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 15 – 30 are pending. Claims 1 – 14 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/31/2024 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 – 16 and 25 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dietz et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0164798 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 15, Dietz teaches a body for a squeegee or a wiper (window wiper, Fig. 1), comprising: a handle (handle, 2); a head section (wiper head, 1) connected to the handle (2); a squeegee lip and/or a wiper bar (two squeegee lips, 7 and 8; Fig. 3); and a spring-loaded swivel jointed (joint, 4; Paragraph [0007]) that connects the head section (1) to the handle (2), the spring-loaded swivel joint (4) having an axis of rotation (Annotated Fig. 1) aligned parallel to a longitudinal direction (Annotated Fig. 1) of the squeegee lip or of the wiper bar (7/8).
PNG
media_image1.png
481
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Dietz teaches the body for a squeegee or a wiper (window wiper, Fig. 1), wherein the spring-loaded swivel joint (4) has an angle of rotation that (Paragraph [0044]) is limited by at least one stop element (when the wiper reaches the handle as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 25, Dietz teaches a squeegee (two squeegee lips, 7 and 8; Fig. 3) comprising a body (Fig. 1) according to claim 15.
Regarding Claim 26, Dietz teaches a wiper (two squeegee lips, 7 and 8; Fig. 3) comprising a body (Fig. 1) according to claim 15.
Regarding Claim 27, Dietz teaches a method for squeegeeing a surface (Abstract), comprising using a squeegee (two squeegee lips, 7 and 8; Fig. 3) according to claim 25.
Regarding Claim 28, Dietz teaches a method for wiping a surface (Abstract), comprising using a wiper (two squeegee lips, 7 and 8; Fig. 3) according to claim 26.
Regarding Claim 29, Dietz teaches the method for squeegeeing a surface (Abstract), including guiding the squeegee away from the surface to be squeegeed in an end region of the surface to be squeegeed (Paragraph [0031], at the end of which end region the surface to be squeegeed meets a second surface at an angle, along the second surface after contacting the second surface (Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 30, Dietz teaches the method for squeegeeing a surface (Abstract), including guiding the wiper away from the surface to be wiped in an end region of the surface to be wiped (Paragraph [0031], at the end of which end region the surface to be wiped meets a second surface at an angle, along the second surface after contacting the second surface (Paragraph [0024]).
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0164798 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Dietz teaches the body according to claim 15, as discussed above.
Although Dietz teaches a spring-loaded force (Abstract), the reference does not explicitly teach wherein the spring-loaded swivel joint includes a torsion spring.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Dietz to further include a torsion spring, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component/spring on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0164798 A1) in view of Wright (U. S. Patent No. 5,983,448).
Regarding Claim 18, Dietz teaches the body according to claim 15, as discussed above.
Dietz does not teach the body further comprising at least one sliding or rolling device for contacting a surface to be processed, the sliding or rolling device being arranged in front of the squeegee lip or the wiping bar in a working direction.
Wright, however, teaches, the body (Fig. 4) further comprising at least one sliding or rolling device (set of wheels, 122; Fig. 4) for contacting a surface to be processed (Col. 6, lines 19 – 21), the sliding or rolling device (122) being arranged in front of the squeegee lip or the wiping bar (squeegee, 20) in a working direction (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Dietz to further include at least one sliding or rolling device for contacting a surface to be processed, the sliding or rolling device being arranged in front of the squeegee lip or the wiping bar in a working direction, as taught by Wright, to provide a device that allows for better maneuverability, thus reducing operator fatigue.
Claims 19 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0164798 A1) in view of Lee (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0281642 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Dietz teaches the body according to claim 18, as discussed above.
Dietz does not teach the body wherein the handle is telescopic.
Lee, however, teaches the body (Fig. 4) wherein the handle is telescopic (telescopic stick, 101).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Dietz to further include the body wherein the handle is telescopic, as taught by Lee, to provide a device that allows for better maneuverability, thus reducing operator fatigue.
Regarding Claim 20, Dietz, as modified, teaches the body according to claim 19, as discussed above.
Dietz does not teach the body further comprising a telescoping mechanism configured to couple the telescoping of the handle to alignment and/or movement of the body so that telescoping of the handle is implemented automatically, at least in certain areas, during use.
Lee, however, teaches a telescoping mechanism (a telescopic stick spring system, 200) configured to couple the telescoping of the handle (101) to alignment and/or movement of the body so that telescoping of the handle is implemented automatically, at least in certain areas, during use (Paragraph [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Dietz to further include a telescoping mechanism configured to couple the telescoping of the handle to alignment and/or movement of the body so that telescoping of the handle is implemented automatically, at least in certain areas, during use, as taught by Lee, to provide a device that allows for better maneuverability, thus reducing operator fatigue.
Regarding Claim 21, Dietz, as modified, teaches the body according to claim 20, as discussed above.
Dietz does not teach the body, further comprising at least one drive element coupled to the telescoping mechanism for telescoping the handle.
Lee, however, teaches at least one drive element (motor; Paragraph [057]) coupled to the telescoping mechanism for telescoping the handle (101, Paragraph [057]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Dietz to further include at least one drive element coupled to the telescoping mechanism for telescoping the handle, as taught by Lee, to provide a device that allows for better maneuverability, thus reducing operator fatigue.
Regarding Claim 22, Dietz, as modified, teaches the body according to claim 21, as discussed above.
Dietz does not teach the body wherein the at least one drive element is at least one roller of the sliding or rolling device.
Lee, further teaches at least one drive element (Paragraph [0057]) but fails to explicitly teach the at least one drive element is at least one roller of the sliding or rolling device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Dietz to further include the at least one drive element is at least one roller of the sliding or rolling device, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component/drive element on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07]).
Regarding Claim 23, Dietz, as modified, teaches the body according to claim 21, as discussed above.
Dietz does not teach the body wherein the drive element is a motor.
Lee, however, teaches the body wherein the drive element is a motor (Paragraph [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Dietz to further include the drive element is a motor, as taught by Lee, to provide a device that allows for better maneuverability, thus reducing operator fatigue.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although Dietz et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0164798 A1) in view of Lee (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0281642 A1) teach a body for a squeegee or a wiper, the references alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest or make obvious the motor is automatically activateable when the head section is deflected relative to the handle at an angle of greater than or equal to approximately 900 as detected by at least one sensor, as required by claim 24.
Conclusion
Art made of record, however, not relied upon for the current rejection is as follows: U. S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0082901 A1 to Lui et al. teaches a cleaner has a cleaning frame mounted at an end of a hand-held rod, where the cleaning frame is provided with two parallel and spaced scraping strips, and front and rear ends of a connection portion are arranged between the hand-held rod and the cleaning frame and provided with the scraping strips. A set of rollers running on a glass is rotatably provided on the cleaning frame, where each of the rollers is arranged on a same side of the cleaning frame as each of the scraping strips, and is axially parallel to the scraping strips.
Conclusion
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
