DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 6 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/12/2024 was filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohrt (US patent 2,910,715) in view of Hojnacki (US patent 6,026,537) and Hartman (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0213035 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Ohrt teaches a wiper blade (11, fig. 1) for use on a windshield (10) of a vehicle. The wiper blade comprises a support member (13, fig. 3) coupled to a blade element (12). A plurality of clips (17) are coupled to and surround a portion of the support member and a portion of the blade element. A wash tube (16) is integral with the support member and is fluidly coupled to a plurality of nozzles (18) spaced along a length of the wiper blade (fig. 2).
The publication to Ohrt discloses all of the above recited subject matter with the exception of the support member being of composite material and wherein the wash tube is an aperture that extends fully through the support member, from a first end of the support member to the second end of the support member.
The publication to Hojnacki discloses making support members (44, fig. 4) of composite material (col. 4, lines 10-32).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to make the support member of Ohrt of composite material, as clearly suggested by Hojnacki, to provide a lightweight, low noise support member.
Lastly, Hartman teaches the wash tube (hollow passage, 118) is an aperture (Fig. 11) that extends fully through the support member (22), from a first end (Fig. 8) of the support member (22) to the second end (Fig. 8) of the support member (22).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to make the support member of Ohrt of composite material, as clearly suggested by Hartman, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
With respect to claim 1, while Ohrt discloses his wiper blade for use on a vehicle, he does not specify such vehicle as an aircraft. However, such particular vehicle the wiper blade is to be used on does not limit the wiper blade in any patentable sense. The wiper blade of Ohrt could be so used on an aircraft if desired.
Regarding Claim 2, Ohrt, as modified, teaches the wiper blade (11, fig. 1) further comprising a plug (29) positioned at each distal end of the wash tube (16); wherein an outer diameter (Fig. 7) of the plugs (29) is smaller than an outer diameter (Fig. 7) of the wash tube (16), and wherein the plugs (29) are inserted into the distal ends of the wash tube (Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 3, Ohrt, as modified, teaches the wiper blade (11, fig. 1) of claim 1, as discussed above.
Ohrt does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of nozzles are apertures that extend through the support member, and wherein the plurality of nozzles is spaced along a length of the support member.
Hartman, however, teaches the plurality of nozzles (119) are apertures (Paragraph [0111]) that extend through the support member (22; Fig. 10), and wherein the plurality of nozzles is spaced along a length of the support member (22; Paragraph [0111]).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzles of Ohr to further include the plurality of nozzles are apertures that extend through the support member, and wherein the plurality of nozzles is spaced along a length of the support member as clearly suggested by Hartman, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 4, Ohrt, as modified, teaches the wiper blade (11, fig. 1) further comprising a fluid input (second flexible tube, 19) extending into the support member (Fig. 2) and fluidly connecting to the wash tube within the support member (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Ohrt, as modified, teaches the wiper blade (11, fig. 1) wherein the fluid input (19) is an aperture (aperture of tube, 19) that is positioned at approximately a center (Fig. 2) of the support member (13) with respect to a length of the support member (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Ohrt, as modified, teaches the wiper blade (11, fig. 1) and further comprising an input port (port of source of washing fluid, 20) axially aligned (via fitting, 22) with and coupled to the fluid input (19) of the support member (13), wherein the input port fluidly couples the fluid input of the support member to a fluid source (Col. 2, lines 60 – 63).
Conclusion
Art made of record, however, not relied upon for the current rejection is as follows: FR2648771 A1 to Leger discloses the invention substantially as is claimed, including a wiper blade (fig. 2) for use on a windshield (14) of a vehicle. The wiper blade comprises a support member (34) coupled to a blade element (8). A clip (36) is coupled to and surrounds a portion of the support member and a portion of the blade element. Each clip includes first and second extensions. A wash tube (32) is integral with the support member and is fluidly coupled to a plurality of nozzles (24) spaced along a length of the wiper blade (fig. 1).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights