'67 Trico rubber wiper inserts

[Dave M.]

Hi, I have two pairs of Trico RF-15 rubber inserts still in their original old boxes. However on two of inserts end, where the latch lock is located the very outside end of latch is stamped Pat Pend while the other old box of inserts are plain with nothing stamped on the outside of the latch lock. Other than that all four are the same, with the horizonal lines and patent numbers on the rubber. Which are correct for judging or are both acceptable ?

Thanks for your response,
dm

[Peter L.]

Re: '67 Trico rubber wiper inserts

Dave - You 67 guys!!!!!!! I've seen Latch Lock clips on '66+ TRICO 15" OEM 3-line refills with 1) PAT stamped on the side of the clip and 3163254 stamped on the bottom, 2) PAT stamped on the side of the clip and PATPEND stamped on the end and 316354 stamped on the bottom, and 3) blank ones. And I'm sure there are more out there stamped like the example you have; but to the best of my knowledge, I don't know that anyone has tied the stamped info or the lack of stamped info on the Latch Locks to specific years of manufacture. Have fun. This is a great hobby. Pete

[Jack H.]

The patent dating method for juding...

was the subject of an article I wrote for the Rocky Mtn Chapter newsletter last year. The question was what marks should we expect to find on the wiper arm clip of Trico wiper blades on mid-year Corvettes? So, Peter's post here appeared to be a simple 'go do' research extention of my original article.

Since the US Patent office has all patents now open to public inspection via internet browser (you only need a TIFF viewer installed in your web browser; available free for downloading), it's child's play to pull up, read and analyze existing patents. But, two problems resulted...

First, Peter quotes two different US Patent numbers in his reply. The second reference (typo?) is only 6-digits, 316354, which takes you to an electrical apparatus circa 1895. This is probably NOT correct, eh?

The first reference cites a 7-digit patent number, 3163254, and this gets us closer in time to the Trico Latch-Lock. But, that number specifically points to inventor, H.H. Scott, with a grant date of 12/29/64 for the invention of a removable front grille for an acoustic loudspeaker. This probably isn't correct either...

Point is patents undergo a submission examination/review process (typically 1-3 years) with the patent office either rejecting the submission or accepting it and granting a patent in their Final Office Action. The rule of thumb is this:

Inventions typically bear a 'Pat Pending' disclosure from the date they are first made available to the public to/through the date of the patent office's Final Office Action (either a grant or a rejection). From the date of grant (some 'slop' time here) the visible warning changes from 'Pat Pending' to citing the specific US Patent Number the invention is protected by.

So, by looking up a given patent number, we can find the official date of grant and approximate when the disclosure should have changed from Pat Pending to Patent XYZ. But, without the correct patent number, garbage in = garbage out...

[Peter L.]

Re: Small Print Reading Test

How about 3153254? Hopefully, that's the winner. Pete

[Jack H.]

That gets it--kinda/sorta...

Patent No. 3,153,254 DOES read on Trico's Latch-Lock mechanism, but there's a Catch-22 here. The patent was filed 7/19/60 and granted 10/20/64.

This suggests Latch-Lock clips manufactured prior to Oct 1964 would/should bear a 'Pat Pending' emboss on them vs. a Pat No. XYZ annotation. BUT, it was said there were in-hand several NOS replacement blades with the rubber inserts having reinforcement lines on the side vs. discrete 'dots' (this points to the technology used to make the rubber) and some had no marks on the latch tab, others had 'Pat Pending' stamped on them and still others had Pat No. XYZ embossed. That's where the disconnect(s) come into play.

We generally assume the change over at Trico from rubber with 'dots' to rubber extruded (horizontal lines) happened in the 1965-66 time frame. That was far enough after the actual grant of the Latch-Lock patent for a reasonable man to assume all extruded rubber blades would have Latch-Locks with the full patent number disclosure on them vs. 'Pat Pending' if they were truly 'untouched' NOS refills.

I'd expect refills made into the '65 model year to have a Pat Pending disclosure but with rubber made by injection technology ('dots' on the side wall). Since it takes time for the US Patent Office to notify the inventor of Final Office Action AND there's 'overhead' involved in modifying stamping tools to get the full patent disclosure onto an item + work in progress as well as finished goods inventory to consider, what you'd see on blades made in late '65 through early '66 is questionable (might be either way).

What IS interesting is mention of one Latch Lock that had both Pat Pending and the patent number on it! To me that'd pretty much date it to being manufactured shortly after the grant of the patent in late '64/early '65...

BTW, Trico also made Latch-Pin refills AND Anco made their own version of Latch-Lock refill. The Anco Latch-Lock equivalent has a slightly different geometry than Trico's (might be different enough to be non-infringing) and this 'might' be the source of a 'Latch-Lock' with no patent disclosure on it...