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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 8 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: “limiting part” in claim 1. A review of the specification has identified the limiting part as first limit step, 304.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, while the claim sets forth a wiper connection structure for coupling a wiper and a wiper blade together, the claim positively sets forth a connection body of the connection structure installed on the wiper blade in lines 3 and 4. Such leads to confusion as to exactly what is being claimed, merely the connection structure or some combination thereof. It appears the preamble of the claim should clearly set forth that a combination is being claimed.
Claims 2 – 8 are further rejected as dependents of rejected claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 – 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fournier (FR 2600291 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
531
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Fournier teaches a wiper connection structure (attachment device, 1), for coupling a wiper (wiper arm, 2) and a wiper blade (stirrup, 3; Page 4, paragraph 3) together, the wiper (2) comprising a head portion (@ central perforation, 2a), characterized in that the wiper connection structure (1) comprises a connection body (first element, 4) and an upper cover (second element, 5), wherein the connection body (4) is used for connecting with the wiper blade (Page 4, paragraph 3), the connection body (4) comprises a containing chamber (groove, 10) defined thereon (Fig. 1), the containing chamber (10) is opened at an upper surface (Fig. 1) and a lateral surface of the connection body (4) to define an upper opening (Fig. 1) and an entrance (entrance of 10; Fig. 1) for inserting (Fig. 1); the upper cover(5) is hinged to the upper opening (Fig. 1), the upper cover (5) is configured to close (Fig. 2) and open (Fig. 1) the upper opening (Fig. 1); at least one of the containing chamber (10) and the upper cover (5) comprises a limiting part (protrusion, 14) stopping and limiting the head portion (@2a) of the wiper (2) to make the head portion of the wiper (2) be free from falling off from the containing chamber (10) wherein the upper opening (Fig. 1) disconnected with the entrance (Fig. 1) to allow the head portion (@2a) of the wiper (2) to be inserted into the containing chamber (10) via only the entrance (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Fournier teaches the wiper connection structure (attachment device, 1),
characterized in that a side (right side @ 8, see Fig. 1) of the upper cover (5) is hinged to a side of the upper opening (Fig. 1), and the upper cover (5) and the upper opening (Fig. 1) are integrally formed by plastic injection molding (page 4, last paragraph), and another side (left side @ 8; Fig. 1) of the upper cover (5) is detachably positioned and coupled to another side of the upper opening (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Fournier teaches the wiper connection structure (attachment device, 1),
characterized in that the another side of the upper cover (left side @ 8; Fig. 1) and the another side of the upper opening are snapped and coupled to each other (via hook, 28).
Regarding Claim 4, Fournier teaches the wiper connection structure (attachment device, 1),
characterized in that, based on a state that the upper cover (5) closes the upper opening (Fig. 2), an inner wall of the another side of the upper cover (5) is integrally formed with a hook (28; Fig. 1), and the another side of the upper opening is integrally formed with a snap column snapped with the hook (Page 9, Paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Fournier teaches the wiper connection structure (attachment device, 1),
characterized in that the containing chamber (10) and the upper cover (5) are respectively provided with the limiting part (14) for stopping and limiting the head portion (@2a) of the wiper (2).
Regarding Claim 8, Fournier teaches the wiper connection structure (attachment device, 1),
characterized in that the wiper blade (3) comprises a round shaft (3d) fixed thereon(Figs. 1 and 2), the connection body (4) comprises a semicircular snap hole (22; Fig. 3), and the connection body (4) sheathes the round shaft (3d) through the semicircular snap hole (22).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Although Fournier teaches the wiper connection structure, the reference fails to teach, suggest or make obvious the head portion of the wiper is inserted from the entrance into the containing chamber along a front-rear direction; the head portion of the wiper comprises a front step portion and a rear step portion arranged at intervals along the front-rear direction; the containing chamber comprises a first limit step integrally formed on an inner sidewall thereof adjacent to the upper cover and matched with the front step portion in shape to stop and limit a front side of the front step portion, and a second limit step integrally formed on the inner sidewall thereof adjacent to the upper cover and matched with the rear step portion in shape to stop and limit a front side of the rear step portion; the upper cover comprises a limit bump integrally formed on an inner wall thereof and configured to stop and limit a rear side of the front step portion when the upper cover closes the upper opening.
Claim 7 is further objected and rejected as dependents of claim 1 and 6.
Conclusion
Art made of record, however, not relied upon for the current rejection is as follows: U. S. Patent Publication 2013/0333144 (A1) teaches a wiper device for a motor vehicle window, with a wiper arm adapter unit and a wiper blade adapter unit which, in a fitted state, form a form-fitting connection. It is proposed that the wiper device has at least one blocking means which is mounted movably on the wiper blade adapter unit for restricting the wiper arm adapter unit in the freedom of movement thereof, in the fitted state, in a direction deviating from a longitudinal direction.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights