view of Ohtsubo (US 20190168717 A1) and Takahashi (JP 2002161154 A), and Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS NPL).
Regarding Claims 1, 11-13, 16 and 17, Shima (US 20220073034 A1) A wiper device for a windshield, wherein
the wiper device comprises a wiper arm (21 See Fig. 4) and a wiper blade (22 and 23) mounted on the wiper arm (See Fig. 3);
the wiper blade has a blade rubber (23) and a blade stay (22) that supports the blade rubber (See Fig. 3 and 4);
the blade rubber includes a base (23J), which is an attachment part of the blade rubber to the blade stay (22), a lip (23A), and a neck that swingably connects the lip to the base (23E);
at least a portion of a tip of the lip constitutes a contact part with the windshield (See Fig. 5 Showing the lip contact a surface);
and additionally discloses a small contact width of the wiper blade (See Fig. 7 and 8 showing experimental results with contact widths of less than 1mm), and additionally discloses a contact area between 20 to 80 degrees (See Para [0043] “At that time, the contact angle θb, which is the angle between the surface of the inorganic glass plate 210 and the vicinity of the contacting part of the lip portion 123A contacting the surface of the inorganic glass plate 210, may be, for example, about 30°. The contact width Db, which is a length (a length in the moving direction) of the contacting part of the lip portion 123A contacting the inorganic glass plate 210, may be, for example, about 1 to 2 mm.”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify contact width of the wiper to be between 1-20 µm as Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 show that there is a trend (See Trend line T1) between lowering the contact width and the amount of scratches resulting from the wiper on the windshield, See Para [0048] discussing this.
But does not disclose:
wherein
the lip includes polyurethane, and
the polyurethane includes a reaction product of a raw material composition including at least one of an alcohol including a trifunctional or higher polyfunctional alcohol and an isocyanate compound including a trifunctional or higher polyfunctional isocyanate
wherein the alcohol further contains diol
wherein the isocyanate compound further contains diisocyanate
wherein the trifunctional or higher polyfunctional alcohol includes at least one selected from a group consisting of pentaerythritol, trimethylolpropane and glycerin
wherein the trifunctional or higher polyfunctional alcohol includes at least one selected from a group consisting of pentaerythritol, trimethylolpropane and glycerin.
Additionally, Ohtsubo discloses a method of manufacturing rubber for windshield wiper blades including a coating on the lip for reducing friction between the lip and the surface to be cleaned (See Para [0003]), the coating including two or more binders (See Para [0077] “The first coating agent may contain two or more kinds of first binders. In this case, the mixing ratio between the binders is not particularly limited and is desirably determined appropriately so that the cured binder will satisfy the desired properties.”)
And provides a list of types of binders including aqueous polyurethane (See Para [0073])
And a diisocyanate compound such as
Silicone-modified urethane polyol/isophorone diisocyanates (See Para [0068])
Hexamethylene diisocyanate (See Para [0074]
Polyol polyether urethane/aromatic isocyanates (See Para [0066]
With each binder being dispersed in aqueous media with a solvent such as a hydrophilic solvent (See Para [0079]).
With the solvents including
A Diol Ethylene glycol (See Para [0081])
A trifunctional or higher polyfunctional alcohol such as Glycerin (See Para [0081])
Takahashi discloses a similar wiper coating for reducing friction between the lip and the surface to be cleaned (See Para [0006]) produced by dissolving (See Para [0011]) a trifunctional or higher polyfunctional isocyanate such as polymeric MDI in a solvent (See Para [0012] “The above-mentioned isocyanate compounds are not particularly limited as long as they have two or more NCO groups, and examples include tolylene diisocyanate (2,4-isomer, 2,6-isomer), 4,4'-diphenylmethane diisocyanate (pure MDI, polymeric MDI), m-phenylene diisocyanate; tetramethylene diisocyanate, hexamethylene diisocyanate; 4,4',4"-triphenylmethane triisocyanate, 2,4',4"-biphenyl triisocyanate, 2,4,4"-diphenylmethane triisocyanate, and modified or polymerized versions thereof.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the wiper device of Shima to include a coating on the lip of the wiper wherein
the polyurethane includes a reaction product of a raw material composition including at least one of an alcohol including a trifunctional or higher polyfunctional alcohol and an isocyanate compound including a trifunctional or higher polyfunctional isocyanate.
wherein the alcohol further contains diol.
wherein the isocyanate compound further contains diisocyanate.
As doing so would reduce the friction of the wiper on the surface to be cleaned which would reduce scratches that appear on the surface over time, as indicated by the relationship between friction and scratches discussed in para [0004] of Shima. Examiner notes it would be further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine a trifunctional isocyanate compound with a diisocyanate to produce a binder for a coating of a windshield wiper as doing so would be a matter of combining known equivalents for the same purpose, it has been held that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." See MPEP 2144.06 I.
As such Shima as modified discloses A wiper device for a windshield, wherein
the wiper device comprises a wiper arm (21 See Fig. 4) and a wiper blade (22 and 23) mounted on the wiper arm (See Fig. 3);
the wiper blade has a blade rubber (23) and a blade stay (22) that supports the blade rubber (See Fig. 3 and 4);
the blade rubber includes a base (23J), which is an attachment part of the blade rubber to the blade stay (22), a lip (23A), and a neck that swingably connects the lip to the base (23E);
at least a portion of a tip of the lip constitutes a contact part with the windshield (See Fig. 5 Showing the lip contact a surface);
A contact width A is 1.0 to 20.0 µm and a contact angle between the lip and the first surface of the windshield is 20 to 80°
wherein
the lip includes polyurethane (Ohtsubo Para [0073]), and
the polyurethane includes a reaction product of a raw material composition including at least one of an alcohol including a trifunctional or higher polyfunctional alcohol (See Para [0081] of Ohtsubo) and an isocyanate compound including a trifunctional or higher polyfunctional isocyanate (Takahashi Para [0012])
wherein the alcohol further contains diol (See Para [0081] of Ohtsubo)
wherein the isocyanate compound further contains diisocyanate (Ohtsubo Para [0068] [0073] or [0066])
wherein the trifunctional or higher polyfunctional alcohol includes at least one selected from a group consisting of pentaerythritol, trimethylolpropane and glycerin (Glycerin as shown in Para [0081] of Ohtsubo)
wherein the trifunctional or higher polyfunctional isocyanate is at least one selected from a group consisting of triphenylmethane-4,4',4''-triisocyanate (TTI), tris(phenylisocyanate) thiophosphate (TPTI) and polymeric MDI (Polymeric MDI as shown in Para [0012] of Takahashi).
But does not explicitly disclose
in a state obtained by setting an arm pressing force of the wiper arm to 18 N/m, bringing the lip of the wiper blade into contact with a first surface of a glass flat plate, moving the wiper blade through 50 cm at a speed of 1.65 m/sec in a direction A from a first base point P1 to a second base point P2 on the first surface of the glass flat plate in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the blade rubber, and stopping the wiper blade,
where a contact part of the lip with the glass flat plate is observed from a second surface side opposite to the first surface of the glass plate and a width of the contact part in the direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of the blade rubber is taken as contact width A, the contact width A is 1.0 to 20.0µm, and where
the blade rubber is observed from a side surface of the blade rubber in the longitudinal direction by using an optical microscope at a magnification of 200 times,
when among the contact parts of the lip with the glass flat plate, the one farthest from the P1 is taken as point Q1, a perpendicular line is dropped to the first surface of the glass flat plate at a position 200µm from the point Q1 in the direction A, and an initial intersection of the perpendicular line with the lip is taken as point Q2, an angle θ formed between a straight line connecting the point Q1 and the point Q2 and the first surface of the glass flat plate is 20 to 80°.
However, Japanese industrial standard (JIS) discloses a similar testing apparatus (See Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 showing an arm being weighed down with a pressing force and an arm on a flat glass pane) and similar testing conditions such as
Pressing forces of 18N/m and 10N/m (attached Fig. 1)
Advancing the wiper across a flat glass plate a single time in a direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of the wiper before observing the results (8.2 wiping performance test).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the wiper of Shima such that in a state obtained by setting an arm pressing force of the wiper arm to 18 N/m, bringing the lip of the wiper blade into contact with a first surface of a glass flat plate, moving the wiper blade through 50 cm at a speed of 1.65 m/sec in a direction A from a first base point P1 to a second base point P2 on the first surface of the glass flat plate in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the blade rubber, and stopping the wiper blade,
where a contact part of the lip with the glass flat plate is observed from a second surface side opposite to the first surface of the glass plate and a width of the contact part in the direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of the blade rubber is taken as contact width A, the contact width A is 1.0 to 20.0µm, and where
the blade rubber is observed from a side surface of the blade rubber in the longitudinal direction by using an optical microscope at a magnification of 200 times,
when among the contact parts of the lip with the glass flat plate, the one farthest from the P1 is taken as point Q1, a perpendicular line is dropped to the first surface of the glass flat plate at a position 200µm from the point Q1 in the direction A, and an initial intersection of the perpendicular line with the lip is taken as point Q2, an angle θ formed between a straight line connecting the point Q1 and the point Q2 and the first surface of the glass flat plate is 20 to 80°
As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a wiper device with the same structure and makeup of the claimed wiper device, with a contact width similar to that described in the claimed wiper device and an angle of contact within the claimed range, that it would perform the same as the claimed wiper under the above described testing conditions, additionally MPEP 2112.01 I discuss that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. And MPEP 2112.01 II discusses that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. As shown above, Shima as modified in view of Ohtsubo and Takahashi, discloses the structure outlined in claim 1, and additionally the composition discussed in claims 11-13, 16 and 17, and additionally disclose the claimed contact width and formed angle θ claimed in claim, as such it is presumed to be inherent that Shima as modified would disclose the claimed ranges under the claimed conditions.
Examiner notes that claims 2 requires additional results described test while Claims 3-4 are dependent on claim 1 and require additional results under additional testing conditions, and are rejected on the same base of claim 1, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a wiper device with the same structure and makeup of the claimed wiper device, with a contact width similar to that described in the claimed wiper device and an angle of contact within the claimed range, that it would perform the same as the claimed wiper under the claimed testing conditions.
Regarding Claim 14, Shima as modified in the rejection of claim 13 above discloses all the limitations of claim 13, and in addition discloses
the lip has a tapered portion (23b, See Fig. 5) in which a cross section in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (See Fig. 5) of the blade rubber gradually decreases in width from a side close to the base in a direction away from the base (See tapered region 23b in Fig. 5);
the lip has a first side surface (Left side surface of 23A where the L (length measurement) arrows are in Fig. 5) and a second side surface that are continuous with the tapered portion (Opposite side portion of 23A), and
a tip surface that (Bottom Surface of 23A), together with the first side surface and the second side surface, constitutes a first edge (Corner of first side and bottom surface of 23a) and a second edge (Corner of second side and bottom surface of 23a) on the side of the lip farthest from the base (See Fig. 5);
but does not explicitly disclose
in respective line segments assumed to be drawn on the first side surface and the second side surface of the lip in parallel with the first edge and the second edge at a distance of 0.5 mm from the first edge and the second edge, the length of each line segment is denoted by L', and points at 1/8L', 1/2L', and 7/8L' from one end side on the line segments are denoted by P0', P1', and P2', respectively,
the detected amount of all ions obtained when samples sampled at each of the P0', the P1', and the P2' of the first side surface and the second side surface are heated to 1000°C at a temperature rise rate of 10°C/s by using a mass spectrometer of a direct sample introduction system in which a sample is heated and vaporized in an ionization chamber to ionize sample molecules is denoted by M1,
integrated intensity of a peak of an extracted ion thermogram corresponding to a range of m/z value derived from the trifunctional or higher polyfunctional isocyanate is denoted by M2, and
integrated intensity of a peak of an extracted ion thermogram corresponding to a range of m/z value derived from the diisocyanate is denoted by M3,
of the first side surface, M2/M1 is 0.0010 to 0.0150 and M3/M1 is 0.0200 to 0.1100, and
of the second side surface, M2/M1 is 0.0010 to 0.0150 and M3/M1 is 0.0200 to 0.1100.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the wiper of Shima as modified such that wherein
the lip has the tapered portion in which the cross section in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the blade rubber gradually decreases in width from the side close to the base in the direction away from the base;
the lip has
the first side surface and the second side surface that constitute the tapered portion, and
the tip surface that, together with the first side surface and the second side surface, constitutes the first edge and the second edge on the side of the lip farthest from the base;
in respective line segments assumed to be drawn on the first side surface and the second side surface of the lip in parallel with the first edge and the second edge at a distance of 0.5 mm from the first edge and the second edge, the length of each line segment is denoted by L', and points at 1/8L', 1/2L', and 7/8L' from one end side on the line segments are denoted by P0', P1', and P2', respectively,
the detected amount of all ions obtained when samples sampled at each of the P0', the P1', and the P2' of the first side surface and the second side surface are heated to 1000°C at a temperature rise rate of 10°C/s by using a mass spectrometer of a direct sample introduction system in which a sample is heated and vaporized in an ionization chamber to ionize sample molecules is denoted by M1,
integrated intensity of a peak of an extracted ion thermogram corresponding to a range of m/z value derived from the trifunctional or higher polyfunctional isocyanate is denoted by M2, and
integrated intensity of a peak of an extracted ion thermogram corresponding to a range of m/z value derived from the diisocyanate is denoted by M3,
of the first side surface, M2/M1 is 0.0010 to 0.0150 and M3/M1 is 0.0200 to 0.1100, and
of the second side surface, M2/M1 is 0.0010 to 0.0150 and M3/M1 is 0.0200 to 0.1100.
As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a wiper device with the same structure and makeup of the claimed wiper device, with a contact width similar to that described in the claimed wiper device and an angle of contact within the claimed range, that it would perform the same as the claimed wiper under the above described testing conditions, additionally MPEP 2112.01 I discuss that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. And MPEP 2112.01 II discusses that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. As shown above, Shima as modified in view of Ohtsubo and Takahashi, discloses the structure outlined in claim 7, and additionally the composition discussed in claims 11-13, 16 and 17, as such it is presumed to be inherent that Shima as modified would disclose the claimed ranges under the claimed conditions.
Regarding Claim 15, Shima as modified in the rejection of claim 11 above discloses all the limitations of claim 11, and in addition discloses
the lip has a tapered portion (23b, See Fig. 5) in which a cross section in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (See Fig. 5) of the blade rubber gradually decreases in width from a side close to the base in a direction away from the base (See tapered region 23b in Fig. 5);
the lip has a first side surface (Left side surface of 23A where the L (length measurement) arrows are in Fig. 5) and a second side surface that are continuous with the tapered portion (Opposite side portion of 23A), and
a tip surface that (Bottom Surface of 23A), together with the first side surface and the second side surface, constitutes a first edge (Corner of first side and bottom surface of 23a) and a second edge (Corner of second side and bottom surface of 23a) on the side of the lip farthest from the base (See Fig. 5);
but does not explicitly disclose
in respective line segments assumed to be drawn on the first side surface and the second side surface of the lip in parallel with the first edge and the second edge at a distance of 0.5 mm from the first edge and the second edge, the length of each line segment is denoted by L', and points at 1/8L', 1/2L', and 7/8L' from one end side on the line segments are denoted by P0', P1', and P2', respectively, and
when samples sampled at each of the P0', the P1', and the P2' of the first side surface and the second side surface are measured by pyrolysis GC/MS,
concentration of the trifunctional or higher polyfunctional alcohol in the polyurethane of the first surface is 0.04 to 0.39 mmol/g, and
concentration of the trifunctional or higher polyfunctional alcohol in the polyurethane of the second surface is 0.04 to 0.39 mmol/g.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the wiper of Shima such that in respective line segments assumed to be drawn on the first side surface and the second side surface of the lip in parallel with the first edge and the second edge at a distance of 0.5 mm from the first edge and the second edge, the length of each line segment is denoted by L', and points at 1/8L', 1/2L', and 7/8L' from one end side on the line segments are denoted by P0', P1', and P2', respectively, and
when samples sampled at each of the P0', the P1', and the P2' of the first side surface and the second side surface are measured by pyrolysis GC/MS,
concentration of the trifunctional or higher polyfunctional alcohol in the polyurethane of the first surface is 0.04 to 0.39 mmol/g, and
concentration of the trifunctional or higher polyfunctional alcohol in the polyurethane of the second surface is 0.04 to 0.39 mmol/g
As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a wiper device with the same structure and makeup of the claimed wiper device, with a contact width similar to that described in the claimed wiper device and an angle of contact within the claimed range, that it would perform the same as the claimed wiper under the above described testing conditions, additionally MPEP 2112.01 I discuss that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. And MPEP 2112.01 II discusses that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. As shown above, Shima as modified in view of Ohtsubo and Takahashi, discloses the structure outlined in claims 1, 7, and additionally the composition discussed in claims 11-13, 16 and 17 (See respective rejections), as such it is presumed to be inherent that Shima as modified would disclose the claimed ranges under the claimed conditions.
Claim(s) 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shima (US 20220073034 A1) in view of Ohtsubo (US 20190168717 A1) and Takahashi (JP 2002161154 A), and Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS NPL) as modified in the rejection of claim 1 above and in further view of FOR1 (JP 4921678 B2).
Regarding Claim 5, Shima as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein
the lip includes a shoulder (23C, See Fig. 5) extending laterally from the neck at the end of the lip on the neck side (See Fig. 5), and
but does not explicitly disclose,
However, FOR1 discloses a similar wiper assembly wherein
a ratio (SL/NL) of the length SL (roughly half of the width of the functional part 22 See Para [0014] “Furthermore, the functional part 22 has an advantageous overall height of 4 to 7 mm.” of the shoulder to the length NL (See Para [0017] “The second tilting web 28 is also formed by two opposing gaps 52 extending in the longitudinal direction of the wiper strip 18, and these gaps have a height of 0.3 to 0.8 mm and are spaced 0.8 to 1.5 mm from the upper edge of the support section 30.”) of the neck in a cross section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the blade rubber is 0.37 to 9.00 (Taking the minimum shoulder length to be 2mm and the minimum neck length to be .3 (2/.3) = 6.6).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the ratio of the shoulder length to neck height to be between .37 to 9.00 as it has been held that when the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claim device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Claim(s) 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shima (US 20220073034 A1) in view of Ohtsubo (US 20190168717 A1) and Takahashi (JP 2002161154 A), and Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS NPL) as modified in the rejection of claim 1 above and in further view of Assuid (EP 3546302 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Shima as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein a tensile stress of the tip portion of the lip at 50% extension measured by a tensile tester is 1.8 to 20.0 MPa (Shima as modified has the same material composition of claimed wiper, and would be expected to show the same material properties as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, however the base material of the wiper lip is not disclosed, only that it includes polyurethane in Claim 11).
However, Assuid discloses a wiper wherein a tensile stress of the tip portion of the lip at 50% extension measured by a tensile tester is 1.8 to 20.0 MPa (First see Para [0031] discussing a blade wherein at least a portion including the lip 3 is made of the material, then see Para [0039] discussing the results of a tensile test of that material, including a result of 4.0 MPa at 50% extension).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the wiper of Shima such that wherein a tensile stress of the tip portion of the lip at 50% extension measured by a tensile tester is 1.8 to 20.0 MPa as Assuid discloses in Para [0042] that conventional materials for a wiper blade fall within such a range.
Claim(s) 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shima (US 20220073034 A1) in view of Ohtsubo (US 20190168717 A1) and Takahashi (JP 2002161154 A), and Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS NPL) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Osajima (US 10343190 B2).
Regarding Claim 7, Shima as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and in addition discloses wherein
the lip has a tapered portion (23b, See Fig. 5) in which a cross section in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (See Fig. 5) of the blade rubber gradually decreases in width from a side close to the base in a direction away from the base (See tapered region 23b in Fig. 5);
the lip has a first side surface (Left side surface of 23A where the L (length measurement) arrows are in Fig. 5) and a second side surface that are continuous with the tapered portion (Opposite side portion of 23A), and
a tip surface that (Bottom Surface of 23A), together with the first side surface and the second side surface, constitutes a first edge (Corner of first side and bottom surface of 23a) and a second edge (Corner of second side and bottom surface of 23a) on the side of the lip farthest from the base (See Fig. 5);
but does not explicitly disclose
in a first line segment assumed to be drawn on the first side surface in parallel with the first edge at a distance of 10 µm from the first edge,
a length of the first line segment is denoted by L1,
points at (1/8)L1, (1/2)L1, and (7/8)L1 from one end side on the first line segment are denoted by P0, P1, and P2, respectively, the average value of a total of 210,000 elastic modulus values obtained when the elastic modulus of the first side surface at each of 7000 points arranged with a pitch of 0.1 µm is measured using a scanning probe microscope with respect to each of three rectangular observation regions, for which the points P0, P1, and P2 on the first side surface are respective centers of gravity and in which one side is parallel to the first line segment and has a length of 70 µm and the other side is perpendicular to the first line segment and has a length of 10 µm, is 15.0 to 470.0 MPa,
in a second line segment assumed to be drawn on the second side surface in parallel with the second edge at a distance of 10 µm from the second edge,
a length of the second line segment is denoted by L2,
points at (1/8)L2, (1/2)L2, and (7/8)L2 from one end side on the second line segment are denoted by P3, P4, and P5, respectively, the average value of a total of 210,000 elastic modulus values obtained when the elastic modulus of the second side surface at each of 7000 points arranged with a pitch of 0.1 µm is measured using the scanning probe microscope with respect to each of three rectangular observation regions, for which the points P3, P4, and P5 on the second side surface are respective centers of gravity and in which one side is parallel to the second line segment and has a length of 70 µm and the other side is perpendicular to the second line segment and has a length of 10 µm, is 15.0 to 470.0 MPa.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the wiper of Shima such that in a first line segment assumed to be drawn on the first side surface in parallel with the first edge at a distance of 10 µm from the first edge,
a length of the first line segment is denoted by L1,
points at (1/8)L1, (1/2)L1, and (7/8)L1 from one end side on the first line segment are denoted by P0, P1, and P2, respectively, the average value of a total of 210,000 elastic modulus values obtained when the elastic modulus of the first side surface at each of 7000 points arranged with a pitch of 0.1 µm is measured using a scanning probe microscope with respect to each of three rectangular observation regions, for which the points P0, P1, and P2 on the first side surface are respective centers of gravity and in which one side is parallel to the first line segment and has a length of 70 µm and the other side is perpendicular to the first line segment and has a length of 10 µm, is 15.0 to 470.0 MPa,
in a second line segment assumed to be drawn on the second side surface in parallel with the second edge at a distance of 10 µm from the second edge,
a length of the second line segment is denoted by L2,
points at (1/8)L2, (1/2)L2, and (7/8)L2 from one end side on the second line segment are denoted by P3, P4, and P5, respectively, the average value of a total of 210,000 elastic modulus values obtained when the elastic modulus of the second side surface at each of 7000 points arranged with a pitch of 0.1 µm is measured using the scanning probe microscope with respect to each of three rectangular observation regions, for which the points P3, P4, and P5 on the second side surface are respective centers of gravity and in which one side is parallel to the second line segment and has a length of 70 µm and the other side is perpendicular to the second line segment and has a length of 10 µm, is 15.0 to 470.0 MPa
wherein
in measuring the elastic modulus of the first side surface,
the average value of the elastic modulus values is 32.0 to 62.0 MPa, and
in measuring the elastic modulus of the second side surface,
the average value of the elastic modulus values is 32.0 to 62.0 MPa.
wherein
in measuring the elastic modulus of the first side surface,
a coefficient of variation of the elastic modulus is 17.6% or less, and
in measuring the elastic modulus of the second side surface,
a coefficient of variation of the elastic modulus is 17.6% or less.
wherein
in measuring the elastic modulus of the first side surface,
the coefficient of variation of the elastic modulus is 6.0% or less, and
in measuring the elastic modulus of the second side surface,
the coefficient of variation of the elastic modulus is 6.0% or less.
However, Osajima discloses a similar cleaning blade assembly wherein the elastic modulus was measured as 20 points (Col 8 Line 6-14 “The thus-affixed test piece was allowed to stand in a thermostat bath controlled at 23° C. for 30 to 40 minutes. Elastic modulus was measured at 20 positions 30 μm apart from the edge line (i.e., a longitudinal side of the sample) and in parallel to the edge line at the center along the longitudinal direction of the measurement sample. The 20 measurements were averaged. The indentation elastic modulus of the rubber elastic body was measured by use of a sample cut from the corresponding rubber elastic body before formation of the surface treatment layer.”) and resulting in an average elastic modulus of 49.8 (See Table 1 in Col 9 showing the average value for the surface treatment layer, analogous to along the first and second side).
As such it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the wiper of Shima as modified such that in measuring the elastic modulus of the first side surface,
the average value of the elastic modulus values is 32.0 to 62.0 MPa, and
in measuring the elastic modulus of the second side surface,
the average value of the elastic modulus values is 32.0 to 62.0 MPa.
As this is a known conventional and desirable range for the elastic modulus of a first and second side of a wiper blade as disclosed by Osajima.
Additionally, One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that lowering the coefficient of variability (which is the result of dividing the standard deviation of measurements by the average value of the measurements, which in this case would require lowering the standard deviation of the elastic modulus measurements) such that
wherein
in measuring the elastic modulus of the first side surface,
a coefficient of variation of the elastic modulus is 17.6% or less, and
in measuring the elastic modulus of the second side surface,
a coefficient of variation of the elastic modulus is 17.6% or less; or
wherein
in measuring the elastic modulus of the first side surface,
the coefficient of variation of the elastic modulus is 6.0% or less, and
in measuring the elastic modulus of the second side surface,
the coefficient of variation of the elastic modulus is 6.0% or less.
would result in a more consistent product with less points of failure, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the elastic modulus is deformation in relation to applied stress, that this value having a low standard deviation would result in the wiper blade having a consistent deformation under stress and that discovering the optimum coefficient of variation of the elastic modulus would be a matter of discovering optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation which has been held to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.05 II A). Additionally, Applicants specification lacks criticality for the claimed ranges of the coefficient of variation, stating that it “it is preferable that the coefficient of variation of the elastic modulus be 17.6% or less.” And “In measuring the elastic modulus of the first side surface and the second side surface, the coefficient of variation of the elastic modulus is more preferably 6.0% or less, still more preferably 5.0% or less, and even more preferably 4.0% or less. Since the coefficient of variation of the elastic modulus is preferably as small as possible, the lower limit is not particularly limited, but the coefficient is, for example, preferably 0.1% or more.” In Para [0051].
As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a wiper device with the same structure and makeup of the claimed wiper device, with a contact width similar to that described in the claimed wiper device and an angle of contact within the claimed range, that it would perform the same as the claimed wiper under the above described testing conditions, additionally MPEP 2112.01 I discuss that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. And MPEP 2112.01 II discusses that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. As shown above, Shima as modified in view of Ohtsubo and Takahashi, discloses the structure outlined in claim 7, and additionally the composition discussed in claims 11-13, 16 and 17, as such it is presumed to be inherent that Shima as modified would disclose the claimed ranges under the claimed conditions.
Examiner notes that claims 8-10 require additional results of the described test of claim 7, and are rejected on the same base of claim 7, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a wiper device with the same structure and makeup of the claimed wiper device, with a contact width similar to that described in the claimed wiper device and an angle of contact within the claimed range, that it would perform the same as the claimed wiper under the claimed testing conditions.
Specifically, regarding Claims 8-10, as noted above, discovering the optimum value of the coefficient of deviation of the elastic modulus has been held to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, additionally Examiner notes that in Para [0055] of Applicants specification, applicant states “The material constituting the lip including the tapered portion is not particularly limited as long as the contact width A and the formed angle θ can comply with the above stipulations. Specifically, for example, it is preferable that the lip contain a polyurethane that excels in mechanical properties and makes it possible to achieve easily the contact width A and the formed angle θ. In addition, a polyurethane can also easily meat the stipulations pertaining to the average value and coefficient of variation of the elastic modulus.”
Indicating that applicant views the results of the average value and coefficient of variation of the elastic modulus to stem from the material properties and structure of the wiper blade, which as shown in the rejection of claim 1, a wiper of the claimed structure and composition would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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.
/T.J.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights