DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Duplicate Claim
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 22 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Objection
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informality: claim 17 contains a typographical mistake where applicant put an unnecessary hyphen after the word “comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informality: claim 22 contains a typographical mistake where applicant put an unnecessary hyphen after the word “comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-16 and 19-21 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first edge and second edge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first edge and second edge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2,971,209 by Coulter in view of U.S. 6,696,391 to Goto.
With regard to claim 1, Coulter teaches a windshield wiper blade element comprising a supporting structure 20 (reads on body) and a wiping element connected to the supporting structure 20, wherein the wiping element comprises a rubber core 12 having a first color (columns 1 and 2 of Coulter). Coulter teaches that the wiping element also comprises a rubber coating 14 that is connected to an outer surface of the core 12 (columns 1 and 2 of Coulter). Coulter teaches that the rubber coating 14 has a second color that is visually different from the first color (columns 1 and 2 of Coulter). Coulter teaches that this difference in color between the outer rubber coating 14 and the core 12 advantageously allows a person to realize when the outer rubber coating 14 has been worn away such that the windshield wiper should be replaced (columns 1 and 2 of Coulter).
Coulter does not specify that the outer layer 14 is a topical coating.
Goto teaches that a rubber windshield wiper core can be coated with a solid lubricant layer taught by Goto in order to advantageously reduce wiping failure and reduce the noisiness of the windshield wiper, wherein the coating is applied to the rubber wiper as a spray and then solidified into said solid lubricant layer (Abstract; Col. 3, line 34 to Col. 5, line 11).
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 windshield wiper blade element of Coulter by using Goto’s coating material to form the outer coating 14 instead of using rubber as the out coating. In this combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the rubber core 12 of Coulter is spray-coated with the coating of Goto such that a solid lubricant layer of Goto can be formed over the rubber core 12. In this combination Coulter in view of Goto, the rubber of the core 12 is selected to be a visually contrasting color with the color of the solid lubricant layer of Goto such that a user can see when the solid lubricant layer has been worn away (due to usage over time of the windshield wiper blade element). The motivation for replacing the rubber outer coating 14 with the solid lubricant coating of Goto was provided by Goto, who teaches that their solid lubricant coating (for a rubber windshield wiper) can advantageously reduce wiping failure and reduce the noisiness of a windshield wiper. The motivation for having the color of core 12 visually contrast with the outer lubricant layer was provided by Coulter, who teaches that such a contrast advantageously allows a person to realize when an outer wiper layer has been worn away (due to usage) such that the windshield wiper should be replaced. In this combination of Coulter in view of Goto, since the solid lubricant coating is on the outside of the rubber core 12, the solid lubricant coating is considered to wear earlier and faster than the rubber core 12.
With regard to claim 2, in the developed combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the first color (of the core 12) visually contrasts with the color of the outer solid lubricant layer such that a person can advantageously see when the lubricant layer has worn away (due to usage). The combination of Coulter in view of Goto does not specify that the first color of the rubber 12 is a primary color or a secondary color. However, Coulter writes that a contrasting color for a rubber wiper element may be “any other color which can be successfully created in rubber” (lines 45-46 of column 2). It is well known that rubber can be colored with a secondary color. 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 wiper blade element of Coulter in view of Goto by having the first color of the rubber core 12 be a secondary color that is visually different from the color of the solid lubricant layer, as Coulter writes that a rubber wiper component may be “any other color which can be successfully created in rubber”.
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Coulter in view of Goto teaches that the solid lubricant layer is made of graphite and a binder (Col. 3, line 53 to Col. 4, line 9 of Goto), but the combination of Coulter in view of Goto is silent concerning the color of the solid lubricant layer. The combination of Coulter in view of Goto thus does not teach that the solid lubricant layer is colored navy, grey, or black. However, in the combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the purpose of the visually contrasting colors is to let a person know when the outer solid lubricant layer has worn away (due to usage). Since navy, grey, and black are each capable of visually contrasting with other colors, 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 windshield wiper blade element of Coulter in view of Goto such that the outer solid lubricant layer is modified to have one of the color of navy, grey, or black, as these colors are each considered to be successfully able to visually contrast with a color selected for the rubber core 12.
With regard to claim 4, in the combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the wiper blade element is further considered to comprise a first edge and a second edge. Look at Figure 2 of Coulter. In the examiner’s combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the outer layer 14 (in Figure 2 of Coulter) has been replaced with an outer solid lubricant layer taught by Goto. In the examiner’s combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the “first edge” would be the bottom left (“bottom left” being the bottom left of Figure 2 of Coulter when the layer 14 is replaced with the outer solid lubricant layer) of the wiper blade and the “second edge” would be the bottom right (“bottom right” being the bottom right of Figure 2 of Coulter when the layer 14 is replaced with the outer solid lubricant layer) of the wiper blade. Applicant’s limitation specifying that the first and second edges contact a windshield during use specifies intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. In the combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the first and second edges of the wiper blade are structurally capable of contacting a windshield during use.
With regard to claim 5, in the combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the above-discussed first and second edges are expected to wear down in a similar manner to the wear illustrated in Figure 3 of Coulter due to wiping movements of the wiper blade, and the first and second edges can thus be considered to have contributed to shaping an edge of the wiper blade element during usage and wear of the wiper blade element.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, in the developed combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the shaped edge reveals the color of the core 12, and this revealed color can be considered a predictive performance indicator because it visually indicates to a human that the lubricating layer has been worn off the wiper blade in an area where the blade has frictional contact with the windshield.
With regard to claim 12, in the combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the thickness of the water repellant layer is considered to give the wiper blade an expected lifetime because that thickness affects how much wear the water repellant layer can experience before a portion of the rubber core 12 becomes exposed.
Claims 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2,971,209 by Coulter in view of U.S. 6,696,391 to Goto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP213857 by Verburgh.
With regard to claims 8 and 22, the combination of Coulter in view of Goto teaches that the solid lubricant layer is made of graphite and a binder (Col. 3, line 53 to Col. 4, line 9 of Goto), but the combination of Coulter in view of Goto doesn’t say whether or not the solid lubricant layer is water repellant or not.
Verburgh discusses solid lubricant layers of type taught by Goto (and explicitly cites the Goto reference for teaching such solid lubricant layers) and says that “the coatings usually assume a water-repellent character, since they are hydrophobic due to the dry lubricant particles used or the binder used” (pages 3-4 of translation).
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 method of Coulter in view of Goto such that the solid lubricant layer is a water repellant layer. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Verburgh, who is considered to teach that a solid lubricant layer that is water repellant can successfully be used as a solid lubricant layer (of a wiper blade) of the type taught by Goto.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2,971,209 by Coulter in view of U.S. 6,696,391 to Goto.
With regard to claim 13, Coulter teaches a windshield wiper blade element comprising a supporting structure 20 (reads on body) and a wiping element connected to the supporting structure 20, wherein the wiping element comprises a rubber core 12 having a first color (columns 1 and 2 of Coulter). Coulter teaches that the wiping element also comprises a rubber coating 14 that is connected to an outer surface of the core 12 (columns 1 and 2 of Coulter). Coulter teaches that the rubber coating 14 has a second color that is visually different from the first color (columns 1 and 2 of Coulter). Coulter teaches that this difference in color between the outer rubber coating 14 and the core 12 advantageously allows a person to realize when the outer rubber coating 14 has been worn away such that the windshield wiper should be replaced (columns 1 and 2 of Coulter).
Coulter does not specify that the outer layer 14 is a topical coating.
Goto teaches that a rubber windshield wiper core can be coated with a solid lubricant layer taught by Goto in order to advantageously reduce wiping failure and reduce the noisiness of the windshield wiper, wherein the coating is applied to the rubber wiper as a spray and then solidified into said solid lubricant layer (Abstract; Col. 3, line 34 to Col. 5, line 11).
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 windshield wiper blade element of Coulter by using Goto’s coating material to form the outer coating 14 instead of using rubber as the out coating. In this combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the rubber core 12 of Coulter is spray-coated with the coating of Goto such that a solid lubricant layer of Goto can be formed over the rubber core 12. In this combination Coulter in view of Goto, the rubber of the core 12 is selected to be a visually contrasting color with the color of the solid lubricant layer of Goto such that a user can see when the solid lubricant layer has been worn away (due to usage over time of the windshield wiper blade element). The motivation for replacing the rubber outer coating 14 with the solid lubricant coating of Goto was provided by Goto, who teaches that their solid lubricant coating (for a rubber windshield wiper) can advantageously reduce wiping failure and reduce the noisiness of a windshield wiper. The motivation for having the color of core 12 visually contrast with the outer lubricant layer was provided by Coulter, who teaches that such a contrast advantageously allows a person to realize when an outer wiper layer has been worn away (due to usage) such that the windshield wiper should be replaced.
With regard to claim 14, in the combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the wiper blade element is further considered to comprise a first edge and a second edge. Look at Figure 2 of Coulter. In the examiner’s combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the outer layer 14 (in Figure 2 of Coulter) has been replaced with an outer solid lubricant layer taught by Goto. In the examiner’s combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the “first edge” would be the bottom left (“bottom left” being the bottom left of Figure 2 of Coulter when the layer 14 is replaced with the outer solid lubricant layer) of the wiper blade and the “second edge” would be the bottom right (“bottom right” being the bottom right of Figure 2 of Coulter when the layer 14 is replaced with the outer solid lubricant layer) of the wiper blade. In the combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the above-discussed first and second edges are expected to wear down in a similar manner to the wear illustrated in Figure 3 of Coulter due to wiping movements of the wiper blade, and the first and second edges can thus be considered to have contributed to shaping an edge of the wiper blade element during usage and wear of the wiper blade element.
With regard to claims 15 and 16, in the developed combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the shaped edge reveals the color of the core 12, and this revealed color can be considered a predictive performance indicator because it visually indicates to a human that the lubricating layer has been worn off the wiper blade in an area where the blade has frictional contact with the windshield.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2,971,209 by Coulter in view of U.S. 6,696,391 to Goto as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of EP213857 by Verburgh.
With regard to claim 17, the combination of Coulter in view of Goto teaches that the solid lubricant layer is made of graphite and a binder (Col. 3, line 53 to Col. 4, line 9 of Goto), but the combination of Coulter in view of Goto doesn’t say whether or not the solid lubricant layer is water repellant or not.
Verburgh discusses solid lubricant layers of type taught by Goto (and explicitly cites the Goto reference for teaching such solid lubricant layers) and says that “the coatings usually assume a water-repellent character, since they are hydrophobic due to the dry lubricant particles used or the binder used” (pages 3-4 of translation).
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 method of Coulter in view of Goto such that the solid lubricant layer is a water repellant layer. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Verburgh, who is considered to teach that a solid lubricant layer that is water repellant can successfully be used as a solid lubricant layer (of a wiper blade) of the type taught by Goto.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2,971,209 by Coulter in view of U.S. 6,696,391 to Goto.
With regard to claim 18, Coulter teaches a windshield wiper blade element comprising a supporting structure 20 (reads on body) and a wiping element connected to the supporting structure 20, wherein the wiping element comprises a rubber core 12 having a first color (columns 1 and 2 of Coulter). Coulter teaches that the wiping element also comprises a rubber coating 14 that is connected to an outer surface of the core 12 (columns 1 and 2 of Coulter). Coulter teaches that the rubber coating 14 has a second color that is visually different from the first color (columns 1 and 2 of Coulter). Coulter teaches that this difference in color between the outer rubber coating 14 and the core 12 advantageously allows a person to realize when the outer rubber coating 14 has been worn away such that the windshield wiper should be replaced (columns 1 and 2 of Coulter).
Coulter does not specify that the outer layer 14 is a topical coating.
Goto teaches that a rubber windshield wiper core can be coated with a solid lubricant layer taught by Goto in order to advantageously reduce wiping failure and reduce the noisiness of the windshield wiper, wherein the coating is applied to the rubber wiper as a spray and then solidified into said solid lubricant layer (Abstract; Col. 3, line 34 to Col. 5, line 11).
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 windshield wiper blade element of Coulter by using Goto’s coating material to form the outer coating 14 instead of using rubber as the out coating. In this combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the rubber core 12 of Coulter is spray-coated with the coating of Goto such that a solid lubricant layer of Goto can be formed over the rubber core 12. In this combination Coulter in view of Goto, the rubber of the core 12 is selected to be a visually contrasting color with the color of the solid lubricant layer of Goto such that a user can see when the solid lubricant layer has been worn away (due to usage over time of the windshield wiper blade element). The motivation for replacing the rubber outer coating 14 with the solid lubricant coating of Goto was provided by Goto, who teaches that their solid lubricant coating (for a rubber windshield wiper) can advantageously reduce wiping failure and reduce the noisiness of a windshield wiper. The motivation for having the color of core 12 visually contrast with the outer lubricant layer was provided by Coulter, who teaches that such a contrast advantageously allows a person to realize when an outer wiper layer has been worn away (due to usage) such that the windshield wiper should be replaced. In the combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the thickness of the water repellant layer is considered to give the wiper blade an expected lifetime because that thickness affects how much wear the water repellant layer can experience before a portion of the rubber core 12 becomes exposed.
With regard to claim 19, in the combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the wiper blade element is further considered to comprise a first edge and a second edge. Look at Figure 2 of Coulter. In the examiner’s combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the outer layer 14 (in Figure 2 of Coulter) has been replaced with an outer solid lubricant layer taught by Goto. In the examiner’s combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the “first edge” would be the bottom left (“bottom left” being the bottom left of Figure 2 of Coulter when the layer 14 is replaced with the outer solid lubricant layer) of the wiper blade and the “second edge” would be the bottom right (“bottom right” being the bottom right of Figure 2 of Coulter when the layer 14 is replaced with the outer solid lubricant layer) of the wiper blade. In the combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the above-discussed first and second edges are expected to wear down in a similar manner to the wear illustrated in Figure 3 of Coulter due to wiping movements of the wiper blade, and the first and second edges can thus be considered to have contributed to shaping an edge of the wiper blade element during usage and wear of the wiper blade element.
With regard to claims 20 and 21, in the developed combination of Coulter in view of Goto, the shaped edge reveals the color of the core 12, and this revealed color can be considered a predictive performance indicator because it visually indicates to a human that the lubricating layer has been worn off the wiper blade in an area where the blade has frictional contact with the windshield.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Starting at the bottom of page 5 of applicant’s arguments, applicant makes the following argument:
Further, Coulter teaches that the core and the jacket are “of comparable wearing quality.” This teaches away from and is distinguishable from the present invention, wherein the coating has a wear resistance that “is designed to wear earlier and faster than the core of wiping element”, as recited in claims 1.
It is noted that this “earlier and faster” concept is discussed in Par. [0033] of applicant’s specification (as presented in applicant’s pre-grant publication, U.S. 2025/0162541) in the following manner:
[0033] The inclusion of coating 24 on wiping element 14 provides that the coating begins to wear earlier and faster than the core 20 of wiping element 14. The reduction of the coating 24 through use may further enhance the shaped edge 32 formed on the edges 30 of wiping element 14, in turn revealing the core 20 substrate. As the coating 24 continues to wear, more of the core 20 will be exposed. This will occur over time, however, the core 20 will be exposed before the performance of the blade 10 is reduced to a point of being unsafe or unusable.
In Par. [0033], applicant isn’t necessarily teaching that the “earlier and faster” wearing of the wiping element 14 relative to the core 20 is happening due to some chemical difference between the wiping element 14 and the core 20. Applicant’s argument starting on page 5 (of applicant’s arguments) seems to be trying to imply that the “earlier and faster” language of the specification supports the concept that a chemical difference between the wiping element 14 and the core 20 causes “earlier and faster” wearing of the wiping element 14 relative to the core 20. However, in the examiner’s opinion, Par. [0033] is instead simply disclosing that the positioning of the coating 24 over the core surfaces is what causes “earlier and faster” wearing of the wiping element 14 relative to the core 20.
Conclusion
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 RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights