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 Objections
Claims 1, 7, 11, 17, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims contain grammatical errors.
In claim 1, line 14, the limitation should read “said squeegee is actuated”.
In Claim 7, line 2, the limitation should read “said jet spray module are embedded”.
In Claim 11 at line 14, the limitation should read “jet spray module are embedded”.
In Claim 11, line 16, the limitation should read “said squeegee is actuated”.
In Claim 17, the limitation should read “tubes are in fluid communication”.
In Claim 19, line 9, the limitation should read “jet spray module are embedded”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU 115738 (machine translation referenced herein) and further in view of Malakhovetskij et al. (RU2540296, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 1: RU 115738 teaches a vehicle side window cleaning system comprising:
a reservoir having washer fluid (inherent since pg. 3, first full paragraph teaches that washer fluid is supplied to nozzles);
a jet spray module (see abstract);
a plurality of jets (Figure, element 3); and
a squeegee (element 4);
‘738 teaches that the plurality of jets spray said washer fluid onto an exterior of windows of said front doors (see abstract); and further wherein said squeegee is actuated within said front doors of the vehicle in a pivotal motion (pg. 3, second paragraph).
‘738 does not expressly disclose the system comprises a plurality of tubes connecting said reservoir to front doors of the vehicle. However, ‘738 teaches that the cleaning systems may be arranged in the side (front) doors of the vehicle to improve driving visibility (pg. 3, first and third paragraphs). Malakhovetskij teaches a similar vehicle side window cleaning system comprising a plurality of flexible tubes (Fig. 1, elements 20) that connect a washer fluid reservoir (element 19) to the doors of the vehicle (pg. 2, fifth full paragraph). Malakhovetskij teaches that multiple tubes 20 can be used to connect nozzles of the separate cleaning systems (both side doors) to the single reservoir (pg. 2, sixth full paragraph). Malakhovetskij teaches that the plurality of flexible tubes are positioned internally in said front doors of the vehicle (see Fig. 1 and pg. 2, fifth full paragraph). Therefore, 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 system of ‘738 with a plurality of tubes to connect the reservoir to the front doors of the vehicle in order to source the washer fluid to the separate cleaning systems as suggested by Malakhovetskij.
Regarding Claim 6: ‘738 further teaches that the doors of the vehicle include rear doors of the vehicle (pg. 3, third paragraph teaches that any number of side windows of a vehicle can include the cleaning system).
Regarding Claim 7: ‘738 further teaches that the plurality of jets and the spray module are embedded inside the front doors of the vehicle (pg. 3, first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 8: ‘738 and Malakhovetskij teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Malakhovetskij is cited for teaching the plurality of tubes, and further teaches that the plurality of tubes are in fluid communication between the reservoir and the plurality of jets (see Fig. 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU 115738 (machine translation referenced herein) and Malakhovetskij et al. (RU2540296, machine translation referenced herein) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Daneshvar (US 5,853,025).
Regarding Claim 2: ‘738 and Malakhovetskij teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above, but they do not expressly disclose wherein said plurality of tubes are insulated. However, Daneshvar teaches the insulation of washer fluid delivery tubes in a vehicle for the purpose of preventing freezing of said washer fluid transmitted therethrough (col. 9, ll. 5-6). Therefore, 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 prior art system with insulated tubes in order to prevent freezing of the washier fluid, as taught by Daneshvar.
Claims 3 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU 115738 (machine translation referenced herein) and Malakhovetskij et al. (RU2540296, machine translation referenced herein) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Oberdorfer (US 3,599,869).
Regarding Claim 3: ‘738 and Malakhovetskij teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above but are silent as to the material of the flexible tubes. However, Oberdorfer teaches that it is known to provide flexible plastic tubing for washer fluid delivery tubes in a vehicle (col. 1, ll. 34-36 and 49-53). It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.07). Therefore, 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 prior art system with plastic tubing as it is known material used for the same purpose, as suggested by Oberdorfer.
Regarding Claim 4: ‘738 and Malakhovetskij teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above but are silent as to the size of the flexible tubes. However, Oberdorfer further teaches that the flexible tubes used to deliver the washer fluid have a diameter of between 5 to 10 inches (col. 1, ll. 49-53) which overlaps the claimed range. Oberdorfer teaches that tubing of this diameter provides adequate delivery of high pressure jets efficient to dislodge dirt. Therefore, 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 prior art system with tubes having a diameter within the claimed range in order to adequately deliver washer fluid under a pressure which efficiently dislodges dirt, as taught by Oberdorfer.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU 115738 (machine translation referenced herein) and Malakhovetskij et al. (RU2540296, machine translation referenced herein) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Tsai (US 2007/0124886).
Regarding Claim 5: ‘738 and Malakhovetskij teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above but are silent as to the material of the squeegee. However, Tsai teaches that it is known to provide a rubber squeegee for cleaning a vehicle window [0004]. Therefore, 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 prior art system with a rubber squeegee with a reasonable expectation of efficiently cleaning the window since squeegees made of rubber were known and used in the art for this same purpose, as taught by Tsai.
Claims 11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU 115738 (machine translation referenced herein) and further in view of Malakhovetskij et al. (RU2540296, machine translation referenced herein) and JP5952472 (machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 11: RU 115738 teaches a vehicle side window cleaning system comprising:
a reservoir having washer fluid (inherent since pg. 3, first full paragraph teaches that washer fluid is supplied to nozzles);
a jet spray module (see abstract);
a plurality of jets (Figure, element 3); and
a squeegee (element 4);
‘738 teaches that the plurality of jets spray said washer fluid onto an exterior of windows of said front doors (see abstract); and that the plurality of jets and the spray module are embedded inside the front doors of the vehicle (pg. 3, first paragraph).
‘738 does not expressly disclose the system comprises a plurality of flexible tubes connecting said reservoir to front doors of the vehicle. However, ‘738 teaches that the cleaning systems may be arranged in the side (front) doors of the vehicle to improve driving visibility (pg. 3, first and third paragraphs). Malakhovetskij teaches a similar vehicle side window cleaning system comprising a plurality of flexible tubes (Fig. 1, elements 20) that connect a washer fluid reservoir (element 19) to the doors of the vehicle (pg. 2, fifth full paragraph). Malakhovetskij teaches that multiple tubes 20 can be used to connect nozzles of the separate cleaning systems (both side doors) to the single reservoir (pg. 2, sixth full paragraph). Malakhovetskij teaches that the plurality of flexible tubes are positioned internally in said front doors of the vehicle (see Fig. 1 and pg. 2, fifth full paragraph). Therefore, 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 system of ‘738 with a plurality of tubes to connect the reservoir to the front doors of the vehicle in order to source the washer fluid to the separate cleaning systems as suggested by Malakhovetskij.
‘738 does not expressly disclose wherein the squeegee is actuated within said front doors of the vehicle in a horizontal motion. However, ‘472 teaches a cleaning system for a side window of a vehicle in which a squeegee is actuated in a horizontal motion across the side window for optimized cleaning of windows that are not rectangular in shape, such as driver and passenger door windows (see pg. 12 [operation of wiper device 90] and Fig. 23). Therefore, 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 prior art system with a horizontally moving squeegee in order to improve the cleaning action and surface area on the window, as suggested by ‘472.
Regarding Claim 16: ‘738 further teaches that the doors of the vehicle include rear doors of the vehicle (pg. 3, third paragraph teaches that any number of side windows of a vehicle can include the cleaning system).
Regarding Claim 17: ‘738 and Malakhovetskij teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Malakhovetskij is cited for teaching the plurality of tubes, and further teaches that the plurality of tubes are in fluid communication between the reservoir and the plurality of jets (see Fig. 1).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU 115738 (machine translation referenced herein), Malakhovetskij et al. (RU2540296, machine translation referenced herein), and JP5952472 (machine translation referenced herein) as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of Daneshvar (US 5,853,025).
Regarding Claim 12: The cited prior art teaches the elements of Claim 11 as discussed above, but they do not expressly disclose wherein said plurality of tubes are insulated. However, Daneshvar teaches the insulation of washer fluid delivery tubes in a vehicle for the purpose of preventing freezing of said washer fluid transmitted therethrough (col. 9, ll. 5-6). Therefore, 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 prior art system with insulated tubes in order to prevent freezing of the washier fluid, as taught by Daneshvar.
Claims 13 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU 115738 (machine translation referenced herein), Malakhovetskij et al. (RU2540296, machine translation referenced herein), and JP5952472 (machine translation referenced herein) as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of Oberdorfer (US 3,599,869).
Regarding Claim 13: The cited prior art teaches the elements of Claim 11 as discussed above but are silent as to the material of the flexible tubes. However, Oberdorfer teaches that it is known to provide flexible plastic tubing for washer fluid delivery tubes in a vehicle (col. 1, ll. 34-36 and 49-53). It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.07). Therefore, 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 prior art system with plastic tubing as it is known material used for the same purpose, as suggested by Oberdorfer.
Regarding Claim 14: The cited prior art teaches the elements of Claims 13 as discussed above but are silent as to the size of the flexible tubes. However, Oberdorfer further teaches that the flexible tubes used to deliver the washer fluid have a diameter of between 5 to 10 inches (col. 1, ll. 49-53) which overlaps the claimed range. Oberdorfer teaches that tubing of this diameter provides adequate delivery of high pressure jets efficient to dislodge dirt. Therefore, 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 prior art system with tubes having a diameter within the claimed range in order to adequately deliver washer fluid under a pressure which efficiently dislodges dirt, as taught by Oberdorfer.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU 115738 (machine translation referenced herein), Malakhovetskij et al. (RU2540296, machine translation referenced herein), and JP5952472 (machine translation referenced herein) as applied to as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of Tsai (US 2007/0124886).
Regarding Claim 15: The cited prior art teaches the elements of Claim 11 as discussed above but are silent as to the material of the squeegee. However, Tsai teaches that it is known to provide a rubber squeegee for cleaning a vehicle window [0004]. Therefore, 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 prior art system with a rubber squeegee with a reasonable expectation of efficiently cleaning the window since squeegees made of rubber were known and used in the art for this same purpose, as taught by Tsai.
Claims 1, 8-11, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 20040100074, machine translation referenced herein), and further in view of Malakhovetskij et al. (RU2540296, machine translation referenced herein) and JP5952472 (machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 1: Kang teaches a vehicle side window cleaning system comprising:
a reservoir having washer fluid (pg. 2, ninth paragraph teaches a washing tank);
a jet spray module (Fig. 1, element 110);
a plurality of jets (pg. 2, eight paragraph, Fig. 2, element 111); and
a squeegee (element 121).
Kang further teaches that the plurality of jets spray said washer fluid onto an exterior of windows of said front doors.
Kang does not expressly disclose a plurality of flexible tubes connecting said reservoir to doors of the vehicle. However, Kang teaches that the cleaning system may be arranged in the front door to provide cleaning fluid to the front door (pg. 2, second paragraph). Kang teaches that the reservoir under the engine hood is used to source the fluid to the side window nozzles pg. 2, ninth paragraph). Malakhovetskij teaches a similar vehicle side window cleaning system comprising a plurality of flexible tubes (Fig. 1, elements 20) that connect a washer fluid reservoir (element 19) to the doors of the vehicle (pg. 2, fifth full paragraph). Malakhovetskij teaches that multiple tubes 20 can be used to connect nozzles of the separate cleaning systems (both side doors) to the single reservoir (pg. 2, sixth full paragraph). Malakhovetskij teaches that the plurality of flexible tubes are positioned internally in said front doors of the vehicle (see Fig. 1 and pg. 2, fifth full paragraph). Therefore, 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 system of Kang with a plurality of tubes to connect the reservoir to the front doors of the vehicle in order to source the washer fluid to the separate cleaning systems as suggested by Malakhovetskij.
Kang does not expressly disclose that the squeegee is actuated within said front doors of the vehicle in a horizontal motion. However, ‘472 teaches a cleaning system for a side window of a vehicle in which a squeegee is actuated in a horizontal motion across the side window for optimized cleaning of windows that are not rectangular in shape, such as driver and passenger door windows (see pg. 12 [operation of wiper device 90] and Fig. 23). Therefore, 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 prior art system with a horizontally moving squeegee in order to improve the cleaning action and surface area on the window, as suggested by ‘472.
Regarding Claim 8: Kang, Malakhovetskij, and ‘472 teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Malakhovetskij is cited for teaching the plurality of tubes, and further teaches that the plurality of tubes are in fluid communication between the reservoir and the plurality of jets (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9: Kang, Malakhovetskij, and ‘472 teach the elements of Claim 8 as discussed above. Kang further teaches that the plurality of jets spray said washer fluid onto an exterior of windows when the windows are lowered to a predetermined position in said front doors of the vehicle (pg. 2, third paragraph).
Regarding Claim 10: Kang, Malakhovetskij, and ‘472 teach the elements of Claim 9 as discussed above. Kang further teaches that the squeegee actuates while the window are raised in the front doors of the vehicle (pg. 2, third paragraph).
Regarding Claim 11: Kang teaches a vehicle side window cleaning system comprising:
a reservoir having washer fluid (pg. 2, ninth paragraph teaches a washing tank);
a jet spray module (Fig. 1, element 110);
a plurality of jets (pg. 2, eight paragraph, Fig. 2, element 111); and
a squeegee (element 121).
Kang further teaches that the plurality of jets spray said washer fluid onto an exterior of windows of said front doors and wherein said plurality of jets and said jet spray module is embedded inside the front doors of the vehicle (pg. 2, second paragraph). Kang teaches that the squeegee actuates while the windows are raised in said front doors of the vehicle (pg. 2, third paragraph).
Kang does not expressly disclose a plurality of flexible tubes connecting said reservoir to doors of the vehicle. However, Kang teaches that the cleaning system may be arranged in the front door to provide cleaning fluid to the front door (pg. 2, second paragraph). Kang teaches that the reservoir under the engine hood is used to source the fluid to the side window nozzles pg. 2, ninth paragraph). Malakhovetskij teaches a similar vehicle side window cleaning system comprising a plurality of flexible tubes (Fig. 1, elements 20) that connect a washer fluid reservoir (element 19) to the doors of the vehicle (pg. 2, fifth full paragraph). Malakhovetskij teaches that multiple tubes 20 can be used to connect nozzles of the separate cleaning systems (both side doors) to the single reservoir (pg. 2, sixth full paragraph). Malakhovetskij teaches that the plurality of flexible tubes are positioned internally in said front doors of the vehicle (see Fig. 1 and pg. 2, fifth full paragraph). Therefore, 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 system of Kang with a plurality of tubes to connect the reservoir to the front doors of the vehicle in order to source the washer fluid to the separate cleaning systems as suggested by Malakhovetskij.
Kang does not expressly disclose that the squeegee is actuated within said front doors of the vehicle in a horizontal motion. However, ‘472 teaches a cleaning system for a side window of a vehicle in which a squeegee is actuated in a horizontal motion across the side window for optimized cleaning of windows that are not rectangular in shape, such as driver and passenger door windows (see pg. 12 [operation of wiper device 90] and Fig. 23). Therefore, 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 prior art system with a horizontally moving squeegee in order to improve the cleaning action and surface area on the window, as suggested by ‘472.
Regarding Claim 17: The prior art teaches the elements of Claim 11 as discussed above. Malakhovetskij is cited for teaching the plurality of tubes, and further teaches that the plurality of tubes are in fluid communication between the reservoir and the plurality of jets (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18: Kang further teaches that the plurality of jets spray said washer fluid onto an exterior of windows when the windows are lowered to a predetermined position in said front doors of the vehicle (pg. 2, third paragraph).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20: Kang teaches a method of cleaning vehicle side windows (see abstract), the method comprising the steps of:
a reservoir having washer fluid (pg. 2, ninth paragraph teaches a washing tank); a jet spray module (Fig. 1, element 110); a plurality of jets (pg. 2, eight paragraph, Fig. 2, element 111); and a squeegee (element 121), wherein said doors of the vehicle are front doors (pg. 2, second paragraph);
lowering windows of said front door of the vehicle (pg. 2, third paragraph);
spraying washer fluid from said plurality jets onto an exterior of windows of said front doors of the vehicle (pg. 2, seventh paragraph), wherein said plurality of jets and said jet spray module are embedded inside said front doors of the vehicle (pg. 2, eighth paragraph); and
actuating said squeegee within said front doors of the vehicle while the windows are raised in said front doors of the vehicle.
Kang does not expressly disclose a plurality of flexible tubes connecting said reservoir to doors of the vehicle. However, Kang teaches that the cleaning system may be arranged in the front door to provide cleaning fluid to the front door (pg. 2, second paragraph). Kang teaches that the reservoir under the engine hood is used to source the fluid to the side window nozzles pg. 2, ninth paragraph). Malakhovetskij teaches a similar vehicle side window cleaning system comprising a plurality of flexible tubes (Fig. 1, elements 20) that connect a washer fluid reservoir (element 19) to the doors of the vehicle (pg. 2, fifth full paragraph). Malakhovetskij teaches that multiple tubes 20 can be used to connect nozzles of the separate cleaning systems (both side doors) to the single reservoir (pg. 2, sixth full paragraph). Malakhovetskij teaches that the plurality of flexible tubes are positioned internally in said front doors of the vehicle (see Fig. 1 and pg. 2, fifth full paragraph). Therefore, 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 method of Kang by providing a plurality of tubes to connect the reservoir to the front doors of the vehicle in order to source the washer fluid to the separate cleaning systems as suggested by Malakhovetskij.
Kang does not expressly disclose that the squeegee is actuated within said front doors of the vehicle in a horizontal motion. However, ‘472 teaches a cleaning system for a side window of a vehicle in which a squeegee is actuated in a horizontal motion across the side window for optimized cleaning of windows that are not rectangular in shape, such as driver and passenger door windows (see pg. 12 [operation of wiper device 90] and Fig. 23). Therefore, 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 prior art system with a horizontally moving squeegee in order to improve the cleaning action and surface area on the window, as suggested by ‘472.
Regarding Claim 20: Kang further teaches that the plurality of jets of spray said washer fluid onto an exterior of windows when the windows are lowered to a predetermined position in said front doors of the vehicle (pg. 2, third paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714