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 phrase “which fluid unit comprises” should be “which the fluid unit comprises” to be consistent with its use throughout the remaining claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “wiper blade device” in Claims 1-8, 11, and 12, “wind deflector unit” in Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 11, “fluid output unit” in Claims 1, 3, 10, and 11, “fluid unit” in Claim 1, “fluid output element” in Claims 3-5, 11, and 12, and “spoiler element” in Claim 6, “connecting element” in Claim 7, “wiper arm unit” in Claim 8, “valve unit” in Claim 9, and “valve element” in Claim 9.
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 § 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 1-8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Depondt US 2021/0046906 (hereafter Depondt) in view of multiple embodiments.
Regarding Claim 1, Depondt teaches:
1. (Currently Amended) A wiper blade device (wiper blade 42a) comprising:
at least one wiper lip (wiper lip, Paragraph [0026]) for wiping a surface (surface, Paragraph [0004]) and
at least one wind deflector unit (wind deflector unit 18a-18c) for utilizing an airstream to press the wiper lip (wiper lip, Paragraph [0026]) against the surface (surface, Paragraph [0004]),
a fluid output unit (fluid output, Abstract), and
a fluid unit (assembly comprising fluid channels for routing fluid) for guiding wiper fluid to a fluid output (fluid output opening 16a, 16a’, 16b, 16b’, 16c, 16c’), which fluid unit comprises at least one fluid channel (fluid channel 32c) delimited by the wind deflector unit (wind deflector unit 18a-18c)(shown in Figure 7), which channel extends along a longitudinal axis (main axis 52b, 52c) of the wind deflector unit (wind deflector unit 18a-18c) over at least 10% of a maximum longitudinal extension (overall length of wind deflector unit 18a-18c) of the wind deflector unit (wind deflector unit 18a-18c)(over 90%, Paragraphs [0010] and [0011]),
wherein
Depondt discloses an embodiment shown in Figure 7 that includes two fluid channels 14c and 32c. Depondt disclose a different embodiment shown in Figure 5 where an internal fluid channel is moved to the outside, as fluid channel 14b, adjacent wind deflector surface. In Paragraph [0037], Depondt discloses “The configuration of the fluid channel 14b can easily be transferred to the further alternative refinements, in particular having the letter a or c.” Therefore, Depondt discloses that the configuration shown in Figure 5 with an external fluid channel 14b can be transferred to either the embodiment with fluid channel 14a or fluid channel 14c. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment shown in Figure 7 to include an external fluid channel 14b as taught in the embodiment shown in Figure 5 with the motivation to strengthen the wind deflector body by filling in the hollow fluid channel 14c to be solid yet retain the fluid path as taught in Figure 5.
Regarding Claim 2, Depondt teaches:
2. (Currently Amended) The wiper blade device (wiper blade 42a) according to claim 1, wherein
Regarding Claim 3, Depondt teaches:
3. (Currently Amended) The wiper blade device (wiper blade 42a) according to claim 1, wherein
Regarding Claim 4, Depondt teaches:
4. (Currently Amended) The wiper blade device (wiper blade 42a) according to claim 3, wherein the at least one further fluid channel (fluid channel 14c modified to be externally located embodiment fluid channel 14b).
Regarding Claim 5, Depondt teaches:
5. (Currently Amended) The wiper blade device (wiper blade 42a) according to claim 3, further comprising
Regarding Claim 6, Depondt teaches:
6. (Currently Amended) The wiper blade device (wiper blade 42a) according to claim 1
Regarding Claim 7, Depondt teaches:
7. (Currently Amended) The wiper blade device (wiper blade 42a) according to claim 1 further comprisin
Regarding Claim 8, Depondt teaches:
8. (Currently Amended) A windshield wiper (wiper system 40a) comprising at least one wiper arm unit (one wiper arm 44a) and comprising a wiper blade device (wiper blade 42a) according to claim 1
Regarding Claim 11, Depondt teaches:
11. (New) The wiper blade device (wiper blade 42a) according to claim 2, wherein the fluid output unit (fluid output, Abstract) comprises at least one fluid output element (nozzle element 50a, 50a′; 50b, 50b′; 50c, 50c′) connected to the further fluid channel (fluid channel 14c modified to be externally located embodiment fluid channel 14b) for fluid output in a direction at least substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis (main axis 52b, 52c) of the wind deflector unit (wind deflector unit 18a-18c).
Regarding Claim 12, Depondt teaches:
12. (New) The wiper blade device (wiper blade 42a) according to claim 4, further comprising at least one end cap (wiper blade end cap 12a, 12a′, 12b, 12b′, 12c, 12c′), in which the at least one fluid output element (additional fluid output element 26c) is arranged.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Depondt US 2021/0046906 (hereafter Depondt) in view of Caillot FR 2991948 (hereafter Caillot).
Regarding Claim 9, Depondt teaches:
9. (Currently Amended) The windshield wiper (wiper system 40a) according to claim 8, further comprising configured to stop and/or enable a fluid flow through the at least one further fluid channel (fluid channel 14c modified to be externally located embodiment fluid channel 14b) as a function of a wiping angle (see discussion below).
Depondt discloses a wiper system 40a that discloses the dispersant of fluid onto a windshield during operation. Depondt does not disclose a valve unit with a valve element that is selectively opened and closed allowing the fluid to flow when desired by the user. Although not disclosed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Depondt device would include a valve unit and a valve element that control the on/off state of the stream of fluid being dispersed. The Caillot reference discloses a wiper system employs a control device that includes a valve and valve element that detects the angular position of the wiper and selectively operates or deactivates the fluid supply device based on the position. Therefore, Caillot discloses the use of a valve unit that comprises at least one valve unit that stops/enables a fluid flow through an internal channel as a function of a wiping angle as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Depondt device to include a control system that operates a valve to selectively control the dispersant of fluid as a function of the detected angular position of the wiper as taught by Caillot with the motivation to prevent fluid from being dispersed in wiper angular positions where it would be wasteful.
Regarding Claim 10, Depondt teaches:
10. (Currently Amended) A method for operating a windshield wiper (wiper system 40a) according to claim 8, wherein
Depondt discloses a wiper system 40a that discloses the dispersant of fluid onto a windshield during operation. Depondt does not disclose a valve unit with a valve element that is selectively opened and closed allowing the fluid to flow when desired by the user. Although not disclosed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Depondt device would include a valve unit and a valve element that control the on/off state of the stream of fluid being dispersed. The Caillot reference discloses a wiper system employs a control device that includes a valve and valve element that detects the angular position of the wiper and selectively operates or deactivates the fluid supply device based on the position. Therefore, Caillot discloses the use of a valve unit that comprises at least one valve unit that stops/enables a fluid flow through an internal channel as a function of a wiping angle as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Depondt device to include a control system that operates a valve to selectively control the dispersant of fluid as a function of the detected angular position of the wiper as taught by Caillot with the motivation to prevent fluid from being dispersed in wiper angular positions where it would be wasteful.
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 wipers with fluid delivery.
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