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 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an ice-removing assembly” in claim 2, “ice-tapping member” in claim 3, “ice-tapping component” in claim 5, “ice-removing members” in claim 15, “a support structure” in claim 19, and “an apparatus-lifting assembly” in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiao et al., US 9,296,365.
Regarding claim 1, Jiao et al. disclose an ice-clearing apparatus displaceable along a roof length in a displacement direction (Figure 1, see also arrow 44 in Figures 2 and 4; capable of clearing debris including ice), the ice-clearing apparatus comprising: a frame arranged above the vehicle roof (12, Figure 1); and an ice-tapping assembly at least partially made of a resilient material (16, 100; column 6 lines 26-27, column 8 lines 11-14) and rotatably mounted to the frame about a first rotation axis substantially transversal to the roof length when in use (see Figures, rotation axis along the length of 16, 100), wherein the ice-tapping assembly is configured to contact ice with the resilient material and to exert a downward pressure onto the ice thereby at least partially separating the ice from the vehicle roof upon tapping of the ice (assembly is rotatably mounted to the frame on a shaft 110, rotation exerts a downward pressure onto the vehicle roof and is capable of separating ice from a vehicle roof, see column 6 lines 8-25, column 7 lines 13-16, and Abstract; MPEP 2114 recites: “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”). Regarding claim 2, the apparatus further comprises an ice-removing assembly mounted to the frame and arranged, considered along the displacement direction, rearwardly of the ice-tapping assembly (vacuum, 14 and 50; Figure 2), the ice-removing assembly being configured to displace separated ice away from the vehicle roof (it is capable to displace separated ice away from the vehicle roof, column 4 lines 25-45). Regarding claim 3, the ice-tapping assembly comprises a shaft rotatably mounted to the frame about the first rotation axis (110, Figures 2-3) and at least one ice-tapping member mounted to the shaft and extending radially therefrom (112 or 114; Figures 2-3), with the ice-tapping member being at least partially made of the resilient material (column 6 lines 26-27, column 8 lines 11-14). Regarding claim 19, Jiao et al. teach an ice-clearing system comprising an ice-clearing apparatus according to claim 1 (see discussion relating to claim 1 above); and a support structure (includes uprights 20, 20’), the ice-clearing apparatus being operatively connected to the support structure so as to position at least a portion of the ice-tapping assembly with the ice of the vehicle roof when in use (column 3 lines 55-62). Regarding claim 20, the support structure comprises two vertical support assemblies separated by a distance sufficient to move a vehicle therebetween (20, 20’, Figures 1-3). Regarding claim 21, the apparatus further comprises an apparatus-lifting assembly to configure the ice-cleaning apparatus in at least two vertical positions (column 3 lines 58-62, height adjustment means, telescoping connectors). It is noted that the invention of Jiao et al. is for removing foreign material from a vehicle and does not mention any presence of snow or ice as being specifically the material being removed. The ice-tapping assembly of Jiao et al. is structurally the same as what is required in the claims and is capable of removing or tapping ice as it is the material being worked upon. MPEP 2115 recites: A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).”
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Candeletti, US 5,989,356.
Regarding claim 1, Candeletti disclose an ice-clearing apparatus displaceable along a roof length in a displacement direction (Figure 8, column 8 lines 28-34), the ice-clearing apparatus comprising: a frame arranged above the vehicle roof (50, column 5 lines 20-35); and an ice-tapping assembly at least partially made of a resilient material (100, 110; Figure 8; bristles are plastic, column 8 lines 2-8) and rotatably mounted to the frame about a first rotation axis substantially transversal to the roof length when in use (assembly 110 is rotatably mounted to the frame on a shaft 118, see column 7 line 66 to column 8 line 8), wherein the ice-tapping assembly is configured to contact the ice with the resilient material to exert a downward pressure onto the ice thereby at least partially separating the ice from the vehicle roof upon tapping of the ice (the rotating assembly exerts a downward pressure during rotation and is capable of at least partially separating ice from a vehicle roof, column 8 lines 17-20, 31-34; Abstract). Regarding claim 3, the ice-tapping assembly comprises a shaft rotatably mounted to the frame about the first rotation axis (118, Figure 8) and at least one ice-tapping member mounted to the shaft and extending radially therefrom (each of bristles 114; Figure 8), with the ice-tapping member being at least partially made of the resilient material (bristles are plastic, column 8 lines 2-8). Regarding claim 19, Candeletti discloses an ice-clearing system comprising an ice-clearing apparatus according to claim 1 (see discussion relating to claim 1 above); and a support structure (50, 58), the ice-clearing apparatus being operatively connected to the support structure so as to position at least a portion of the ice-tapping assembly with the ice of the vehicle roof when in use (Figure 8). Regarding claim 20, the support structure comprises two vertical support assemblies separated by a distance sufficient to move a vehicle therebetween (column 5 lines 20-23). Regarding claim 21, the apparatus further comprises an apparatus-lifting assembly (80) to configure the ice-cleaning apparatus in at least two vertical positions (column 5 line 64 to column 6 line 4).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 9, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao et al., US 9,296,365 in view of Yamin, Sr. et al., US 2021/0179034.
Jiao et al. disclose all elements previously discussed above and describes the at least one ice-tapping member as being mounted to the shaft (110) but does not specify that it defines a central shaft-receiving cavity.
Yamin, Sr. et al. teach a rotary brush capable of tapping ice with its arms of resilient material (10), and is used for removing debris from the surface of a vehicle (Abstract). Regarding claim 4, there is at least one ice-tapping member (10, 30; hub with arms of resilient material, paragraph [0018]), the at least one ice-tapping member defines a central shaft-receiving cavity (central cavity within 30; see Figures) and being angularly coupled therewith so as to rotate the at least one ice-tapping member upon rotation of the shaft (20, paragraph [0033], Figure 1). Regarding claim 5, the at least one ice-tapping member comprises a shaft-mounting hub defining the shaft-receiving cavity (30), and at least one ice-tapping component extending outwardly at an angle from the shaft-mounting hub (10, 11; Figure 1), the at least one ice-tapping component capable of being in contact with the ice at a distal portion thereof when the ice-tapping assembly is in use (paragraph [0001]). Regarding claim 9, the at least one ice-tapping member comprises multiple ice-tapping members being adjacently mounted to the shaft along the first rotation axis when inserted in corresponding shaft-receiving cavity of each ice-tapping member (Figure 1 shows space along the shaft where multiple members can be adjacently mounted, ). Regarding claim 11, the at least one ice-tapping component comprises multiple ice-tapping components that are positioned at an angle with respect to one another and fastened to the shaft mounting hub (Figure 1, at radial angles with respect to one another). Regarding claim 12, each one of the multiple ice-tapping components is an ice-tapping plate having a length extending along the shaft-mounting hub and a width extending transversely to the first rotation axis (see Figures). Regarding claim 14, the at least one tapping member is a single ice-tapping member being mounted to the shaft (when just one is mounted, Figure 1). Yamin, Sr. et al. teaches that this structure allows for easy maintenance of the assembly and is suitable for removing debris from the surface of vehicles (paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the at least one ice-tapping member and shaft of Jiao et al. for one having defined central shaft-receiving cavity within a shaft-mounting hub for rotation along with the ice-tapping components extending outwardly from the shaft-mounting hub, as taught by Yamin, Sr. et al., so that the at least one ice-tapping member and shaft are easy to maintain over time.
Claim(s) 4-7, 9, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Candeletti, US 5,989,356 in view of Kempf et al., US 2013/0212815.
Candeltti discloses all elements previously discussed above and describes the at least one ice-tapping member as being mounted to the shaft (118) but does not specify that it defines a central shaft-receiving cavity.
Kempf et al. teach a rotary brush capable of tapping ice with its arms of resilient material (19, 20), and is capable of removing snow from a roof of a vehicle (paragraphs [0002], [0004]). Regarding claim 4, there is at least one ice-tapping member (19, 20), the at least one ice-tapping member defines a central shaft-receiving cavity (central opening of 21, 22; see Figure 7), a shaft (18a, 18b) being inserted in the central shaft-receiving cavity and being angularly coupled therewith so as to rotate the at least one ice-tapping member when rotated (see Figure 7). Regarding claim 5, the at least one ice-tapping member comprises a shaft-mounting hub defining the shaft-receiving cavity (21 or 22), and at least one ice-tapping component extending outwardly at an angle from the shaft-mounting hub (unlabeled fins, see Figures), the at least one ice-tapping component capable of being in contact with the ice at a distal portion thereof when the ice-tapping assembly is in use (see Figures). Regarding claim 6, the at least one tapping component comprises multiple ice tapping components that are regularly angularly spaced apart from each other (each component is one of the unlabeled fins of 19 or 20, Figure 1) and are made integral with the shaft mounting hub (see Figures 1-2, 5, 7). Regarding claim 7, each one of the multiple ice-tapping components is an ice tapping arm extending radially from the shaft mounting hub (see Figures, each unlabeled fin arm of 19, 20). Regarding claim 9, the at least one ice-tapping member comprises multiple ice-tapping members being adjacently mounted to the shaft along the first rotation axis when inserted in corresponding shaft-receiving cavity of each ice-tapping member (19, 20; see Figures). Regarding claim 11, the at least one ice-tapping component comprises multiple ice-tapping components that are positioned at an angle with respect to one another and fastened to the shaft mounting hub (see Figures, at radial angles with respect to one another). Regarding claim 12, each one of the multiple ice-tapping components is an ice-tapping plate having a length extending along the shaft-mounting hub and a width extending transversely to the first rotation axis (see Figures). Regarding claim 14, the at least one tapping member is a single ice-tapping member being mounted to the shaft (when just one is mounted). Kempf et al. teach that this tapping structure allows for effective sweeping of debris and snow (paragraphs [0004], [0028]-[0029]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the at least one ice-tapping member and shaft of Candeletti for one having defined central shaft-receiving cavity within a shaft-mounting hub for rotation along with the ice-tapping components extending outwardly from the shaft-mounting hub, as taught by Kempf et al., as an effective sweeping mechanism capable of removing snow from a surface.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouchard, US 6,654,978 in view of Couture, US 7,617,561.
Regarding claim 1, Bouchard discloses an ice-clearing apparatus displaceable along a roof length in a displacement direction (Figures 1-2), the ice-clearing apparatus comprising: a frame arranged above the vehicle roof (24, Figure 1); and an ice-tapping assembly (140) and rotatably mounted to the frame about a first rotation axis substantially transversal to the roof length when in use (axis of 140, Figures 1-2), wherein the ice-tapping assembly is configured to contact the ice to exert a downward pressure onto the ice thereby at least partially separating the ice from the vehicle roof upon tapping of the ice (the rotating assembly exerts a downward pressure during rotation and is capable of at least partially separating ice from a vehicle roof, column 11 lines 22-54). Regarding claim 2, there is an ice-removing assembly (blade 20 or alternatively skirt 60) mounted to the frame (Figures 1-5) and arranged, considered along the displacement direction, rearwardly of the ice-tapping assembly (Figures 1-5), the ice-removing assembly being configured to displace the separated ice away from the vehicle roof (column 11 lines 27-31 or column 12 lines 61-67). Regarding claim 3, the ice-tapping assembly comprises a shaft rotatably mounted to the frame about the first rotation axis (axis of 142 in Figure 2) and at least one ice-tapping member mounted to the shaft and extending radially therefrom (blades 148, Figures 1-2). Regarding claim 17, there is an ice deflector surrounding at least partially the ice-tapping assembly and configured to direct the separated ice towards an ice-removing assembly (20, Figures 1-5; column 8 lines 9-15). Regarding claim 18, there is an ice-collecting plate rearward of the ice-removing assembly (skirt 60 positioned rearward in of scraper 20 in Figure 5), the ice-collecting plate comprising a roof-contacting surface (edge of 30; column 12 lines 61-67). Regarding claim 19, Bouchard discloses an ice-clearing system comprising an ice-clearing apparatus according to claim 1 (see discussion relating to claim 1 above); and a support structure (24, 62), the ice-clearing apparatus being operatively connected to the support structure so as to position at least a portion of the ice-tapping assembly with the ice of the vehicle roof when in use (Figures 1-2). Regarding claim 20, the support structure comprises two vertical support assemblies separated by a distance sufficient to move a vehicle therebetween (62). Regarding claim 21, the apparatus further comprises an apparatus-lifting assembly (lifting cable 152) to configure the ice-cleaning apparatus in at least two vertical positions (column 11 lines 55-67). Bouchard fails to disclose that the ice-tapping assembly is at least partially made of a resilient material, Bouchard does not disclose any specific material.
Further regarding claim 1, Couture discloses an ice-clearing apparatus displaceable along a roof length in a displacement direction (Figures 1-3, column 2 lines 49-60), the ice-clearing apparatus comprising: a frame arranged above the vehicle roof (20, Figures 21-27); and an auger assembly at least partially made of a resilient material (auger 44, has flexible portion 614, column 17 lines 35-60) and rotatably mounted to the frame about a first rotation axis substantially transversal to the roof length when in use (by shaft 602, Figure 13), wherein the auger assembly is configured to contact the ice with the resilient material to exert a downward pressure onto the ice thereby at least partially separating the ice from the vehicle roof upon tapping of the ice (the rotating assembly exerts a downward pressure during rotation and is capable of at least partially separating ice from a vehicle roof, column 5 lines 40-53). Further regarding claims 1 and 3, Couture teaches that the auger for removing ice is at least partially made of resilient material in order to protect the roof of the vehicle/truck (column 17 lines 55-61).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ice-tapping assembly of Bouchard so that it is at least partially made of a resilient material, as Couture teaches, so that during the removal of ice from a vehicle, the roof will not be damaged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 are 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: None of the prior art made of record disclose, teach, or suggest that in combination with an ice-tapping assembly described in claims 1-2, that the ice-removing assembly further includes a plurality of ice-removing members translatable along a removing direction substantially perpendicular to the displacement direction when in use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments relating to Jiao et al. US 9,296,365. First, the applicant argues that Jiao is not directed towards an ice-removal apparatus, that it is instead directed to industrial cleaning of automotive body panels. The applicant also argues that Jiao does not disclose a tapping or impact mechanism such as a rotating element striking a surface with repeated impact or impulsive force, no resilient material is used for impact, that it is not configured to store and release energy, and no downward pressure is applied by the system for debonding.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner points out that in applicant’s specification paragraph [0031] that the applicant states: “It should be further noted that, although the cleaning apparatus as described herein is firstly developed for ice removal, any conveyable material accumulating onto a vehicle roof can be removed from the vehicle via the cleaning apparatus. In some instance, the cleaning apparatus could be used to remove direct accumulating onto the vehicle roof. Thus, the ice-clearing apparatus can be referred to as a material-clearing apparatus or a cleaning apparatus.” While Jiao et al. is not intended for use in ice-clearing, it is capable of removing ice. In response to applicant's argument that Jiao et al. does not remove ice, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Second, in Jiao et al. there is in fact an ice-tapping assembly at least partially made of a resilient material (16, 100; column 6 lines 26-27, column 8 lines 11-14) as required in the claims. This ice-tapping assembly is capable of producing a downward pressure as it rotates in the same manner that the applicant’s ice-tapping assembly operates. As it rotates, the resilient material produces a downward pressure in a “tapping” manner as the assembly rotates. Note the similarities in the structure of the ice-tapping assembly of Figures 2-4 of Jiao et al. and the ice-tapping assembly of Figure 5 of the applicant’s invention. Third, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., repeated impact or impulsive force, that it is not configured to store and release energy) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Arguments relating to Candeletti, US 5,989,356. First, the applicant argues that the device of Candeletti provides tangential shear forces (scraping/brushing), and not vertical impulsive forces, as recited in instant claim 1. The applicant argues that there is not any mention of tapping, impact, percussion, repeated striking motion as implied by claim 1 and thus states Candeletti fails to disclose each and every feature of amended claim 1. The applicant also argues that there is no disclosure of resilient energy storage or elastic deformation to impact the ice on the roof, thus the functional role of resilience for impact generation is absent in Candeletti. The applicant continues by arguing that Candeletti removes snow through continuous contact and does not disclose any tapping or impact-based mechanism, nor any structure configured to exert a downward pressure upon impact.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., vertical impulsive forces, impact, percussion, repeated striking motion, resilient energy storage or elastic deformation to impact the ice on the roof) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Also, the examiner maintains that Candeletti does disclose an ice-tapping assembly (100, 110, Figure 8) at least partially made of resilient material (plastic bristles, column 8 lines 2-8) and are rotatably mounted to a frame about a first rotation axis. These bristles are capable of tapping on ice as they rotate and by rotating are capable of exerting a downward pressure onto ice to at least partially separate ice from a vehicle roof in the manner recited in claim 1. There are breaks between the groups of bristles (see Figures) and there would be some degree of tapping in the rotary motion of these bristles.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg
Prosecution Insights