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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The title recites a “manufacturing method for regenerated cleaning blade” which is not claimed or described in the specification.
Drawings
Figures 2-5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (see applicant’s specification, par. 28-32). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 9 recites a regeneration device for a cleaning blade including a blade portion which cuts the tip surface of the blade from end A to end B in the longitudinal direction, a clamping member that clamps both sided of the elastic member of the cleaning blade, a biasing member that biases the elastic member from end B toward end A, and a pressing member disposed at the tip surface of the cleaning member to press the tip surface which essentially is what is claimed in claim 1. The applicant should point out the structural differences between claim 1 and claim 9 if applicant does not amend or cancel claim 9.
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 1-9 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.
In claim 1, lines 5-8 is unclear. For example, the applicant describes a “tip side”, a “tip surface”, and a “tip-side edge” of the tip of the cleaning blade which is confusing; the applicant also describes a “plate-shaped portion” and a “main surface” with respect to the elastic member of the cleaning blade which is confusing. The applicant should clarify this passage. See also claim 9.
In claim 1, lines 11-15, the applicant describes the blade portion entering the side portion of the “plate-shaped portion” which cuts the “tip surface” which is unclear as to whether the blade portion cuts the “plate-shaped portion” or the “tip surface”.
In claim 1, line 26, the clamping member clamping the elastic member “into which the blade portion enters” is unclear since it was previously claimed that the clamping member clamps both sides of the elastic member (lines 22-24) which is apparently not where the blade portion enters. See also claim 9.
In claim 1, lines 28-30, the pressing member pressing the “tip surface” which is opposite the “tip side” is unclear. Tip surface and tip side appear to be the same.
In claim 3, line 2, the pressing member “reduces or releases” pressure are not equivalent and thus the “or” is not appropriate (applicant should clarify whether the pressure is reduced or released completely). Additionally, a position “above and behind” is unclear.
In claim 5, the applicant should insert -- end of the -- before “clamped” so as to clarify this claim. See Fig.12.
In claim 7, the direction of the pressing member pressing the elastic member being predicated on a direction of a cut piece of elastic being flipped up is indefinite since the direction of the cut elastic might not be “flipped up” but could be flipped sideways or down or might not be “flipped” at all thus the direction of the pressing of the pressing member is based on an indefinite limitation.
Claim 8 is unclear as to whether the applicant is claiming a method claim or an apparatus claim. There are apparently only two method steps (lines 9-13) while the rest is structural limitations. If the applicant intends this claim to be a method claim, the process steps must be clearly set forth not imbedded into mostly structural limitations.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 does not appear to further limit the claimed structure of claim 1 (both claim the pressing member). The function of the pressing member is not considered further limiting a claim and thus the “thereby” clause has no effect.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1,3-6 and 9 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 and 8 of co-pending Application No. 19/086,819 (Kodama et al.; U.S. 2025/0214536). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Both claims 1 and 9 of the current application recite the same structural limitations as claims 1 and 8 of co-pending application 19/086,819. That is, co-pending application 19/086,819 recites a regeneration device for a wiper blade including a sandwiching member (analogous to the clamping device of the instant application), an urging member (analogous to the biasing member) and a pressing member which perform the same processes to the wiper blade as does the clamping device, biasing member and pressing member of the instant applications – there being no structural difference between the two sets of claims. It is noted that the type of blade being regenerated (cleaning blade in image forming apparatus or wiper blade in a vehicle) is the intended use of the blade and carries little patentable weight in apparatus claims.
Claim 3 is analogous to claim 2 in the co-pending application
Claim 4 is analogous to claim 3 in the co-pending application.
Claim 5 is analogous to claim 4 in the co-pending application.
Claim 6 is analogous to claim 5 in the co-pending application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7,9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claims 1-7,9 the regeneration device which includes the clamping member, biasing member and pressing member as described in the claims would be allowable over the prior art of record if the 112 issues are resolved and the double patenting issue is resolved.
As stated before, it is unclear whether claim 8 is a method or apparatus claim but if the applicant clearly recites the method steps using the above structure (clamping member, biasing member and pressing member), than the method would also be allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mori et al., Kodama et al. ‘537, and Kodama et al. ‘270 are related patent applications.
Samuelsson, Schekowski, Winters, JP’253, Takahashi et al. (JP), Kishi et al., (JP), Hino (JP), JP’710, and Yasufuki (JP) all teach apparatus/methods of rejuvenating a wiper blade in which at least includes cutting the tip end of the blade.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B BEATTY whose telephone number is (571) 272-2130. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7 to 3.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Stephanie Bloss, can be reached on (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-2130.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ROBERT B BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights