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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 8/10/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/10/26.
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) 1-6, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Singer (PGPub 20220274614).
Singer teaches a debris removal system for a window of a vehicle, the debris removal system comprising: a wiper assembly including: a wiper arm (180a/180b) adapted to traverse a wiping path along the window, and a wiper blade (154) operably coupled with the wiper arm; and a rotatable brushing assembly including: an elongated brush (152) having a longitudinal axis, and a motor (paragraph 0023, 0026; elements 32, 153) operably coupled with a portion of the elongated brush, the motor adapted to rotate the elongated brush about the longitudinal axis (paragraph 0040); wherein at least a portion of the elongated brush is adapted to traverse the wiping path along the window.
With regards to claim 2, at least a portion of the rotatable brushing assembly is operably coupled with the wiper assembly (figure 33-39).
With regards to claim 3, the elongated brush is operably coupled with the wiper arm (figure 36).
With regards to claim 4, a controller (242) operably coupled with the wiper assembly and the rotatable brushing assembly to control operation thereof.
With regards to claim 5, the controller is adapted to move the wiper arm to a stationary position to accommodate travel of the elongated brush along the wiping path (figure 22-29 show the wiper positioned above the brush in a stationary position, when the brush is being used).
With regards to claim 6, the controller is adapted to pause the elongated brush at a desired location along the wiping path (paragraph 00189; place the cleaning head in a desired position).
With regards to claim 9, the controller is adapted to cause the elongated brush to selectively rotate in a first direction and a second direction (paragraph 0040; opposing directions).
With regards to claim 10, the rotatable brushing assembly is mounted at or near an upper portion of the window of the vehicle (figure 33-39).
With regards to claim 11, the wiping path includes a wiper assembly path and a rotatable brushing assembly path (they are the same paths), the wiper assembly path including a first arcuate pattern and the rotatable brushing assembly path including a second arcuate pattern (they are the same arcuate pattern) (figure 33), wherein the wiper assembly is adapted to traverse the wiper assembly path and the rotatable brushing assembly is adapted to traverse the rotatable brushing assembly path (they transverse the same paths since they are on the same wiper arm; figure 33).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer (‘614).
Singer teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention including that the elongated brush is adapted to traverse the wiping path in a first direction at a first speed and traverse the wiping path in a second direction at a second speed (claim 8) (the speeds are the same). Singer however fails to teach that the controller is adapted to cause the elongated brush to traverse the wiping path at a variable speed (claim 7). 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 invention of Singer so that the brush traverses the wiping path at a variable speed since it is well-known in the art for wiper blades to be speed variable, based on the intensity of the rainfall. Thus, it would have been an easy modification to use this known variable speed for wiper blades and apply it to the rotatable brush of Singer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
