DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “away from one other” in line 3. The recitations is presumed to be - - away from one [[other]] another - -.
Claims 3-6 depend from claim 2 and are objected to accordingly.
Regarding claim 8 (at the end), the recitation “to prevent fluid transport from the fluid outlet (24) to the fluid inlet (22)”; is presumed to be - - to prevent fluid [[transport]] flow from the fluid outlet (24) to the fluid inlet (22) - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masayuki, et al. – JP2016203712, hereinafter Masayuki, as evidenced by Sato – US PG Pub. 2003/0009841, JP2003-341484, CN103620240, CN114452044.
Regarding claim 1, Masayuki discloses a wiper arm (see Fig. 1) of a windshield wiper (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a wiper arm body (30, 40) having a mounting area (see Fig. 12 area where element 80 is to be connected) for a hose connector element (80), and
a hose connector element (80) having a fluid inlet (44a) and a fluid outlet (44b), wherein
the wiper arm body (40) is configured to connect to a drive (see at least page 2 of the translation “the wiper blade 20 is rotatably mounted on the distal end side of the wiper arm 30 and slidably contact the windshield (wiping surface) 11 on the front side of a vehicle such as an automobile. The base end of the wiper arm 30 is attached to the swing shaft PS on the front side of the vehicle. Then, by turning on a wiper switch (not shown) in the passenger compartment to rotate a wiper motor (not shown), the swing shaft PS is swung”), and
the hose connector element (80) is configured to connect to a fluid supply system (see at least page 4 of the translation “the washer tubes 44 and 45 are respectively supplied with a forward-side washer liquid (cleaning liquid) W1 and a backward-side washer liquid (cleaning liquid) W2 from a not-shown washer pump.”) by the fluid inlet (44a) and the fluid outlet (44b) to transport fluid (to a nozzle unit 70) an is attached to the mounting area of the wiper arm body (30, 40) in a torsion-resistant manner by a snap-fit connection (via 81 and 82; it is noted that the “torsion-resistant manner” limitation is interpreted as the “claws” (81 and 82) having a rectangular portion at the ends, which are the portions that engages the recess (41c and 41e), respectively.
Assuming arguendo, that applicant does not believe that Masayuki discloses a rectangular shape (at the ends of the “snap hooks”) that would produce a torsion-resistant manner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the rectangular shape, since per MPEP2144-04-IV-B it has been held that changes in shape constitute a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. In the instant case, other shapes could also produce the claimed torsion-resistance. For evidence purposes see the prior art to Sato which discloses different shapes used to hold nozzle connectors (34 and 36) to a wiper arm body and JP2003-341484, with similar teaching.
Even further, the Examiner takes Official Notice the fact that it is well known to use rectangular shapes in connectors to provide torsion resistance; and thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Masayuki to have a torsion-resistant manner (as best understood by applicant’s specification this means having the ends being rectangular in shape), since it is known that rectangular shapes will yield this effect. For evidence refer to CN114452044 “the cross sections of the end metal tube and the connecting part metal tube are rectangular, so the invention can avoid the torsion”, CN103620240 “The invention claims a connection element, the connection element is used for is used for pipe and cable or cable bundle clamp, or operating rod or hinge part or the handle or hook or other fitting fastened to the first thin wall or first aluminum extruded sections of rectangular through hole or side groove; the connecting element comprises a neck portion (16) of the head (14), the neck part has a rectangular, in particular a square exterior cross-section for preventing torsion ” which discloses the fact that it is known to use rectangular shapes to provide resistance to torsion.
Regarding claim 2, Masayuki as modified discloses the wiper arm according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein
the hose connector element (80) comprises at least two flexible snap hooks (81 and 82; Fig. 12) arrange don opposite sides of the hose connector element (80) facing away from one another,
the wiper arm body (40) has rectangular undercuts (41c, 41e) corresponding with the snap hooks (81 and 82) of the hose connector element (80) in opposite side surfaces in the mounting area (See Fig. 12) which are configured to establish a positive-locking connection with the snap hooks (81 and 82) of the hose connector element (80).
Regarding claim 3, Masayuki as modified discloses the wiper arm according to claim 2, wherein the undercuts (41c, 41e) are formed in the mounting area of the wiper arm body (40) as through holes in the side surface of the wiper arm body (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 6, Masayuki as modified discloses the wiper arm according to claim 2, wherein a width of the ends of the snap hooks (81 and 82) is larger in cross-section than a height of the ends of the snap hooks (81 and 82) in cross-section; see annotated figure below.
In addition, as best understood from the figure it appears that the respective ends of the snap hooks (81 and 82) engaging the undercuts (41c and 41e) of the wiper arm body (40) have a rectangular cross-section (see Figure 12, and/or annotated Figure below).
Even further, as modified in claim 1, the ends would be rectangular.
PNG
media_image1.png
498
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Masayuki as modified discloses the wiper arm according to claim 1, wherein the hose connector element (80) is one piece (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 9, Masayuki as modified discloses the wiper arm according to claim 1, wherein the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet are formed as hose connection sleeves (see annotated Figure which show the same connection as applicant’s instant invention).
PNG
media_image2.png
522
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Masayuki as modified discloses a windshield wiper (10) for a vehicle (see at least page 2 of the translation “…on the front side of a vehicle such as an automobile”) comprising at least one wiper arm (30, which includes 40, 50, 60) according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the windshield wiper is configured to convey a wiper fluid from the hose connector element (80) to at least one nozzle (70) provided on the wiper arm (see at least page 7, “A nozzle unit 70 that injects each of the washer liquids W1 and W2 (see FIG. 3) toward the windshield 11is mounted on the other end side along the longitudinal direction of the arm shank 50, that is, on the front end side of the wiper arm 30.”).
Regarding claim 12, Masayuki as modified discloses the wiper arm according to claim 7. Regarding the limitation “wherein the hose connector element is an injection-molded part”, this limitation is considered to be a product by process limitation. MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes." In this instance, the product taught by Masayuki is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting the limitation of the claim.
Claim(s) 4-5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masayuki, et al. – JP2016203712 in view of Pfetzer et al. – US PG Pub. 20210046905, hereinafter Masayuki and Pfetzer, respectively, as evidenced by Sato – US PG Pub. 2003/0009841, JP2003-341484, CN103620240, CN114452044.
Regarding claims 4, 5, although Masayuki as modified discloses the wiper arm according to claim 2, and as set forth above discloses inserting the respective snap hook (81, 82) into the respective undercut (41c, 41e), it does not explicitly disclose wherein the under cuts are each located adjacent a lead-in chamfer (claim 4) and wherein the lead-in chamfers are formed as recesses in respective side surfaces of the wiper arm body (claim 5).
This feature is known in the art. For example Pfetzer teaches in paragraph [0026] the use of chamfers (62, 62’,62’’, 62’’’) leading to a recess (60) for the purpose of holding a connecting unit (20) to a wiper arm (12). These chamfers are shown to be formed as recesses in respective side surfaces of the wiper arm body in Figure 3a of Pfetzer. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Masayuki to include the under cuts are each located adjacent a lead-in chamfer and wherein the lead-in chamfers are formed as recesses in respective side surfaces of the wiper arm body in view of the teachings of Pfetzer, as it is known that this will assist in holding the connecting unit (20) in place, thus would make a more secure/safe/reliable wiper device.
Regarding claim 11, see rejection of claim 4, as they share the same limitation, and thus, the same rejection applies.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masayuki, et al. – JP2016203712 in view of Yoo Chang Guk – KR100345545, hereinafter Masayuki and Guk, respectively, as evidenced by Sato – US PG Pub. 2003/0009841, JP2003-341484, CN103620240, CN114452044.
Regarding claim 8, Masayuki as modified the wiper arm according to claim 1, wherein the fluid inlet of the hose connector element is configured to connect to the fluid supply system (see at least page 4 of the translation “the washer tubes 44 and 45 are respectively supplied with a forward-side washer liquid (cleaning liquid) W1 and a backward-side washer liquid (cleaning liquid) W2 from a not-shown washer pump.”). However, Masayuki does not explicitly disclose wherein a check valve is disposed between the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet to prevent fluid transport from the fluid outlet to the fluid inlet.
Guk teaches the use of a check valve (10) between an inlet and an outlet of a hose connector to prevent backflow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Masayuki by having a check valve is disposed between the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet to prevent fluid transport from the fluid outlet to the fluid inlet, in view of the teachings of Guk, since it is old and well known to have such of devices to prevent backflow to prevent contamination of the fluid storage tank and/or clogging of the hose due to foreign bodies entering the hose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior art disclosing hose connections being made out of plastic and/or injection molding plastic: DE19517055, US5183099
Prior art disclosing the use of check valves in connectors: DE102010025688, KR20190059447
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ORLANDO E AVILES whose telephone number is (571)270-5531. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-3:30PM.
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, Jonathan C. Teixeira Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights