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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “device” in Claims 1-10, “optical element” in Claim 1, “wiping unit” in Claims 1, 4, and 7-10, and “support element” in Claims 1-3 and 5-7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Becker et al. DE 10 2013226456 A1 (hereafter Becker et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Becker et al. anticipates:
1. A device (windshield wiper device) for wiping an optical surface of at least one optical element of a vehicle, comprising: a wiping unit (wiper blade 2) having a wiping part (wiper lip 104) for wiping the optical surface and a support element (elongated top 10 and elongated lower part 12) for supporting the wiping part (Figure 1), the wiping part moving in a wiping movement to wipe the optical surface by making contact with the optical surface (Figure 7A), a drive member (“the connecting element is 50 designed as an interface for torque transmission to the wiper arm”. wiper motor 32) for driving the wiping unit, the wiping unit being in one piece.
Regarding Claim 2, Becker et al. anticipates:
2. The device as claimed in claim 1, wherein a material forming the wiping part (wiper lip 104)(“the wiper lip or the wiper edge of one or more materials from a group consisting of: TPE (thermoplastic elastomer), for example TPE-S, TPE-O, TPE-U , TPE-A, TPE-V, TPE-E; Ethylene-propylene-diene rubber (EPDM); Polychloroprene and natural rubber”) is different from a material forming the support element (elongated top 10 and elongated lower part 12)(“ This is especially advantageous if upper part 10 , Lower part 12 and / or fasteners 18 are made of a plastic material or coated with a suitable plastic material.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Becker et al. anticipates:
3. The device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the support element (elongated top 10 and elongated lower part 12)(“ a material having a modulus of elasticity which is in a range between 0.005 kN / mm2 and 0.5 kN / mm2 , in particular 0.01 kN /mm2 and 0.1 kN / mm2.” ) includes at least one portion which is stiffer than at least one portion of the wiping part (wiper lip 104)(“1 MPa to 100 MPa” - .001kN/mm2 to 0.1kN/mm2)(range discloses values as claimed).
Regarding Claim 4, Becker et al. anticipates:
4. The device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wiping unit (wiper blade 2) extends in a longitudinal direction and is capable of exerting a constant pressure on the optical surface along the longitudinal direction (Figure 7B).
Regarding Claim 5, Becker et al. anticipates:
5. The device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the wiping part (not selected) and/or the support element (elongated top 10 and elongated lower part 12) include(s) at least one first portion (fastening device 70) which is stiffer than at least one second portion in the longitudinal direction (near distal end, Figures 2 and 7B).
Regarding Claim 6, Becker et al. anticipates:
6. The device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the wiping part (not selected) and/or the support element (elongated top 10 and elongated lower part 12) at least partially include(s) a lattice structure (connecting elements 18, forming a substantially rectangular shaped lattice structure as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Becker et al. anticipates:
7. The device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wiping unit (wiper blade 2) has a wiping movement which goes back and forth between end positions while the optical surface is being wiped, the dimension of the wiping unit in a direction orthogonal to the optical surface being different between the end positions in relation to the dimension at the end positions, the wiping part and/or the support element being capable of absorbing the variation in dimension (Figures 7A and 7B).
Regarding Claim 8, Becker et al. anticipates:
8. The device as claimed in claim 1, including a duct (pipe 130) for cleaning liquid in the wiping unit (wiper blade 2)(Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Becker et al. anticipates:
9. The device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wiping unit (wiper blade 2) is obtained as a single piece by a manufacturing process (formed by 2-component injection molding process)(see discussion below).
This claim is a product-by-process claim. Therefore, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In this case, the product (wiping unit) in this product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product (wiper blade 2) of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 10, Becker et al. anticipates:
10. The device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wiping unit (wiper blade 2) is obtained by an additive manufacturing process (see discussion below).
This claim is a product-by-process claim. Therefore, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In this case, the product (wiping unit) in this product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product (wiper blade 2) of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113.
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 wiper devices.
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