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 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama JP 2011-105067 A (hereafter Sugiyama) in view of Unknown Inventor DE 202019106673 (hereafter Unknown Inventor) and common knowledge.
Regarding Claim 1, Sugiyama teaches:
1. (Original) A wiper arm (wiper arm 15) comprising an arm piece (arm piece 25), and a retainer (retainer 23) to which the arm piece is connected (Figure 1),
wherein the arm piece includes a held part (curved portion 25b) connected to the retainer (Figures 7a-c and 8a-c),
wherein the retainer includes a holding part (portion of retainer 23 that is formed around curved portion 25b of arm piece 25) that accommodates and holds the held part of the arm piece (Figures 7a-c and 8a-c),
wherein the holding part of the retainer includes a bent portion (labeled in attached Figure 7a and 7c below) curved at a predetermined curvature (shown in attached Figure 7a and 7c below), and
wherein the held part of the arm piece includes a chamfered portion (rounded edge labeled in attached Figure 7a and 7c below – see discussion below) opposite to the bent portion of the retainer when accommodated within the holding part (rounded edge shown in attached Figure 7a and 7c below).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
511
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sugiyama discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except that he elected to round the edges of the curved portion 25b instead of electing to break the edge using a chamfer.
The Unknown Inventor reference discloses:
A wiper arm (wiper arm 10) comprising an arm piece (holding means 12), and a retainer (support element 14) to which the arm piece is connected (Figure 1B),
wherein the arm piece includes a held part (resistance agent 30 of holding means 12 secured as shown to support element 12 in Figures 1B and 5B) connected to the retainer (Figures 1B and 5B),
wherein the retainer includes a holding part (side walls of support element 14 shown in Figures 1B and 5B) that accommodates and holds the held part of the arm piece (Figures 1B and 5B),
wherein the holding part of the retainer includes a bent portion (inside bend radius of support element 14 best shown in Figure 5B) curved at a predetermined curvature (shown in Figure 5B),
wherein the held part of the arm piece includes a chamfered portion (edges 22 shown in Figure 1B – “Instead of rounding, you can also flatten, chamfer or enlarge the angle of the edge 22 respectively”) opposite to the bent portion of the retainer when accommodated within the holding part (best shown in Figure 1B).
Therefore, Sugiyama and Unknown Inventor references disclose a similar structural construction for a wiper arm piece and a retainer where the sidewalls of the holding part sidewalls are bent to wrap around the held part. Sugiyama discloses that the edges of the held part are rounded to allow the shape to match the internal bend radius of the holding part as shown in Figures 7a-c. Unknown Inventor discloses edge 22 shown in Figure 1B corresponding to the edge of support element 12 can be chamfered instead of rounding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the edges of Sugiyama to be chamfered as taught by Unknown Inventor since a fillet and chamfer can both be used to remove unwanted material from edges and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with either and it would merely be a design choice by the designer to elect the desired shape.
Unknown Inventor provides evidence that replacing rounded edges with chamfers is known in the prior art, however, Unknown Inventor does not provide a drawing showing the implementation of a chamfer. Using chamfers in lieu of fillets has been common knowledge for decades. Below the Examiner has modified Figures 7a-c to explain the technical problem and common knowledge solution of using chamfers to provide a figure depicting the obvious solution. It is important to point out that the use of chamfers is not gleaned from the Applicant’s disclosure, instead it is merely basic engineering knowledge to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. In one example, the Examiner has removed the rounded edges leaving them sharp corners. It is common knowledge on metal forming that when material, such as side walls 23b2 of retainer 23, is bent it will result in an internal bend radius. This bend radius would prevent an arm piece with sharp corners from being fully inserted, therefore, sharp corners would prevent tight fitting as shown. The common knowledge solution to this problem is to remove material from the edges using a round or chamfer to allow full insertion by preventing this interference with the bend radius. As shown in the second example the Examiner has employed common knowledge to add chamfers to the edges of the arm piece to provide clearance with the internal bend radius such that a tight fitting connection is formed. In the Examiner’s figures, the chamfer is a 45 degree chamber sized to match the bend radius value. However, sizing the chamfer to be larger than the bend radius value would also have been a viable option. Sizing the chamfer to be smaller than the bend radius would be problematic since it would not avoid interference with the bend radius.
PNG
media_image2.png
868
874
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
834
529
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Sugiyama teaches:
2. (Original) The wiper arm according to claim 1, wherein the holding part (portion of retainer 23 that is formed around curved portion 25b of arm piece 25) of the retainer (retainer 23) includes a top wall (ceiling wall 23b1) and side walls (side walls 23b2) disposed on the opposite sides of the top wall (Figures 7a-c), and
wherein the bent portion (labeled in attached Figure 7a and 7c above) is formed between the top wall and each of the side walls (shown in attached Figure 7a and 7c above).
Regarding Claim 3, Sugiyama teaches:
3. (Original) The wiper arm according to claim 2, wherein the top wall (ceiling wall 23b1) of the holding part (portion of retainer 23 that is formed around curved portion 25b of arm piece 25) of the retainer (retainer 23) includes a flat lower surface (labeled in obvious combined device figure above) disposed opposite to the held part (curved portion 25b)(shown in obvious combined device figure above),
wherein the held part of the arm piece (arm piece 25) includes a flat upper surface (labeled in obvious combined device figure above) disposed opposite to the top wall (shown in obvious combined device figure above), and
wherein the lower surface of the top wall of the holding part abuts on the upper surface of the held part (shown in obvious combined device figure above).
Regarding Claim 4, Sugiyama teaches:
4. (Original) The wiper arm according to claim 3, wherein the upper surface (labeled in obvious combined device figure above) of the held part (curved portion 25b) has a width that is not larger than a width of the lower surface (labeled in obvious combined device figure above) of the top wall (ceiling wall 23b1) of the holding part (portion of retainer 23 that is formed around curved portion 25b of arm piece 25)(shown in obvious combined device figure above which is necessary for parts to fit together tightly without interference).
Regarding Claim 5, Sugiyama teaches:
5. (Original) The wiper arm according to claim 4, wherein the width of the upper surface (labeled in obvious combined device figure above) of the held part (curved portion 25b) is equal to the width of the lower surface (labeled in obvious combined device figure above) of the top wall (ceiling wall 23b1) of the holding part (portion of retainer 23 that is formed around curved portion 25b of arm piece 25)(shown in obvious combined device figure above which is necessary for parts to fit together tightly without interference).
Regarding Claim 6, Sugiyama teaches:
6. (Currently Amended) The wiper arm according to claim 1, wherein the held part (curved portion 25b) is held on the holding part (portion of retainer 23 that is formed around curved portion 25b of arm piece 25) by rolling (elastically deformed, Abstract, shown in Figures 7a-c) and caulking (caulked, Abstract) the holding part (portion of retainer 23 that is formed around curved portion 25b of arm piece 25) around the held part (curved portion 25b) in a state where the held part is accommodated within the holding part (shown Figures 7a-c).
Regarding Claim 7, Sugiyama teaches:
7. (New) The wiper arm according to claim 2, wherein the held part (curved portion 25b) is held on the holding part (portion of retainer 23 that is formed around curved portion 25b of arm piece 25) by rolling (elastically deformed, Abstract, shown in Figures 7a-c) and caulking (caulked, Abstract) the holding part (portion of retainer 23 that is formed around curved portion 25b of arm piece 25) around the held part (curved portion 25b) in a state where the held part is accommodated within the holding part (shown Figures 7a-c).
Regarding Claim 8, Sugiyama teaches:
8. (New) The wiper arm according to claim 3, wherein the held part (curved portion 25b) is held on the holding part (portion of retainer 23 that is formed around curved portion 25b of arm piece 25) by rolling (elastically deformed, Abstract, shown in Figures 7a-c) and caulking (caulked, Abstract) the holding part (portion of retainer 23 that is formed around curved portion 25b of arm piece 25) around the held part (curved portion 25b) in a state where the held part is accommodated within the holding part (shown Figures 7a-c).
Regarding Claim 9, Sugiyama teaches:
9. (New) The wiper arm according to claim 4, wherein the held part (curved portion 25b) is held on the holding part (portion of retainer 23 that is formed around curved portion 25b of arm piece 25) by rolling (elastically deformed, Abstract, shown in Figures 7a-c) and caulking (caulked, Abstract) the holding part (portion of retainer 23 that is formed around curved portion 25b of arm piece 25) around the held part (curved portion 25b) in a state where the held part is accommodated within the holding part (shown Figures 7a-c).
Regarding Claim 10, Sugiyama teaches:
10. (New) The wiper arm according to claim 5, wherein the held part (curved portion 25b) is held on the holding part (portion of retainer 23 that is formed around curved portion 25b of arm piece 25) by rolling (elastically deformed, Abstract, shown in Figures 7a-c) and caulking (caulked, Abstract) the holding part (portion of retainer 23 that is formed around curved portion 25b of arm piece 25) around the held part (curved portion 25b) in a state where the held part is accommodated within the holding part (shown Figures 7a-c).
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 arms with a connection via bending.
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