DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-10 have been examined in this application. This is the First Action On the Merits (FAOM). The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application DE10 2023 210 575.6 filed in Germany on 10/26/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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. Such claim limitations are:
(a) “a control unit” configured to receive… and cause…, in Claim 8,
(b) “a zone control unit” configured to actuate the drive, in Claim 9.
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “unit” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
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. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(a) the specification is unclear regarding the corresponding structure of the control unit. See 112(b).
(b) the specification is unclear regarding the corresponding structure of the zone control unit. See 112(b).
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” 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 limitations are:
(c) “steps of” in Claim 1,
(d) “steps of ”in Claim 5,
(e) “by means of” in Claim 8.
Examiner’s note: See MPEP 2181 (I) (A). “If the claim element uses the phrase ‘step for,’ then Section 112, Para. 6 is presumed to apply…. On the other hand, the term ‘step’ alone and the phrase ‘steps of’ tend to show that Section 112, Para. 6 does not govern that limitation."
Additionally, “means” as used in Claim 8 is not a placeholder and is instead linking language between the drive, displacement, and blade.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation “a zone control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description does not appear to disclose any corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function. Specification ¶0016, and 0026 recite the zone control unit, and describe it in terms of its connection to the drive and computer, and describe it in terms of its functionality of actuating the drive. However, the disclosure as originally filed does not appear to recite the structure of the zone control unit and state whether it is another computer, or a motor controller or power circuitry, or network circuitry, or a communication relay, or some combination of these things, or something else. Therefore, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-4 and 6-10 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, the phrase “the wiper information allowing identification of a replacement part” renders the claims indefinite. Particularly, it is not clear whether “allowing” identification means that the wiper information contains the identity of the replacement part, or alternatively whether the allowing is some kind of action, such as the wiper information giving permission or authorization for a further identification function or step. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as the wiper information being the identification information of a replacement part.
Claims 2-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1 (for Claims 2-4) or Claim 6 (for Claim 7) and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claim 2, the phrase “location and/or type and/or optical features” renders the claim indefinite. Particularly, the use of plural “and/or” conjunctions in a row (i.e. A and/or B and/or C) renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this is intended to be interpreted as any one or more of elements A, B, and C, or alternatively whether the combinations only include variations such as A and B or C or alternatively A or B and C (i.e. it is not clear whether the scope includes A with C without B). The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as any one or more of the listed elements.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, claim limitations (a) “a control unit” and (b) “a zone control unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The “control unit” of Claim 8 is stated in Claim 9 and specification ¶0023 to comprise a zone control unit and vehicle computer. Although the structure of a computer is understood, the “zone control unit” uses another placeholder term “unit,” however the disclosure does not appear to recite the corresponding structure of the “unit.” Specification ¶0016 and 0026 recite the zone control unit, and describe it in terms of its connection to the drive and computer, and describe it in terms of its functionality of actuating the drive. However, the disclosure as originally filed does not appear to recite the structure of the zone control unit and state whether it is another computer, or a motor controller or power circuitry, or a communication relay, or networking circuitry, or some combination of these things, or something else. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, the zone control unit is interpreted as a motor controller.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 8 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(101 Analysis - Step 1 - Statutory Category) Regarding Claims 1-7, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of subject matter as the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I - Judicial Exception) Regarding Independent Claim 1, the claim recites a computer-implemented method for preparing a change of a wiper blade (2) of a vehicle (1), the method comprising the steps of
authenticating, via a computer, a first entity as an authorized user of the vehicle (1),
detecting, via the computer, a desire of the first entity to change the wiper blade (2),
retrieving, via the computer, wiper information about the wiper blade (2) of the vehicle (1), the wiper information allowing identification of a replacement part,
forwarding, via the computer, the wiper information to a second entity different from the first entity, and
granting, via the computer, a right of use to the second entity for actuating a wiper system (10) of the vehicle (1) comprising the wiper blade (2).
The limitations indicated in BOLD above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are an abstract idea of a mental process, capable of being performed in a human mind or manually, using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Particularly, a person is capable of mentally or manually performing a method for preparing a change of a wiper blade (2) of a vehicle (1) (the person performing the steps prior to a change of a wiper blade), the method comprising the steps of
authenticating a first entity as an authorized user of the vehicle (1) (the person manually verifying credentials such as a license and registration),
detecting a desire of the first entity to change the wiper blade (2) (the person receiving a written request to change wiper blade),
retrieving wiper information about the wiper blade (2) of the vehicle (1), the wiper information allowing identification of a replacement part (the person looking up manual or recalling memorized information about a specific wiper blade model for the vehicle),
forwarding the wiper information to a second entity different from the first entity (the person writing the wiper information down, for a second recipient), and
granting a right of use to the second entity for actuating a wiper system (10) of the vehicle (1) comprising the wiper blade (2) (the person writing down rights/permission for the second recipient for permitting the actuation).
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II - Practical Application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations indicated with underlining above are additional elements in the claim. That is, the additional elements in the claim are the method being computer-implemented and the steps each “via the computer.”
These elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not provide an improvement in computer hardware or computing technology. Therefore, the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. Additionally, the retrieving and forwarding are the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for basic tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the ordered combination does not add anything already present when the elements are considered separately and merely recites input and evaluation and output of data to/from a processor at a high level of generality.
(101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As above, the additional elements in the claim are the method being computer-implemented and the steps each “via the computer.”
For the same reasons as presented above, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, at a high level of generality, such that the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the functions using a generic computer components as tools to perform the functions and the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for basic tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(d) computer functions which are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity include: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to amount to significantly more as the ordered combination does not add anything already present when the elements are considered separately and merely recites input and evaluation and output of data to/from a processor at a high level of generality.
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Independent Claim 5, the claim recites a method for preparing a change of a wiper blade (2) of a vehicle (1), comprising the steps of
receiving wiper information identifying a wiper blade (2) to be changed,
receiving a right of use for actuating a wiper system (10) of the vehicle (1) comprising the wiper blade (2), and
transmitting, in in response to a user input, an actuation command to the vehicle (1) for placing the wiper blade (2) in a predefined service position.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I) The limitations indicated in BOLD above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are an abstract idea of a mental process, capable of being performed in a human mind or manually, using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Particularly, a person is capable of mentally or manually performing a method for preparing a change of a wiper blade (2) of a vehicle (1) (for example the steps carried out prior to change of a wiper blade), comprising the steps of
receiving wiper information identifying a wiper blade (2) to be changed (the person receiving a written request which requests a left or right wiper blade to be changed),
receiving a right of use for actuating a wiper system (10) of the vehicle (1) comprising the wiper blade (2) (the person receiving a written permission to actuate the wiper system), and
outputting, in in response to a user input, an actuation command for placing the wiper blade (2) in a predefined service position (the person writing or thinking of a command to place the wiper blade in a certain angle).
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II) The additional elements in Claim 5 are the transmitting to the vehicle.
This is the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for basic tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the ordered combination does not add anything already present when the elements are considered separately and merely recites input and evaluation and output of data to/from a processor at a high level of generality.
(101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) For the same reasons as presented above, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, at a high level of generality, such that the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the functions using a generic computer components as tools to perform the functions and the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for basic tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(d) computer functions which are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity include: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to amount to significantly more as the ordered combination does not add anything already present when the elements are considered separately and merely recites input and evaluation and output of data to/from a processor at a high level of generality.
Regarding Independent Claim 6, the claim recites the same abstract idea as in Claim 1. The additional element in the claim is the non-transitory, computer-readable medium containing instructions that when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform the functions. This is a generic recitation of a computer component and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons presented above in Claim 1.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-4 and 7 do not recite further limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 2 recites retrieval and forwarding of vehicle information which is further detail of the abstract idea as a person can collect and forward or write additional information. The retrieval being “from the vehicle” represents an additional element in the claim but is merely the use of a computer for its basis tasks such as receiving data and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reason as presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 3 and 4 recite further details of the right of use, which is a further detail of the abstract idea, as a person can manually grant a right of use with a time limit or with additional permissions. The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Claim 7 recites wherein the computer comprises a cell phone or a vehicle computer (6) of the vehicle (1), or a server communicatively connected to the vehicle (1). These are further recitations of generic computer components the instructions could be executed on and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reason as presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2018/0211231A1 (Penilla et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0130266A1 (Sanchez et al.), further in view of Publication CN115489462A (Kong) (English translation relied upon for citations).
Regarding Claim 1, Penilla et al. discloses a computer-implemented method for preparing a change of a wiper blade (2) of a vehicle (1), the method comprising the steps of
authenticating, via a computer (see [0104] cloud services, i.e. server/computer), a first entity as an authorized user of the vehicle (1) (see [0073, 0082] user sign in with “login credentials”),
detecting, via the computer, a desire of the first entity to change the wiper blade (2) (see [0189, 0190] user may schedule a recommended service [0216] via cloud service and [0187-0188] aspects shared with advisor include wiper change/status),
part information being available to a second entity different from the first entity (see [0193] advisor can pre-order a part needed for the service), and
granting, via the computer, a right of use to the second entity for controlling the vehicle (see [0191] user gives advisor account, and [0207] advisor account can grant access to control features, Figure 18 via cloud).
Penilla et al. does not explicitly recite:
retrieving, via the computer, wiper information about the wiper blade (2) of the vehicle (1), the wiper information allowing identification of a replacement part,
forwarding, via the computer, the wiper information to a second entity different from the first entity.
However, Sanchez et al. teaches a technique for wiper blade replacement (see e.g. [0004]), comprising:
retrieving, via the computer (see [0036] processor), wiper information about the wiper blade (2) of the vehicle (1), the wiper information allowing identification of a replacement part (see [0036] retrieve information for display including suggested replacement wiper blades from table in memory),
forwarding, via the computer, the wiper information to a second entity different from the first entity (see [0037] can be sent to remote devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the obtaining of a part number of Penilla et al. to include obtaining wiper information in the manner taught by Sanchez et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the method to use original manufacturer equipment as well as other parts that are compatible with a vehicle (see Sanchez et al., [0003, 0036]).
Penilla et al. does not explicitly recite:
granting, via the computer, a right of use to the second entity for actuating a wiper system (10) of the vehicle (1) comprising the wiper blade (2).
However, Kong teaches a technique of vehicle control for wiper replacement (see e.g. [0003]), wherein the control is:
for actuating a wiper system (10) of the vehicle (1) comprising the wiper blade (2) (see [0046] driving the vehicle wiper blades to move to a preset repair position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the granting of right of use for controlling the vehicle of Penilla et al. to include control to drive a wiper system to a position for maintenance as taught by Kong, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving convenience of determining whether a wiper change is needed and convenience of providing maintenance by allowing for the particular repair position (see Kong, [0005, 0009]).
Regarding Claim 2, Penilla et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, in addition to retrieving wiper information (Penilla et al. as modified by Sanchez et al. in the rejection of Claim 1, above), vehicle information is also retrieved from the vehicle (1) and forwarded, the vehicle information comprising a location ([0187, 0189] vehicle data shared with advisor, [0195] vehicle data includes location) and/or type and/or optical features of the vehicle (1).
Regarding Claim 3, Penilla et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the right of use is only valid for a predefined period of time (see [0052] advisor account can be short duration, have expiration).
Regarding Claim 6, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 1. Claim 6 pertains to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claim 1 (see Penilla et al., [0063, 0284]). Claim 6 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 1, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 7, Penilla et al. discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 6, wherein the computer comprises a cell phone or a vehicle computer (6) of the vehicle (1), or a server communicatively connected to the vehicle (1) (see Figure 6, cloud services connected to vehicle, [0118] servers).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2018/0211231A1 (Penilla et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0130266A1 (Sanchez et al.), further in view of Publication CN115489462A (Kong) (English translation relied upon for citations), further in view of Publication US2022/0048470A1 (Sato et al.).
Regarding Claim 4, Penilla et al. does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 1, wherein the right of use includes permission to unlock and/or open a hood (7) and/or service hatch (8) for refilling windshield cleaning fluid.
However, Sato et al. teaches the use of permissions for vehicle users (see [0073]),
wherein the right of use includes permission to unlock and/or open a hood (7) and/or service hatch (8) (see [0076] For example, the authorization information illustrated in FIG. 3 indicates that user A is permitted to open and close the hood of the vehicle 30) for refilling windshield cleaning fluid (Examiner’s note: the phrase “for refilling windshield cleaning fluid” recites only intended use and any opening of the hood could be done with the intention to refill the cleaning fluid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the right of use of vehicle control features of Penilla et al. to include access to open a hood as taught by Sato et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the flexibility of the control for additional vehicle features and improving authorization of different users (see Sato et al., [0005-0009]).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication CN115489462A (Kong) in view of Publication US2018/0211231A1 (Penilla et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Kong discloses a method for preparing a change of a wiper blade (2) of a vehicle (1), comprising the steps of
receiving wiper information identifying a wiper blade (2) to be changed (see [0036] if preset replacement conditions are met, issue a wiper replacement reminder), and
transmitting, in in response to a user input (see [0046] after vehicle arrives at repair shop (user input of driving)), an actuation command to the vehicle (1) for placing the wiper blade (2) in a predefined service position (see [0046] driving the vehicle wiper blades to move to a preset repair position).
Kong does not explicitly recite:
receiving a right of use for actuating a wiper system (10) of the vehicle (1) comprising the wiper blade (2).
However, Penilla et al. teaches a technique for vehicle maintenance (see e.g. [0187]), including:
receiving a right of use for controlling vehicle systems (see [0191] user gives advisor account, and 0207 advisor account can grant access to control features).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control of the wiper system for the position of Kong to be a feature with a granted right of use as taught by Penilla et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing convenience and management of maintenance by allowing for advisor roles (see Penilla et al., [0010-0011]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kong discloses a vehicle (1) (see [0005] car) comprising
a wiper system (10) having at least one wiper blade (2) and a drive (3), the wiper blade (2) being displaceable by means of the drive (3) (see [0009, 0014] wiper blades driven), and
a control unit (4) for actuating the drive (3) (see [0015] computer processor for implementing).
Kong further discloses an actuation command and to cause the drive (3) to place the wiper blade (2) in a predefined service position (see [0009] preset repair position).
Kong does not explicitly recite:
wherein the control unit (4) is configured to receive an actuation command for the drive (3) from an entity that is not part of the vehicle (1) and to cause the drive (3) to place the wiper blade (2) in a predefined service position.
However, Penilla et al. teaches a technique for vehicle maintenance (see e.g. [0187]), including:
wherein the control unit (4) is configured to receive an actuation command from an entity that is not part of the vehicle (see [0079] control vehicle components remotely)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control of the wiper system for the position of Kong to be a feature with remote control as taught by Penilla et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing convenience and management of maintenance (see Penilla et al., [0010-0011]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication CN115489462A (Kong) in view of Publication US2018/0211231A1 (Penilla et al.), further in view of Published Application US2025/0100511A1 (Janiszewski et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Kong does not explicitly recite the vehicle (1) according to claim 8, wherein the control unit (4) comprises a zone control unit (5) as well as a vehicle computer (6), wherein the zone control unit (5) is networked with the vehicle computer (6) for data transmission, and wherein the zone control unit (5) is configured to actuate the drive (3).
However, Janiszewski et al. teaches a vehicle wiper system (see [0006]),
wherein the control unit (4) comprises a zone control unit (5) (see [0006] wiper motor controller) as well as a vehicle computer (6) (see [0006] ECU), wherein the zone control unit (5) is networked with the vehicle computer (6) for data transmission (see [0053] LIN bus or CAN bus), and wherein the zone control unit (5) is configured to actuate the drive (3) (see [0038] pass the operating command through the ECU to the wiper motor controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the drive of Kong to include a computer and zone control unit as taught by Janiszewski et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving functionality and integration with other vehicle systems and sensors (see Janiszewski et al., [0003, 0007]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication CN115489462A (Kong) in view of Publication US2018/0211231A1 (Penilla et al.), further in view of Publication US2017/0225654A1 (de Almeida et al.).
Regarding Claim 10, Kong does not explicitly recite the vehicle (1) according to claim 8, wherein the control unit (4) is configured to actuate the drive (3) while the ignition is switched off and/or a high-voltage battery is disconnected from the vehicle (1) in order to displace the wiper blade (2).
However, de Almeida et al. teaches a technique to move a wiper to a service position (see [0011] park 2 position),
wherein the control unit (4) is configured to actuate the drive (3) while the ignition is switched off and/or a high-voltage battery is disconnected from the vehicle (1) in order to displace the wiper blade (2) (see Figure 4, Park 2 position when ignition is off based on S110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Kong to operate in the manner taught by de Almeida et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of simplifying servicing and accessibility (see de Almeida et al., [0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669