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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 5, 8, and 10-11 are objected to as claim 1 positively recites the limitation “a punctiform narrowing,” claims 2-3 depend on claim 1 and recite the limitations as “the narrowing,” and claims 5, 8, and 10-11 depend on claim 1 and recite the limitations as “the at least one narrowing.” To prevent potential confusion, the same terminology should be used in each recitation of the claim.
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.
Claim 1-11 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 1 recites the limitation “a punctiform narrowing” on line 10. It is unclear how the term “punctiform” is intended to be interpreted in this context, as “a punctiform narrowing” is not a term known in the art, not defined in the specification, and in its typical definition “punctiform” appears to relate to points in space or dots. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been assumed to read “a narrowing.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the continuation" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed the limitation should read “a continuation.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the articulation" in line 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed the limitation should read “an articulation.”
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “at least one articulation bore” in claim 1 from which claim 7 depends, and the claim also recites “the articulation bores” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Particularly, it is unclear if claim 7 is intended to narrow the scope to a plurality of bores, or if the claim is intended to continue the prior scope of one or more.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a punctiform narrowing” on line 6. It is unclear how the term “punctiform” is intended to be interpreted in this context, as “a punctiform narrowing” is not a term known in the art, not defined in the specification, and in its typical definition “punctiform” appears to relate to points in space or dots. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been assumed to read “a narrowing.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the continuation " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed the limitation should read “a continuation.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the articulation" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed the limitation should read “an articulation.”
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.
Claims 1-11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/993,642 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2, 4, and 6-11 of instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1-11 of reference application as provided below.
Claim Comparison, differences are in bold.
Instant Application
Reference Application
1. A wiper, for a motor vehicle, comprising a cowling including a central mount and at least one end cap disposed in the continuation of the central mount; at least one adapter element fastened to the central mount, the adapter element including a central core and two legs at opposite edges of the central core, one of the at least one end caps being pivotally articulated to the adapter element; wherein the adapter element has a punctiform narrowing of at least one of the two legs at the articulation of the end cap on the adapter element, the narrowing extending from at least one articulation bore to the central core of the adapter element.
1. A windshield wiper, in particular for a vehicle, comprising:- a cowl including a central mount and at least one end cap disposed in the continuation of the central mount; at least one yoke mounted in pivotable articulation with the central mount wherein the at least one end cap is pivotably articulated on the at least one yoke.
2. The wiper as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one yoke includes a central core, two lateral flanks extending from opposite edges of the central core and at least one pair of claws a longitudinal end of the at least one yoke.
3. The wiper as claimed in claim 2, wherein the at least one yoke includes at least one articulation bore formed in at least one of the two lateral flanks of the yoke.
5. The wiper as claimed claim 3, wherein the yoke has a narrowing at certain points of the at least one yoke at the articulation of the end cap on the yoke, the narrowing extending from the at least one articulation bore to the central core of the yoke.
Claim 2 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 6 of the reference application.
Claim 4 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 4 of the reference application.
Claim 6 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 7 of the reference application.
Claim 7 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 8 of the reference application.
Claim 8 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 9 of the reference application.
Claim 9 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 1-3 and 5 of the reference application.
Claim 10 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 11 of the reference application.
Claim 11 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 12 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vacher et al. US 2006024875 A1 (herein Vacher).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Vacher Figure 5a
Regarding independent claim 1, Vacher teaches a wiper (20), for a motor vehicle (abstract), comprising: a cowling (48) including a central mount (78a) and at least one end cap (52) disposed in a continuation of the central mount (78a); at least one adapter element (24) fastened to the central mount (78a), the adapter element (24) including a central core (the open space bounded by 60a) and two legs (60) at opposite edges of the central core (the open space bounded by 60a), one of the at least one end caps (52) being pivotally articulated (element 56 is a pivot that engages with 24, abstract) to the adapter element (24); wherein the adapter element (24) has a narrowing (74) of at least one of the two legs (60) at an articulation (interface of 72 and 56) of the end cap (52) on the adapter element (24), the narrowing (74) extending from at least one articulation bore (72) to the central core (the open space bounded by 60a) of the adapter element (24).
PNG
media_image2.png
361
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Vacher Figure 5a, annotated
Regarding claim 2, Vacher teaches the narrowing (74) includes at least one substantially planar mounting surface (see annotated fig 5a), the at least one mounting surface (see annotated fig 5a) being inclined toward a median plan of the adapter element (24).
Regarding claim 3, Vacher teaches the narrowing (74) includes two mounting surfaces (see annotated fig 5a) disposed oppositely with respect to the median plane of the adapter element (24).
Regarding claim 4, Vacher teaches the at least one end cap (52) includes two articulation studs (56) extending top-to-tail from a lower surface (58) of the at least one end cap (52) so as to constitute an articulation axis (axis running through the center of both elements 56), the articulation studs (56) being push-fitted (see fig 5b) in the at least one articulation bore (72) of the adapter element (24).
Regarding claim 5, Vacher teaches the at least one narrowing (74) is at least partially constituted by at least one mounting surface (see annotated fig 5a) formed in the adapter element (24).
Regarding claim 6, Vacher teaches each at least one mounting surface is bordered by two guide surfaces (see annotated fig 5a), the at least one mounting surface (see annotated fig 5a) and the two guide surfaces (see annotated fig 5a) together forming a channel (narrowing 74 is a channel), the two guide surfaces (see annotated fig 5a) being substantially planar.
Regarding claim 7, Vacher teaches the channel extends (narrowing 74 is a channel) from the articulation bores (72) to the central core (the open space bounded by 60a) of the adapter element (24).
Regarding independent claim 9, Vacher teaches a wiper system (abstract) comprising a wiper (22), the wiper (22) including a cowling (48) including a central mount (78a) and at least one end cap (52) disposed in the continuation of the central mount (78a), at least one adapter element (24) fastened to the central mount (78a), the adapter element (24) including a central core (the open space bounded by 60a) and two legs (60) extending from opposite edges of the central core (the open space bounded by 60a), one of the at least one end caps (52) being pivotally articulated (element 56 is a pivot, abstract) to the adapter element (24), wherein the adapter element (24) has a narrowing (74) of at least one of the two legs (60) at the articulation of the end cap (52) on the adapter element (24), the narrowing (74) extending from at least one articulation bore (72) to the central core (the open space bounded by 60a) of the adapter element (24).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vacher et al. US 2006024875 A1 (herein Vacher).
Regarding claim 8, Vacher is silent on the angle of the narrowing. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to incline the narrowing at an angle of between 5 and 20 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Further applicant does not appear to place criticality on the angle range only specifying that the angle “in one configuration the narrowing is between 5-20 degrees” (instant specification para 26).
Regarding claim 10, Vacher is silent on the angle of the narrowing. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to incline the narrowing at an angle of between 10 and 15 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Further applicant does not appear to place criticality on the angle range only specifying that the angle “in one configuration the narrowing is between 5-20 degrees, preferably between 10-15 degrees” (instant specification para 26).
Regarding claim 11, Vacher is silent on the angle of the narrowing. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to incline the narrowing at an angle of 13 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Further applicant does not appear to place criticality on the angle value only specifying that the angle “in one configuration the narrowing is between 5-20 degrees, preferably between 10-15 degrees, and more preferably of 13 degrees” (instant specification para 26).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Scorsiroli EP 0490833 A1 as it relates to end caps with pivots and adaptors with guide channels and articulation bores.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRANT D HAY whose telephone number is (571)272-9510. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-3:30pm 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 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.
/G.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights