DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on October 31, 2024. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 6, 10, 11 – 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by EP 0282843 A1 to Tanaka et al. (herein after "Tanaka et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1 and 11,
the Tanaka et al. publication discloses a vehicle (see FIG. 1, where a vehicle is incidentally illustrated) comprising:
a retractable cowl cover (4)(see FIG. 1 and at least Page 5);
one or more windshield wipers (3)(see FIG. 1 and at least Page 5); and
a controller (33, 41) comprising data processing hardware and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware (see FIG. 6 and Pages 6 – 7), the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising, while the retractable cowl cover is in the extended position:
receiving a first wiper input (36) including an input to turn on operation of the one or more windshield wipers (see FIGS. 8 – 9 and Pages 8 – 9 for “a wiper switch 36 . . . [including] an INT switch (intermit switch), a LO switch, a HI switch, a MIST (mist switch) and W/W switch (washer switch) as shown in Fig. 9, With one terminal (INT, SWL, SWH, W) of the respective switches being as shown to the port P7 (port P8, P9, P10, P11) of the MPU 41, with the other end being earthed. In order to operate the wiper motor 38 in accordance with the input signal from the wiper switch 36, the wiper motor 38 is connected with the output port of the MPU 41 through the wiper motor driving circuit 39 as shown”); and
based on receiving the first wiper input, instructing at least one actuator (5, 7, 30, 40, 48, 61, 62) to move the retractable cowl cover in a first direction from the extended position to the retracted position (see FIGS. 2 – 3 and Pages 6 – 7, where the cowl cover 4 is shown movable between an extended position and a retracted position; see also FIG. 6 for a controller (33) comprising data processing hardware and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to move the cowl cover 4 between an extended and retracted position when a wiper input signal is received by the controller to turn on one or more of said windshield wipers).
As to claims 2 and 12,
the Tanaka et al. publication discloses
a hood (see FIG. 2 and at least Page 4 for “bonnet F”),
wherein at least a portion of the retractable cowl cover (4) is disposed underneath the hood of the vehicle when the retractable cowl cover moves into the retracted position (see FIG. 2 and Pages 5 – 6).
As to claims 3 and 13,
the Tanaka et al. publication discloses
a cowl panel (2) configured store/stow the one or more windshield wipers (3)(see FIGS. 1 – 2 and Page 4 et seq.); and
a windshield (1)(see FIGS. 1 – 2), wherein the retractable cowl cover substantially conceals the one or more windshield wipers (3) stored/stowed upon the cowl panel of the vehicle when the retractable cowl cover is in the extended position, and wherein the retractable cowl cover provides an opening for the one or more windshield wipers to clear debris from the windshield while in use. (See FIGS. 1 – 2; see also Page 4 et seq.)
As to claims 4 and 14,
the Tanaka et al. publication discloses
after the at least one actuator moves the retractable cowl cover to the retracted position: receiving a second wiper input including an input to turn off operation of the one or more windshield wipers; and based on receiving the second wiper input, instructing the at least one actuator to move the retractable cowl cover in a second direction from the retracted position to the extended position. (See FIGS. 1, 2, 5 and 9; see also Page 4 et seq.)
As to claims 5 and 15,
the Tanaka et al. publication discloses
instructing the at least one actuator to move the retractable cowl cover in the second direction from the retracted position to the extended position causes the retractable cowl cover to move away from a hood of the vehicle and toward a windshield of the vehicle. (See FIGS. 2, 3, 5 and 9; see also Page 4 et seq.)
As to claims 6 and 16,
the Tanaka et al. publication discloses
instructing the at least one actuator to move the retractable cowl cover in the first direction from the extended position to the retracted position causes the retractable cowl cover to move away from a windshield of the vehicle such that at least a portion of the retractable cowl cover is disposed underneath a hood of the vehicle. (See FIGS. 2, 3, 5 and 9; see also Page 4 et seq.)
As to claims 10 and 20,
the Tanaka et al. publication discloses
receiving the first wiper input including the input to turn on operation of the one or more windshield wipers comprises any one of: receiving a request from a driver of the vehicle to turn on operation of the one or more windshield wipers; receiving an indication from a wiper sensor that a wiper motor is powered on; or receiving an indication from a rain sensor that rain is falling on the windshield. (See Page 4 et seq.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Tanaka et al. publication.
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 7 and 17,
the Tanaka et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including
a hood; and
windshield.
The Tanaka et al. publication, however, does not specifically disclose
a first fixed cowl cover portion laterally disposed along one of a driver side or a passenger side of the vehicle between the hood and the windshield; and
a second fixed cowl cover portion laterally disposed along the other one of the driver side or the passenger side of the vehicle between the hood and the windshield of the vehicle,
sides of the retractable cowl cover are disposed laterally inward from each of the first and second fixed cowl cover portions.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a first fixed cowl cover portion laterally disposed along one of a driver side or a passenger side of the vehicle between the hood and the windshield, and a second fixed cowl cover portion laterally disposed along the other one of the driver side or the passenger side of the vehicle between the hood and the windshield of the vehicle, where sides of the retractable cowl cover are disposed laterally inward from each of the first and second fixed cowl cover portions, since applicant has not disclosed that the first and second fixed cowl cover portions solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with removable first and second fixed cowl cover portions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent toapplicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0090144 A1 to Shimizu et al. publication who discloses “[a] cowl 21 . . . provided as a front component of the motorcycle 1 . . . [The] cowl 21 is a half cowl that covers only a top-front part of the motorcycle 1 and is fixed to a front portion of the body frame 2 [in order to suppress air drag].” (See ¶72.)(Emphasis added.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights