CTFR 18/923,832 CTFR 93450 DETAILED ACTION Notice of AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of the Application Claims 1-11 were pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 10 were amended. Claims 1-11 remain pending and are examined in this office action. Priority As previously acknowledged, this application claims foreign priority based on an application DE102023210585.3 filed in Germany on 10/26/2023. Response to Arguments Claim Objections: Claims 4 and 6 are amended to correct the previous informalities, and the previous objections are withdrawn. However, claim 8 has not fully amended to correct one of the previous issues (“Claim 8 recites “wherein wear of the wiper blade (8, 9) is sensed and/or that an automated and/or manually triggered reordering of the wiper blade (8, 9) occurs” but appears it should recite “wherein wear of the wiper blade (8, 9) is sensed and/or [[that]] an automated and/or manually triggered reordering of the wiper blade (8, 9) occurs”) and this aspect of the previous objection is maintained for correction. 35 USC § 112(b): Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous § 112(b) rejections of claims 1-11 (pg. 5, remarks) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 1 is amended to correct the previous indefiniteness issues pertaining to the method steps. Claim 7 is amended to recite a separate independent claim. Claim 10 is also amended to recite specific method steps carried out by the computer executing instructions and overcomes the previous issues. Therefore, the previous § 112(b) rejections over claims 1-11 are withdrawn. However, see the current § 112(b) rejection of claim 7 necessitated by applicant’s amendments. 35 USC § 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous § 103 rejections of claims 1-11 (pgs. 5-9, remarks filed 2/13/2026) have been considered but are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection applied in the § 103 rejections of claims 1-11 below, in response to applicant’s amendments. Also note that while the remarks focus on the relation between the scanned label information and controlling the wiper arm, these elements are only broadly linked in the current claims without a specific technical mechanism that triggers movement of the wiper blade by a particular device in the vehicle in response to receiving the scanned label information. Instead as currently recited, scanning a label for installation instructions to replace the wiper blade (e.g. instructions for installing a wiper blade according to the scanned label), and then subsequently controlling a wiper arm as part of performing wiper blade replacement when a user desires to change the wiper blade, would render the broadest reasonable interpretation of the moving that the wiper arm (6, 7) is moved to a service position (20, 21) for installing the wiper blade (8, 9) based on information from the scanned label (22) obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when viewing the cited prior art as a whole. Please see the potential suggestion for putting the independent claims in condition for allowance over the prior art in the § 103 rejection of claim 1 below. Applicant is encouraged to arrange an interview to advance prosecution of the application if desired. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites “wherein wear of the wiper blade (8, 9) is sensed and/or that an automated and/or manually triggered reordering of the wiper blade (8, 9) occurs” but appears it should recite “wherein wear of the wiper blade (8, 9) is sensed and/or [[that]] an automated and/or manually triggered reordering of the wiper blade (8, 9) occurs” Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: Claim 9: “ A device configured to perform all steps of a method according to claim 1…” The corresponding structure for “A device” of claim 9 is described in the specification filed 10/23/2024 (see ¶ 0039 and Fig. 2). 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim 7 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites A computer-implemented method for installing a wiper blade (8, 9) on a wiper arm (6, 7) of a motor vehicle (1), the method comprising: scanning a label (22) stored in a block chain of a previous wiper blade (8, 9) when the wiper blade (8, 9) is installed on the wiper arm (6, 7) as a replacement for a previous wiper blade (8, 9) . However, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what each instance of a wiper blade or a previous wiper blade is referring to. For example, it is unclear whether the claim is intended to mean that the scanned label corresponds to a wiper blade that is a replacement for a previous wiper blade and linked to previous wiper blade information, or whether the scanned label is referring to the label of the previous wiper blade itself. Further, since the claim recites two instances of “a previous wiper blade,” it is unclear whether the underlined portions of “ scanning a label (22) stored in a block chain of a previous wiper blade (8, 9) when the wiper blade (8, 9) is installed on the wiper arm (6, 7) as a replacement for a previous wiper blade (8, 9) ” describe the same wiper blade or a different wiper blade. That the claim refers to the same reference characters for all mentions of a wiper blade lends further confusion as to what wiper blade is being referred to in each instance. See Ex Parte Miyazaki , 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211, (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008), holding “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions” the claim may be rejected as indefinite during prosecution. For the purpose of further examination, the examiner interprets claim 7 as requiring scanning of a label on a wiper blade that is used as a replacement for a previous wiper blade. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Note : Claims 1-8 and 10-11 recite various reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the specification and drawings. As per MPEP 608.01(m), “Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. The reference characters, however, should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim .” 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, 6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210179296 A1 to Jha et al. (Jha) in view of NPL Reference U (hereinafter “Bosch,” see current PTO-892 and https://www.bosch-press.nl/pressportal/nl/en/press-release-617.html), and further in view of DE102014223277A1 to Borysek (see attached English translation cited herein) . Claim 1: Jha teaches: A computer-implemented method for installing a wiper blade (8, 9) on a wiper arm (6, 7) of a motor vehicle (1) (Jha: ¶ 0004-0016 showing monitoring and installation of a new wiper blade, and ¶ 0021, ¶ 0047-0050, ¶ 0059-0062 showing detection of new/replacement wiper blades) , the method comprising: With respect to the limitation: scanning a label (22) applied to the wiper blade (8, 9) and/or to a package of the wiper blade (8, 9) (Jha: ¶ 0021, ¶ 0023, ¶ 0047-0050, ¶ 0059-0062 showing detection of new/replacement wiper blades using an RFID scanner/reader which detects an RFID tag located on a new/replacement wiper blade) , and With respect to the limitation: moving the wiper arm (6, 7) to a service position (20, 21) for installing the wiper blade (8, 9) based on information from the scanned label (22) As seen above, Jha teaches using an RFID scanner/reader which detects an RFID tag located on a new/replacement wiper blade (Jha: ¶ 0021, ¶ 0023, ¶ 0047-0050, ¶ 0059-0062), but the scanning of the new wiper blade only occurs in response to replacement rather than prior to performing installation, e.g. moving a wiper arm to a service position. However, Bosch teaches a smart phone being used to scan a QR code on the packaging of a new wiper blade in order to view videos (instructions) for installing the wiper blades, i.e. Bosch teaches the concept of performing wiper blade installation based on the information from the scanned label (Bosch: Pg. 2 “The QR code on the back of the packaging allows drivers to download videos about quick wiper-blade fitting onto their smart phones”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include using a QR code on the wiper blade packaging for viewing videos about installation using their smart phone as taught by Bosch in the wiper blade monitoring and replacement system of Jha, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have also found it obvious to do so with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that allowing drivers to download videos about quick wiper-blade fitting allows for quick and easy fitting of the wiper blades on their vehicles (Bosch: see Pg. 2). Still, while Bosch teaches a smart phone being used to scan a QR code on the packaging of a new wiper blade in order to view videos/instructions for installing the wiper blades, i.e. the concept of performing wiper blade installation based on the information from the scanned label, Bosch does not describe the replacement/installation as including moving the wiper arm to a service position for installing the wiper blade. However, Borysek teaches, when a user desires to replace the wiper blade on a vehicle (which as per Bosch above installation would be performed based on instructions obtained by scanning a QR code label on wiper blade packaging ), automatically moving wipers to a service position based on a detected signal received from a radio key or detected by a sensor/camera device of a vehicle as part of a wiper replacement process (Borysek: ¶ 0017-0018, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0027-0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included automatically moving wiper arms to a service position as part of wiper blade replacement of Borysek in the wiper blade monitoring and replacement system of Jha/Bosch with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to solve the problem that “In order to change or remove the windshield wipers of a vehicle according to the state of the art, the windshield wipers must first be put into a so-called service position, which is done by actuating an operating element in the interior of the vehicle after the ignition has been deactivated. This procedure is cumbersome in certain situations where one is outside the vehicle. For example, if you want to change the windshield wipers while refueling your vehicle, according to current technology it is necessary to first get back into the vehicle in order to put the windshield wipers into the service position by deactivating the ignition and then operating the control element (usually a lever). Only then can the windshield wipers be changed” (Borysek: ¶ 0003) and “by allowing the driver of the vehicle to issue the command to put the windshield wiper into the service position from outside the vehicle, it is advantageously no longer necessary to get into the vehicle to put the windshield wiper into the service position” (Borysek: ¶ 0007). Claim interpretation note and suggestion for amendment: The claim does not recite, for example, a technical element or computing device on the vehicle (e.g. ECU or other device) that receives the scanned information at the vehicle and responsively triggers a wiper motor to move the wiper arm to a service position directly in response to this received information. While the specification describes various mechanisms for an automated trigger for moving the wiper system to the service mode (¶ 0022, ¶ 0040-0041 of originally filed spec.), these mechanisms are not reflected in the claims. In other words, the claim does not specify what performs the “scanning,” or what performs the “moving.” Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “moving the wiper arm (6, 7) to a service position (20, 21) for installing the wiper blade (8, 9) based on information from the scanned label (22)” could just describe putting wipers into a service position to perform wiper blade replacement based on viewing instructions for wiper blade replacement. While the method is “computer-implemented,” the computer implementation is not tied to any particular step and a computer may only be involved in the scanning step. However, the examiner notes that an amendment reflecting a technical implementation such as the following (reference characters omitted) would clearly overcome any reasonable interpretation of the current prior art or any other prior art currently known to the examiner, if desired by applicant. Example amendment: 1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for installing a wiper blade (8, 9) on a wiper arm of a motor vehicle, the method comprising: scanning, by a sensor located on the vehicle or by a mobile device, a label applied to the wiper blade and/or to a package of the wiper blade, transmitting, by the sensor or the mobile device, a signal containing information from the scanned label to an electronic control unit (ECU) of a wiper system of the vehicle, moving, by the electronic control unit (ECU) of the vehicle in response to the signal containing the information from the scanned label, the wiper arm to a service position for installing the wiper blade by actuating a wiper motor of the vehicle. Claim 3: Jha/Bosch/Borysek teach claim 1. Jha, as modified above, further teaches: wherein the label (22) is scanned by a sensor (25, 26) of the motor vehicle (1), and/or by means of a mobile device (27) (Jha: ¶ 0049 “The RFID module 404 of the ECU 402 includes an RFID reader that is configured to communicate with the RFID tag of the wiper blade”) Claim 6: Jha/Bosch/Borysek teach claim 1. Jha, as modified above, further teaches: wherein the label (22) is stored in a QR code (23) and/or an RFID tag and/or a blockchain (Jha: ¶ 0021 “automatically detect a replaced wiper blade based on the RFID tag”; also see ¶ 0047-0050, ¶ 0059-0062, ¶ 0066 further showing detecting and tracking use via RFID tag on the wiper blade) Claim 8: Jha/Bosch/Borysek teach claim 1. Jha, as modified above, further teaches: wherein wear of the wiper blade (8, 9) is sensed (Jha: ¶ 0004-0009, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0023, ¶ 0046-0054, ¶ 0058-0061 showing measuring usage and health of wiper blade over time via RFID sensing) and/or that an automated and/or manually triggered reordering of the wiper blade (8, 9) occurs when the sensed wear of the wiper blade (8, 9) reaches a predetermined wear limit Claim 9: Jha/Bosch/Borysek teach claim 1. Jha, as modified above, further teaches: A device configured to perform all steps of a method according to claim 1 (Jha: ¶ 0076 “As described above, embodiments can be in the form of processor-implemented processes and devices for practicing those processes, such as a processor. Embodiments can also be in the form of computer program code containing instructions embodied in tangible media, such as network cloud storage, SD cards, flash drives, floppy diskettes, CD ROMs, hard drives, or any other computer-readable storage medium, wherein, when the computer program code is loaded into and executed by a computer, the computer becomes a device for practicing the embodiments”). Claim 10: See the rejection of claim 1 above teaching analogous limitations. Jha further teaches “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium containing instructions that when executed by a computer cause the computer to carry out a method…” (Jha: ¶ 0076 showing “Embodiments can also be in the form of computer program code containing instructions embodied in tangible media, such as network cloud storage, SD cards, flash drives, floppy diskettes, CD ROMs, hard drives, or any other computer-readable storage medium, wherein, when the computer program code is loaded into and executed by a computer, the computer becomes a device for practicing the embodiments” (Jha: ¶ 0076). Claim 11: Jha/Bosch/Borysek teach claim 1 as seen above. See the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Jha further teaches A method for installing a wiper blade on a wiper arm of a motor vehicle, wherein a person installs a wiper blade on the wiper arm, wherein the wiper arm (6, 7) is moved to a service position (20, 21) by means of a computer-implemented method according to claim 1, in order to install the wiper blade (8, 9) on the wiper arm (6, 7) (Jha: ¶ 0004-0016 showing computer implemented monitoring and installation of a new wiper blade, and ¶ 0021, ¶ 0047-0050, ¶ 0059-0062 showing automated detection of new/replacement wiper blades) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210179296 A1 to Jha et al. (Jha) in view of NPL Reference U (hereinafter “Bosch,” see current PTO-892 and https://www.bosch-press.nl/pressportal/nl/en/press-release-617.html), further in view of DE102014223277A1 to Borysek, and further in view of US 20210271831 A1 to Morton et al. (Morton) . Claim 2: Jha/Bosch/Borysek teach claim 1. With respect to the limitation: wherein the label (22) is scanned at least when the ignition of the motor vehicle (1) is turned off Jha teaches that “upon power-up or during initial built-in test (IBIT) process , the computing unit reads the blade information through the RFID reader and stores it in the persistent memory, and the computing unit compares the currently read blade information against the previously stored blade information from the persistent memory” (Jha: ¶ 0050), and Bosch teaches reading a QR code of packaging to view videos about installation (as per claim 1 above). However, to the extent that Jha/Bosch/Borysek do not explicitly teach reading the label while the ignition is off , Morton teaches an in-vehicle RFID system which operates for a period of time, or can be re-activated, to read RFID tags while a vehicle ignition is off (Morton: ¶ 0011-0017, ¶ 0066-0070 RFID reader operates for a set period of time after ignition is off, or when it is awakened even if ignition is off; ¶ 0038, ¶ 0047 describing structure and detail of RFID reader reading RFID tags; note ¶ 0007 “the vehicle is in the inactive state when the engine or motor of the vehicle is off”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the wiper blade monitoring and replacement process/system of Jha/Bosch/Borysek with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “the RFID system may need to be running while the vehicle's engine or motor is off” (Morton: ¶ 0029) and to address the problems that “Even if the RFID system uses a battery separate from the vehicle battery to power, the RFID system may nonetheless drain its own battery and stop functioning, leading to lack of proper monitoring after a relatively short amount of time. Therefore, a power control method, as is disclosed in some examples herein, ensures the operations of a vehicle mounted RFID system” (Morton: ¶ 0030) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210179296 A1 to Jha et al. (Jha) in view of NPL Reference U (hereinafter “Bosch,” see current PTO-892 and https://www.bosch-press.nl/pressportal/nl/en/press-release-617.html), further in view of DE102014223277A1 to Borysek, and further in view of US 20160189440 A1 to Cattone . Claim 4: Jha/Bosch/Borysek teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Jha teaches scanning a wiper blade tag as per claim 1 above, but Jha/Bosch/Borysek do not teach verification that it fits the vehicle. However, Cattone teaches: wherein there is a verification of whether the scanned label (22) is an allowable label (22) for the motor vehicle (1), and a) a user is shown a result of the verification on a mobile device (27) (Cattone: ¶ 0100, ¶ 0148 showing scanning a part identifier or barcode using a mobile device prior to installation and ¶ 0138, ¶ 0145 verifying on the mobile device whether it is compatible with the user’s vehicle/manufacturer) , and/or b) the wiper arm (6, 7) is moved to the service position (20, 21) if the result of the verification is that the scanned label (22) is an allowable label (22) for the motor vehicle (1) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included verification of parts compatible with the vehicle as taught by Cattone in the wiper blade monitoring and replacement process/system of Jha/Bosch/Borysek with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to verify that an identified part is authentic and compatible with the user’s vehicle prior to installation (Cattone: ¶ 0100, ¶ 0145) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210179296 A1 to Jha et al. (Jha) in view of NPL Reference U (hereinafter “Bosch,” see current PTO-892 and https://www.bosch-press.nl/pressportal/nl/en/press-release-617.html), further in view of DE102014223277A1 to Borysek, and further in view of US 20130175335 A1 to Roberts . Claim 5: Jha/Bosch/Borysek teach claim 1. With respect to the limitation: wherein at least one installation instruction for the wiper blade (8, 9) is displayed to a user as a function of scanning the label (22) Bosch teaches that “The QR code on the back of the packaging allows drivers to download videos about quick wiper-blade fitting onto their smart phones” and therefore teaching installation videos/instructions being downloaded to the user as a function of scanning the label, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this highly suggests displaying an installation instruction. However, to any extent that Jha/Bosch/Borysek do not explicitly teach an installation instruction displayed to the user as a function of scanning the label, Roberts teaches scanning barcodes on products using a mobile device, which causes installation instructions to display on the mobile device (Roberts: ¶ 0012, ¶ 0017-0022 scanning barcode and displaying instructional video demonstrating how to use the product, including assembly instructions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the use of a mobile device for scanning a product barcode to view product instructions of Roberts in the wiper blade monitoring and replacement process/system of Jha/Bosch/Borysek (such that it displays instructions on how to use/assemble the wiper blade replacement) with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “the amount and type of information included with a product may be limited due the size of a product and its packaging. Further, the additional costs associated with shipping information such as booklets or videos with products may be undesirable” (Roberts: ¶ 0005), such that “a user is easily able to use their mobile device to view one or more videos relating to the product, which may help the user operate the product in a proper and safe manner” (Roberts: ¶ 0020) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210179296 A1 to Jha et al. (Jha) in view of US 20200344046 A1 to Lindeman, further in view of NPL Reference U (hereinafter “Bosch,” see current PTO-892 and https://www.bosch-press.nl/pressportal/nl/en/press-release-617.html), and further in view of DE102014223277A1 to Borysek . Claim 7: Jha teaches: A computer-implemented method for installing a wiper blade (8, 9) on a wiper arm (6, 7) of a motor vehicle (1) (Jha: ¶ 0004-0016 showing monitoring and installation of a new wiper blade, and ¶ 0021, ¶ 0047-0050, ¶ 0059-0062 showing detection of new/replacement wiper blades) , the method comprising: scanning a label (22) […] of a previous wiper blade (8, 9) when the wiper blade (8, 9) is installed on the wiper arm (6, 7) as a replacement for a previous wiper blade (8, 9) (Jha: ¶ 0021, ¶ 0023, ¶ 0047-0050, ¶ 0059-0062 showing detection of new/replacement wiper blades that replaced a previous wiper blade using an RFID scanner/reader which detects an RFID tag located on a new/replacement wiper blade; also see ¶ 0050 showing “the computing unit reads the blade information through the RFID reader and stores it in the persistent memory, and the computing unit compares the currently read blade information against the previously stored blade information from the persistent memory ” and ¶ 0066 showing “The read blade information can be stored in the memory of the ECU ”) , Note : See the § 112(b) rejection of claim 7 above. With respect to the limitation: a label (22) stored in a block chain Jha teaches an RFID reader scanning a wiper blade tag (label) wherein the RFID tags of the previous and new wiper blade have corresponding data stored in memory (Jha: ¶ 0021, ¶ 0023, ¶ 0047-0050, ¶ 0059-0062, ¶ 0066 as per above), but does not explicitly teach that the product/label information could be stored in a blockchain. However, Lindeman teaches applying a product label including a QR code to a product, wherein scanning the QR code results in information pertaining to the product to be stored in a blockchain and viewing by customers/owners of the product (Lindeman: Abstract, ¶ 0034-0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the storage of product information/label information in a blockchain as taught by Lindeman the wiper blade monitoring and replacement process/system of Jha with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “Product seller and customers are now guaranteed to be presented with data that matches the exact product in their hand” (Lindeman: Abstract) and “Traditional use of QR codes on products labels has used them as communication links that a user scans with mobile phone that connects them to a website that provides more information about the product or the seller. Typically, the only information conveyed in an QR code is the website's URL, such as www.amazon.com. Unfortunately, QR codes can be copied and placed on counterfeit products. To prevent, counterfeiting use of QR codes it is possible to store other information in the QR code, such as a cryptographic key so that when the QR code is scanned by a QR code reader application, the server validates the integrity and origin of the QR code” (Lindeman: ¶ 0007). With respect to the limitation: and moving the wiper arm (6, 7) to a service position (20, 21) for installing the wiper blade (8, 9) based on information from the scanned label (22) As seen above, Jha teaches using an RFID scanner/reader which detects an RFID tag located on a previous wiper blade and/or new wiper blade after replacement (Jha: ¶ 0021, ¶ 0023, ¶ 0047-0050, ¶ 0059-0062), and further teaches an alert for replacement when usage is above a threshold for replacement (Jha: ¶ 0054-0055, ¶ 0058), but the scanning of a new wiper blade only occurs in response to replacement rather than prior to performing installation, e.g. moving a wiper arm to a service position. However, Bosch teaches a smart phone being used to scan a QR code on the packaging of a new wiper blade in order to view videos (instructions) for installing the wiper blades, i.e. Bosch teaches the concept of performing wiper blade installation based on the information from the scanned label (Bosch: Pg. 2 “The QR code on the back of the packaging allows drivers to download videos about quick wiper-blade fitting onto their smart phones”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include using a QR code on the wiper blade packaging for viewing videos about installation using their smart phone as taught by Bosch in the wiper blade monitoring and replacement system of Jha/Lindeman, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have also found it obvious to do so with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that allowing drivers to download videos about quick wiper-blade fitting allows for quick and easy fitting of the wiper blades on their vehicles (Bosch: see Pg. 2). Still, while Bosch teaches a smart phone being used to scan a QR code on the packaging of a new wiper blade in order to view videos/instructions for installing the wiper blades, i.e. the concept of performing wiper blade installation based on the information from the scanned label, Bosch does not describe the replacement/installation as including moving the wiper arm to a service position for installing the wiper blade. However, Borysek teaches, when a user desires to replace the wiper blade on a vehicle (which as per Bosch above installation would be performed at least in part based on instructions obtained by scanning a QR code label on wiper blade packaging ), automatically moving wipers to a service position based on a detected signal received from a radio key or a gesture detected by a sensor/camera device of a vehicle as part of a wiper replacement process (Borysek: ¶ 0017-0018, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0027-0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included automatically moving wiper arms to a service position as part of wiper blade replacement of Borysek in the wiper blade monitoring and replacement system of Jha/Bosch with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to solve the problem that “In order to change or remove the windshield wipers of a vehicle according to the state of the art, the windshield wipers must first be put into a so-called service position, which is done by actuating an operating element in the interior of the vehicle after the ignition has been deactivated. This procedure is cumbersome in certain situations where one is outside the vehicle. For example, if you want to change the windshield wipers while refueling your vehicle, according to current technology it is necessary to first get back into the vehicle in order to put the windshield wipers into the service position by deactivating the ignition and then operating the control element (usually a lever). Only then can the windshield wipers be changed” (Borysek: ¶ 0003) and “by allowing the driver of the vehicle to issue the command to put the windshield wiper into the service position from outside the vehicle, it is advantageously no longer necessary to get into the vehicle to put the windshield wiper into the service position” (Borysek: ¶ 0007). Note: See the “Claim interpretation note and suggestion for amendment” included in the rejection of claim 1 above, which would similarly apply here . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210179296 A1 to Jha et al. (Jha) in view of NPL Reference U (hereinafter “Bosch,” see current PTO-892 and https://www.bosch-press.nl/pressportal/nl/en/press-release-617.html), further in view of DE102014223277A1 to Borysek, and further in view of US 20180150876 A1 to Tovey et al. (Tovey) . Note : Claim 8 recites optional language and thus is already correctly rejected under § 103 above. However, since the examiner’s prior art search identified a reference covering the alternative limitations, a supplemental § 103 rejection is provided to provide notice that the alternative limitation is also taught by the prior art. Claim 8: Jha/Bosch/Borysek teach claim 1. With respect to the limitation: wherein wear of the wiper blade (8, 9) is sensed and/or that an automated and/or manually triggered reordering of the wiper blade (8, 9) occurs when the sensed wear of the wiper blade (8, 9) reaches a predetermined wear limit Jha also teaches tracking the wear of a wiper blade and notifying when replacement is recommended (Jha: ¶ 0049-0056, ¶ 0062-0064, ¶ 0066, ¶ 0068-0073) – but Jha/Bosch/Borysek do not teach automatically or manually reordering the wiper blade upon reaching a wear limit/threshold. However, Tovey teaches monitoring product wear and automatically reordering or notifying a customer to manually reorder a product when the wear level reaches a particular threshold (Tovey: ¶ 0046-0047, ¶ 0051-0061 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the measurement of wear on a product to automatically suggest or reorder a replacement of Tovey in the wiper blade monitoring and replacement process/system of Jha/Bosch/Borysek with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “accurately determine when to replace products that wear based upon usage” (Tovey: ¶ 0009) and “This is useful since end of usable life, or the replacement date provided by manufacturers is an estimate of when the products typically should be replaced. In certain cases, when a product is used extensively or is subject to extreme environments, the products deteriorate quickly and may need to be replaced earlier” (Tovey: ¶ 0053). Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 EST. 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)272-4602. 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. /HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 2 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 3 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 4 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 5 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 6 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 7 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 8 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 10 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 11 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 12 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 13 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 15 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 16 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 17 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 18 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 19 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 20 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 21 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 22 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 23 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/923,832 Page 24 Art Unit: 3628
Prosecution Insights