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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the application filed on January 17, 2025. Claims 1-9 and 11 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2022 207 459.9, filed on July 21, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 17, 2025 and September 17, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation discloses sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation discloses function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“programming unit” in claim 9. A review of the specification shows that it is a CPU, a microprocessor, a microcontroller, or the like in [0006].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5-9 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.
Regarding Claim 5, it recites a method for programming a control device according to claim 1; however neither the body of claim 5 nor claim 1 clearly indicates what limitations are considered the “method” of claim 1; further claim 5 then goes on to contain limitations detailing the physical system (programming device and programming interface) as such it is unclear what the method of the claim is and if claim 5 is even intended to be directed to a method given that the body of the claim appears to be directed to a system.
Regarding Claim 6-8 depend on claim 5 and inherit the lack of clarity regarding what constitutes the method.
Regarding claim 9 it references claim 5, as such it is unclear what the method of claim 5 is and thus what the steps required by claim 9 are. Further claim 9 contains the limitation “perform all method steps of a method according to claim 5”, neither claim 5 (or claim 1) clearly recite any method steps as such it is unclear what steps are required by claim 9.
Claim 8 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.
Regarding Claim 8, “wherein the wiper function comprises …” renders the scope of protection unclear
When using “comprises” language, it is necessary to define which components are required for the limitation if any or all of the stated functions are required to meet the limitation. In other words it is unclear if claim 6 is reciting that the wiper function is any one of the recited functions or is reciting that the function is a combination of all of the recited functions.
If only one function is required to meet the wiper function by definition, it would be recommended to use “at least one of” to signify the relationship. For purposes of this examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation will taken which is means the claim will be interpreted as any one of the stated functions in the claim will meet the criteria of the wiper function.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Serezat et al., WO 2020201646 A1 (Hereinafter, “Serezat”).
Regarding Claim 1,5, 9 and 11, Serezat discloses a control device (160) for controlling a
windshield wiper system (100), the control device (160) comprising a computing unit (16),a nonvolatile memory unit (18) including a program, and a programming interface (19) via which the program stored in the nonvolatile memory unit (18) can be modified. See [0031], “[Fig. 2] schematically illustrates a device configured to control an automatic wiper system of a vehicle of figure 1.” And [0057-0066], “[Fig. 2] schematically illustrates a computer 2 of an embedded vehicle system. Examples of such a computer 2 include, but are not limited to, on-board electronic equipment such as a vehicle's on-board computer, an electronic computer such as an ECU (Electronic Control Unit) … computer 2 is coupled in communication with other similar devices or systems, for example via a communication bus or through dedicated input/output ports … Computer 2 includes one (or more) processor(s) 20 configured to execute instructions for
carrying out the steps of the process and/or for executing instructions from the software
embedded in computer 2 … The computer 2 further includes at least one memory 21 corresponding for example to volatile and/or non-volatile memory … The computer code of the embedded software(s) including the instructions to be loaded and executed by the processor is, for example, stored on memory 21 … Data is for example loaded to computer 2 via the interface of block 22 using a Wi-Fi® network such as according to IEEE 802.1 1 or a mobile network such as a 4G (or LTE Advanced according to 3GPP release 10 - version 10) or 5G network.”
Regarding Claim 2, Serezat discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the program stored in the nonvolatile memory unit (18) includes wiper functions activated by default. See [0007], “The frequency or sweep rate varies advantageously with the intensity of the detected rain, according to parameters defined beforehand. These parameters are thus embedded in the vehicles and applied by default when the vehicle is operating in a road environment in rainy weather, regardless of the geographical location of the road environment.”
Regarding Claim 4, Serezat discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 2:
wherein at least one of the wiper functions activated by default cannot be deactivated by modifying
the program stored in the nonvolatile memory unit (18). See [0013-0015], “According to a first aspect,
the invention relates to a method for controlling an automatic wiper system of a vehicle, the method
comprising the steps of:- transmission of at least one first automatic control parameter for the
sweeping of at least one windshield wiper determined according to the intensity of precipitation
received by the vehicle; - transmission of at least one second manual sweep control parameter of at least one wiper.” The manual mode is understood to be a wiper function which cannot be deactivated (disabled)
Regarding Claim 6, Serezat discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 5:
wherein modifying the program stored in the nonvolatile memory unit (18) comprises activating a wiper function already included in the program. See [0068-0069], “[Fig. 3] illustrates a flowchart of the different stages of a process for controlling an automatic wiper system of a vehicle … The process is implemented for example by a part of the vehicle's on-board system or by device 2 in Figure 2 … In a first step 31, one or more initial automatic sweep control parameters of at least one wiper are transmitted, for example via a wireless link to a remote server.” In [0076], “Steps 31 to 33 are advantageously repeated each time the wiper sweep is automatically activated following the detection of a sufficient level (i.e. above the triggering threshold) of precipitation. If no sweep parameter is manually changed by the driver, a default value is transmitted instead of the second parameter(s), indicating that the automatic wiping setting (i.e., the first parameters) is satisfactory and requires no adjustment.”
Regarding Claim 7, Serezat discloses an automatic wiping system, but does not explicitly disclose adding code… However, Hoshino teaches the following: wherein modifying the program stored in the nonvolatile memory unit (18) comprises adding program code of a wiping function to the program stored in the nonvolatile memory unit (18). See [0024], “Such a computer program can use any programming language, and be in the form of source code, object code, or an intermediate form between source code and object code, such as in a partially compiled form, or in any other desirable form.” And [0060], “The computer code of the embedded software(s) including the instructions to be loaded and executed by the processor is, for example, stored on memory 21.” And [0082], “These third parameters are obtained, for example, by comparing the first parameters to the second parameters and modifying the values of the first parameters so that they approach the second parameters according to the precipitation intensities detected at the time the first and second parameters were detected or entered.” And Thus, it is possible to modify the initial configuration parameters of an automatic wiping system by taking into account the geographical specificities of the areas in which the vehicles circulate, whether these specificities concern driver preferences regarding the wiping of the vehicle's glass surfaces or the particular weather conditions of a geographical area considered.”
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serezat in view of Almeida et al., US 20170225654 A1 (Hereinafter “Almeida”), in further view of Hogler et al., US 20130245895 A1 (Hereinafter “Hogler”).
Regarding Claim 3, Serezat discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the program stored in the nonvolatile memory unit (18) contains at least one See [0047], “wiper control module memory 40 may have some form of rewritable memory, allowing it to store software (such as codes or algorithms) that are not overridden when the vehicle loses power … rewritable memory can be capable of being re-programmed and/or updated. This feature can be very useful because a vehicle manufacturer may update the operating system responsible for driving the wiper control module 34, or may also update other software. Decision algorithms used in vehicle 10 may be updated in favor of faster or more sophisticated codes. In addition, new codes may be added to incorporate different sources of input information not depicted in FIG. 3, such as a door sensor that provides information as to the state of the driver side door (open or closed), trunk, etc. “
Serezat discloses a wiper system with a programmable controller, but does not explicitly activate and deactivate functions through the programming. However, Hogler teaches a programmable wiper system with the activation of functions in [0005], “the method according to the invention, it is proposed that in the control of each wiper module, the latter is predefined as a left-hand wiper module or right-hand wiper module in the vehicle direction, and that on activating at least the one wiper module connected with the first data communication line, vehicle-specific data are transmitted which switch the respective wiper module into a master mode or into a slave mode. In other words, this means that on delivery of a wiper module, the latter, in particular by its fastening to a specific carrier on the vehicle side, is predefined as a right-hand drive or respectively left-hand drive wiper module. This means that on sending vehicle-specific data to the wiper module during programming, the latter, as a result of its predetermined installation position, can automatically detect whether the wiper module is to operate as a master module or as a slave module.” And [0006], “In a further embodiment of the invention, provision is made that additional parameters are activated via the first data communication line from the control of the wiper module. Such parameters can, for example, be parameters which alter or respectively affect particular characteristic values or characteristics in the operation of the master module or slave module.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Serezat’s device with the interface limitations disclosed in Hogler with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce manufacturing costs, see Hogler [0007].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serezat, in view of Hoshino, in further view of Kulinna et al., WO2004074055A1 (Hereinafter, “Kulinna”).
Regarding Claim 8, Serezat discloses a wiper system for a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose rewriteable functions which includes specific wiper function examples. However, Hoshino [0023-0025] teaches updating/modifying functions of a control unit via company updates.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Serezat’s device with the rewriting limitations disclosed in Hoshino with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to simplify the circuitry of an electronic control device that allows rewriting of control-related information such as control data and control programs , see Hoshino [0009].
Serezat and Hoshino teach a wiper control system with rewritable functions, but do not explicitly teach specific programs to improve the function of the wiper system. However, Kulinna teaches the following limitation: wherein the wiper function comprises a zone cleaning of sensors, power splash wiping, tear wiping, dirt wedge wiping, and a predictive maintenance function. See [0008], “The wipe-wash operation of a windshield wiper of the invention is characterized in that, after the windshield has been wetted with detergent and after completion of a last wiping operation of the windshield wiper, the windshield wiper can be controlled for a further
wiping operation (tear wiping operation) after a certain period of time in the after-wiping
operation.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Serezat to include the tear wiping function of Kulinna with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to control a wiper-wash operation of a windshield wiper of a motor vehicle with improved comfort for the driver of the motor vehicle, see Kulinna [0006].
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US Publication US 20180370496 A1 by Sykula et al.
US Publication US 20220194321 A1 by Choi et al.
Korean Publication KR 20210035359 A by Jeong et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM 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, NAVID MEHDIZADEH can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights