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 .
Rejections Double Patenting
1. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. (12,617,374) to Hitnalli et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims 1 and 12 are encompassed by claims 1 and 13 of patent (‘374) of Hitnalli et al.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
2. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0391426) to Srinivas et al. in view of Canadian Patent Publication (3,142,701) to Srinivas et al. (‘701).
Regarding independent claim 1, Srinivas et al. teaches everything except, an arm hub connected to a drive shaft; a curved cantilever beam (110) connected to the arm hub, wherein the curved cantilever beam (110) has a cross-sectional shape; and an elastomeric wiper blade element (118) with that the elastomeric wiper blade element (118) includes a mounting channel (116) shaped to engage with the cross-sectional shape of the curved cantilever beam (110) such that the elastomeric wiper blade element (118) can be installed on the curved cantilever beam (110) (See paragraphs [0019]-[0023] of Srinivas et al. and FIGS. 1-3). As mentioned above, Srinivas et al. teaches everything except, an arm hub connected to a drive shaft. However, Srinivas et al. (‘701) teaches wiper system (10) that includes a wiper (16) and a drive shaft (18). Srinivas et al. (‘701) further teaches that an arm hub (30B) is connected to the output shaft (18) (See paragraphs [0010]-[0012] of Srinivas et al. (‘701)). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Srinivas et al. with Srinivas et al. (‘701) to connect the arm (110) to a hub (30B) with a drive shaft (18) in order to provide reciprocal motion in a manner that is conventional as taught in Srinivas et al. (‘701).
Regarding claim 2, Srinivas et al. as modified with Srinivas et al. (‘701) teaches claim 2. In particular, Srinivas et al. teaches the curved cantilever beam (110) includes a fastener section (102) configured to secure the curved cantilever beam (110) securely to the arm hub (30B). As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Srinivas et al. with Srinivas et al. (‘701) to connect the arm (110) to a hub (30B) with a drive shaft (18) in order to provide reciprocal motion in a manner that is conventional as taught in Srinivas et al. (‘701).
Regarding claim 3, Srinivas et al. as modified with Srinivas et al. (‘701) teaches claim 3. In particular, Srinivas et al. teaches that the fastener section (102) is configured to engage with two or more cantilever beam fasteners (capable of engaging different beam fasteners to secure the curved cantilever beam securely to the arm hub (30B).
Regarding claim 4, Srinivas et al. as modified with Srinivas et al. (‘701) teaches claim 4. In particular, Srinivas et al. teaches that the mounting channel (116) is configured to provide a snug fit between the elastomeric wiper blade element (118) and the curved cantilever beam (110).
Regarding claim 5, Srinivas et al. as modified with Srinivas et al. (‘701) teaches claim 5. In particular, Srinivas et al. 5 teaches that the elastomeric wiper blade element (118) is secured to the curved cantilever beam with one or more blade element fasteners (104).
Regarding claim 6, Srinivas et al. as modified with Srinivas et al. (‘701) teaches that the curved cantilever beam (110) is configured to have a curved shape that is selected to straighten when the windshield wiper system is installed against a windshield such that the curved cantilever beam (110) exerts a load sufficient to keep the wiper blade element (118) in contact with the windshield during all operational conditions. As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Srinivas et al. with Srinivas et al. (‘701) to connect the arm (110) to a hub (30B) with a drive shaft (18) in order to provide reciprocal motion in a manner that is conventional as taught in Srinivas et al. (‘701).
Regarding claim 7, Srinivas et al. as modified with Srinivas et al. (‘701) teaches the curved cantilever beam (110) is further configured to provide a uniform load distribution along a length of the curved cantilever beam (110).
Regarding claim 8, Srinivas et al. as modified with Srinivas et al. (‘701) teaches the windshield wiper system (100) is configured for use in terrestrial applications (capable of being used in below atmospheric applications).
Regarding claim 9, Srinivas et al. as modified with Srinivas et al. (‘701) teaches the windshield wiper system is configured for use in nautical applications (capable of being used in speed boats are the like).
Regarding claim 10, Srinivas et al. as modified with Srinivas et al. (‘701) teaches the windshield wiper system (100) is configured for use in aerospace applications (See paragraph [0012] of Srinivas et al.).
Regarding claim 11, Srinivas et al. as modified with Srinivas et al. (‘701) teaches that the windshield wiper system (100) has an aerodynamically efficient design that reduces aerodynamic drag (See paragraph [0019] of Srinivas et al.).
Conclusion
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. 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, Monica S. 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.
MICHAEL DEANGILO. JENNINGS
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MICHAEL D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights