The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “inlcudes” is misspelled. It should be “includes” for accuracy. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Janssis et al. WO 2008/019903 A1 (hereafter Janssis et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Janssis et al. anticipates:
1. A wiper blade (wiper blade 10) for a glazed surface (vehicle window – intended use), comprising a support (elongated spring rail 26), a wiping lip (wiper lip 14) borne by the support, a connector (attachment element 70) secured to the support and at least one air deflector (spoiler parts 28 or 30) which inlcudes at least a body (portion near end walls 52, Figure 2, labeled in attached Figure 3 below) and a wing (portion of guide rails 32, flow profile 34, and crest 36 distal from end walls 52, Figures 1 and 3) projecting from the body, the wing and the body extending along a longitudinal axis (parallel to longitudinal direction 50 and along longitudinal center plane 40) of the wiper blade, wherein the wing includes a rectilinear portion (labeled in attached Figure 4 below) and a curved portion (labeled in attached Figure 4 below), as viewed along the longitudinal axis of the wiper blade (shown in Figures 3 and 4), the curved portion of the wing being located at a longitudinal end of the support (shown in Figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
611
795
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Janssis et al. anticipates:
2. The wiper blade as claimed in claim 1, wherein the curved portion (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) of the wing extends over 5% to 55% of a half-length (as shown in Figure 1, the wing extends over 55% of the entire length of each spoiler parts 28 and 30) of the deflector (spoiler parts 28 or 30) measured along the longitudinal axis (parallel to longitudinal direction 50).
Regarding Claim 3, Janssis et al. anticipates:
3. The wiper blade as claimed in claim 1, wherein the curved portion (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) extends the rectilinear portion (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) as far as a median longitudinal plane (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) of the wiper blade (wiper blade 10) in which plane is inscribed a surface of contact of the wiping lip (wiper lip 14) with the glazed surface (shown in attached Figure 4 above), a free end (labeled in attached Figure 4 above – at crest 36) of the curved portion being inscribed in the median longitudinal plane (shown in attached Figure 4 above).
Regarding Claim 4, Janssis et al. anticipates:
4. The wiper blade as claimed in claim 1, wherein a free end (labeled in attached Figure 4 above – at crest 36) of the curved portion (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) terminates level with a terminal edge (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) of the body (portion near end walls 52, Figure 2, labeled in attached Figure 3 above) which closes one end of the air deflector (spoiler parts 28 or 30).
Regarding Claim 5, Janssis et al. anticipates:
5. The wiper blade as claimed in claim 1, wherein the curved portion (labeled in attached Figure 4 below) is inscribed inside a plurality of circles (labeled in attached Figure 4 below), the centers of the circles being non-coincident (shown in attached Figure 4 below)(see discussion below).
Note: there is no claimed structure that defines the circles, therefore, they have been arbitrarily added to the attached Figure 4 below resulting in the anticipation of the claim limitation.
PNG
media_image3.png
650
762
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Janssis et al. anticipates:
7. The wiper blade as claimed in claim 1, wherein the rectilinear portion (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) of the wing (portion of guide rails 32, flow profile 34, and crest 36 distal from end walls 52, Figures 1 and 3) terminates level with a longitudinal edge of the body (labeled in attached Figure 3 above) at which the deflector is open (shown in attached Figure 3 above).
Regarding Claim 8, Janssis et al. anticipates:
8. The wiper blade as claimed in claim 1, wherein a height (measured as shown in attached Figure 4 above) of the curved portion (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) diminishes from the rectilinear portion (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) as far as a free end (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) of the curved portion (shown in attached Figure 4 above).
Regarding Claim 9, Janssis et al. anticipates:
9. The wiper blade as claimed in claim 1, wherein a terminal part of the deflector (spoiler parts 28 or 30) at least partially covers a longitudinal end of the support (elongated spring rail 26) and a terminal part of the wiping lip (wiper lip 14)(shown in attached Figure 4 above – end of spring rail 26 and at least a portion of head strip 18 are hidden).
Regarding Claim 10, Janssis et al. anticipates:
10. The wiper blade as claimed in claim 1, wherein the curved portion (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) of the wing (portion of guide rails 32, flow profile 34, and crest 36 distal from end walls 52, Figures 1 and 3) is formed integrally with the rectilinear portion (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) of the wing and the body (portion near end walls 52, Figure 2, labeled in attached Figure 3 below) so as to form a one-piece deflector (spoiler parts 28 or 30)(shown in Figure 1).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssis et al. WO 2008/019903 A1 (hereafter Janssis et al.) in view of other embodiments and design choice.
Regarding Claim 6, Janssis et al. teaches:
6. The wiper blade as claimed in claim 5, wherein at least one circle of the plurality of circles has a radius of between 5 mm (diameter of 10mm or .39 in) and 180 mm (diameter of 360mm or 14.17 in)(see discussion below).
As previously presented, the claimed circles of Claim 5 have no defined structure related to the device. Therefore, the circles have been arbitrarily sized and located by the Examiner in the attached Figure 4 above. Janssis et al. does not disclose dimensions for their device, however, the size of commercially available windshield wipers is generally understood. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain the size of the circles shown between a radius of 5mm and 180mm as shown in the attached Figure 4, since 5mm would be less than an expected wiper dimensions and 180mm would be significantly less than the expected wiper dimensions, therefore, if a dimension were provided it would appear to scale the depicted circles be within the range as depicted by the Examiner. However, in a worst case scenario where the depicted circles are outside the range, it would have been obvious to modify the dimensions and move the circles as necessary to maintain the claim limitation, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and the circles have no impact on the device as claimed. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 11, Janssis et al. teaches:
11. The wiper blade as claimed in claim 1, wherein the curved portion of the wing is an end piece distinct from the rectilinear portion of the wing and arranged at a longitudinal end of the support.
Janssis et al. teaches an embodiment used in the rejection of Claim 1 where spoiler parts 28 and 30 have an integrally formed end cap 44. Janssis et al. also discloses an embodiment, in Figures 5 and 6, that employs a separate end cap 84 comprising the previously cited curved portion and rectilinear portion. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device wing to be formed by a combination of a primary spoiler and a separate end cap allowing portions (which do not have a distinctly formed boundary) to include a combination the primary spoiler and separate end cap with the motivation to employ the second embodiment. It would therefore be obvious that, with that design modification, the curved portion of the wing is provided on the separate end cap 84 distinct from the rectilinear portion on the primary spoiler and arranged at the distal most end covering the support.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of windshield wipers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights