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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending in this application and have been examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/27/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein that has been stricken through has not been considered.
Specifically, the IDS references JP201813445, which appears to be JP2019131989 (Priority 201800013445) within the Parent Patent Application 18/271,265, but clarification of the citation is necessary for consideration of this reference.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
A wiper (Claim 10)
A vehicle (Claim 11)
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. [0038] references Fig. 5 and 6, but appears to be describing parts in Fig. 7 and 8. There appears to be a similar issue with other referenced figures in the Specification. Applicant’s cooperation in reviewing the disclosure and ensuring the correct figures are referenced throughout the Specification is greatly appreciated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 4-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 2, “the outward swing” should be “an
In Claim 4, “while also to” should be “and toward” for clarity.
In Claim 5, positive recitation of “towards the windshield side” is problematic because the claim is drawn to a wiper arm and does not include a windshield. This should be amended to language that captures the intended configuration with respect to a windshield, e.g., “and is configured to extend toward a windshield side” for clarity.
In Claim 6, positive recitation of “corresponds to an installation tilt angle of the windshield” is problematic for the same reasons discussed above (i.e., the claim is drawn to a wiper arm and does not include a windshield). This should be amended by adding “is configured to”, e.g. “is configured to correspond[[s]] to an installation tilt angle of the windshield” for clarity.
In Claim 7, “two” should be added before “edge sections” ( i.e., “two edge sections”) to ensure consistent naming in the claims.
In Claim 8, “after” should be “.
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 1-11 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.
With respect to Claim 1, the limitation “where the two edge sections are bent towards a bottom side of the middle section and each of the two edge sections extend towards each other along the middle section, where the notches of the two accommodating grooves face each other” is confusing as claimed because this appears to be conflating features of two different embodiments.
Specifically, the first part of the claim (non-italicized) appears to be drawn to the arrangement of the edge sections 222/223 (see boxed-portions) as illustrated in Fig. 7 and 8, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
532
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
332
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The arrangement in Fig. 7 and 8 has “notches of the two accommodating grooves facing away from each other” (see 521/522) as opposed to grooves that “face each other” as claimed above. The accommodating grooves facing away are illustrated in Fig. 8:
PNG
media_image3.png
332
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is also noted that the combined two edge sections and accommodating grooves “facing away” in Fig. 7 and 8 are consistent with the claim language presented in Parent Patent Application 18/271,265 as filed on 7/3/23 (see Claim 5).
This is in contrast to the second part of the claim (italicized), which appears to be referring to the accommodating grooves facing each other (see 521/522) of Fig. 3 and 4, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image4.png
542
406
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
358
384
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The arrangement in Fig. 3 and 4 (with notches of the two accommodating grooves facing each other) does not include the shape of the edge sections as currently claimed, but rather, includes an extension section (see 221 and edge sections 222 and 223) that is characterized by its outward swing.
For examination purposes, the cited limitation has been construed as “where the two edge sections are bent towards a bottom side of the middle section and each of the two edge sections extend towards each other along the middle section, wherein each of the two edge sections has a protrusion, and the protrusions of the two edge sections face each other ” which is supported by Fig. 7 and 8 (see 224). It is noted that such an interpretation would require amendment of Claim 7 for at least antecedent purposes.
For purposes of compact prosecution, it is also noted that if the Applicant intended for the cited limitation to be drawn to the other embodiment (Fig. 3 and 4), the Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the Parent Patent Application 18/271,265 Non-Final Rejection dated 4/24/24, which appears to address these limitations with respect to the prior art.
In Claim 3, it is unclear how “the two edge sections sink relative to the middle section of the extension section, so that an upper surface of the nozzle is flush with an upper surface of the middle section” given the configuration of the two edge sections as claimed and interpreted above for examination purposes. It appears this limitation is drawn to another embodiment, and thus has not been further construed for examination purposes.
In Claim 4, the limitation “wherein the two edge sections extend towards each other while also to a bottom surface of the middle section” appears similar to the recitation in Claim 1, i.e. “where the two edge sections are bent towards a bottom side of the middle section and each of the two edge sections extend toward each other along the middle section,” and it is unclear if/how the Applicant is intending this to further limit claim. Claim 4 has been interpreted to be a substantial duplicate of the limitations of Claim 1, and thus has not been further construed for examination purposes.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
Double Patenting
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.
As best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Claims 1 and 5-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 6-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,440 in view of Schaeuble et al. (U.S. 2017/02303734).
With respect to instant Claim 1, Claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,440 teach claimed invention with exception of the protrusions.
Schaeuble teaches a similar configuration (each of two edge sections of a wiper, see 12 and 13 in Fig. 7) has a protrusion (14, 15), and the protrusions (14, 15) of the two edge sections (12 and 13) face each other (see Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify U.S. Patent 12,162,440’s teaching of a wiper with two edge sections to include Schaeuble’s teaching of a wiper with two edge sections including protrusions facing each other since doing so is known in the art of wiper fastening (see Para. [0026] of Schaeuble) and would give rise to better securement between parts.
With respect to Claim 5, the combined references of Claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,440 and Schaeuble as cited above teach the claimed invention, and Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,440 teaches the further limitations.
With respect to Claim 6, the combined references of Claims 1, 2, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,440 and Schaeuble as cited above teach the claimed invention, and Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,440 teaches the further limitations.
With respect to Claim 7, the combined references of Claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,440 and Schaeuble as cited above teach the claimed invention, and Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,440 teaches the further limitations.
With respect to Claim 8, the combined references of Claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,440 and Schaeuble as cited above teach the claimed invention, and Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,440 teaches the further limitations.
With respect to Claim 9, the combined references of Claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,440 and Schaeuble as cited above teach the claimed invention, and Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,440 teaches the further limitations.
With respect to Claim 10, the combined references of Claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,440 and Schaeuble as cited above teach the claimed invention, and Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,440 teaches the further limitations.
With respect to Claim 11, the combined references of Claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,440 and Schaeuble as cited above teach the claimed invention, and Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,440 teaches the further limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Claims 1-11 are free of art.
The closest prior art appears to be Umeno (U.S. 2019/0152442, as cited by the Applicant), as detailed in the Office actions for the Parent Patent Application 18/321,265 (see Non-Final Rejection dated 4/24/24 and Notice of Allowance dated 8/12/24).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Kozak whose telephone number is (571) 270-0552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 ET.
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 Moffatt 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.
/ANNE M KOZAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights