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 .
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed on 12/16/2025. Claims 1-10 and 12-28 are pending in the application. Claim 11 is cancelled. Claims 20-28 are withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original specification fails to disclose any details regarding any angles relating to the derailer wedge insert. Claims 14-19 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 13.
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 13-19 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 13 recites the limitation “the first wedge panel and the third wedge panel define an interior angle greater than 90 degrees”. It is unclear how to interpret this limitation because as stated above, the original specification does not recite any information regarding angles of the derailer wedge insert. Additionally, looking at the amended drawing Fig. 12, if the first wedge panel is 592a and the third panel is 952c, as stated in the amended specification, it is unclear how those two structure form an angle greater than 90 degrees as claimed. Claims 14-19 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke et al. US 3,929,225 in view of YARMAN US 2,490,186, both previously cited.
With regards to claim 1, Locke discloses a wheel insert 13 for a bicycle packaging, and the wheel insert comprising: a first insert panel 38 configured to abut a side packaging panel of some bicycle packaging; a second insert panel 22 laterally offset from the first insert panel and configured to be spaced from some side packaging panel, the second insert panel 22 defining an insert opening 30 therethrough for receiving some wheel axle of a bicycle that is within a bicycle packaging; wherein the first insert panel 38 is parallel to the second insert panel 22.
The first insert panel 38 and a second insert panel 22 are capable of being laterally offset from and parallel to each other depending on how or when the panels are folded.
Locke discloses a first insert panel and a second insert panel but it does not specifically disclose a seat post tab hingedly connected to the second insert panel, the seat post tab defining a tab opening formed therethrough, the tab opening configured to receive a seat post of the bicycle therethrough.
However, YARMAN teaches it was known in the art to have a seat post tab 14 hingedly connected to the second insert panel (c), the seat post tab defining a tab opening formed therethrough, the tab opening configured to receive a seat post of the bicycle therethrough.
The inventions of Locke and YARMAN are both drawn to the field of containers that are capable of holding items such as bicycles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insert in Locke by providing a seat post tab hingedly connected to the insert panel as taught by YARMAN for the purposes of holding more structures of the bicycle in place. (Col 3:55-70)
With regards to claim 2, Locke discloses a first transition panel 34 extends between the first insert panel 38 and the second insert panel 22, the first transition panel foldably connected to the first insert panel at a first bend line 32 and to the second insert panel at a second bend line 25.
With regards to claim 3, Locke discloses the first insert panel 38 is a first insert end panel and the second insert panel 22 is an insert center panel; the wheel insert further comprises a second insert end panel 46; and the insert center panel is disposed between and laterally offset from both of the first insert 38 end panel and the second insert end panel 46.
The insert center panel is capable of being laterally offset from both of the first insert end panel and the second insert end panel depending on how and when the panels are folded.
With regards to claim 4, Locke discloses the first insert end panel 38 is substantially coplanar with the second insert end panel 46.
With regards to claim 5, Locke discloses the insert center panel 22 is substantially parallel to both of the first insert end panel 38 and the second insert end panel 46.
With regards to claim 6, Locke discloses a second transition panel 35 extends between the insert center panel 22 and the second insert end panel 46, the second transition panel foldably connected to the insert center panel at a third bend line 26 and to the second insert end panel at a fourth bend line 33/47.
With regards to claim 7, Locke discloses the first insert end panel 38 defines a first length, the second insert end panel 46 defines a second length but it does not specifically disclose the second length is less than the first length.
It has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to claim 9, Locke (Fig. 3; insert opening on structure 13) discloses the claimed invention as stated above but it does not specifically disclose a flap hingedly connected to the second insert panel, wherein the flap at least partially defines the insert opening.
However, on another insert of Locke (Fig. 4; structure 12) teaches it was known in the art to have a flap 59/60 hingedly connected to a second insert panel 50, wherein the flap at least partially defines the insert opening 58.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insert opening in the insert structure 13 of Locke by providing a flap as taught by Locke (Fig. 4; structure 12) for the purposes of engaging and gripping the wheel held inside of the opening.
With regards to claim 12, YARMAN (Fig. 1-5) further teaches the seat post tab 14 is a first seat post tab extending from a top edge of the insert panel; the insert further comprises a second seat post tab 15/16 vertically aligned with the first seat post tab and hingedly connected to the second insert panel at an intermediate location between the top edge of the second insert panel and a bottom edge of the second insert panel; and the second seat post tab defines a second tab opening that is configured to receive the seat post of the bicycle therethrough.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke et al. US 3,929,225 in view of Rosen US 8,061,563 B1, both previously cited.
With regards to claim 8, Locke discloses the claimed invention (a first insert end panel and a second insert end panel) as stated above but it does not specifically disclose a fastener indicator indicating a preferred location for placement of a fastener thereon.
However, Rosen teaches that it was known in the art to have a package have a fastener indicator 123ab indicating a preferred location for placement of a fastener. (Col 8:14-35)
The inventions of Locke and Rosen are both drawn to the field of containers that are capable of holding items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insert in Locke by providing a fastener indicator as taught by Rosen for the purposes of providing an indication to the user of the insert on how to form and fasten the insert.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke et al. US 3,929,225 in view of STEARN US 2,760,631, both previously cited.
With regards to claim 10, Locke does not specifically disclose a flap is one of a plurality of substantially triangular flaps, each of the substantially triangular flaps hingedly connected to the second insert panel, the plurality of substantially triangular flaps surrounding the insert opening in substantially circular arrangement.
However, STEARN further teaches the flap 24 is one of a plurality of substantially triangular flaps, each of the substantially triangular flaps hingedly connected to the second insert panel, the plurality of substantially triangular flaps surrounding the insert opening in substantially circular arrangement.
The inventions of Locke and STEARN are both drawn to the field of containers that are capable of holding items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insert in Locke by providing a plurality of triangular flaps hingedly connected to the insert panel as taught by STEARN for the purposes of providing a tight engagement of the article to the insert while in the package.
PNG
media_image1.png
312
256
media_image1.png
Greyscale
YARMAN US 2,490,186
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YARMAN US 2,490,186, previously cited.
With regards to claim 13, YARMAN (Fig. 6-7) discloses a derailer wedge insert (a) for a bicycle packaging, the derailer wedge insert comprising: a first wedge panel 31 comprising a first end and a second end; a second wedge panel 30 comprising a first end and a second end; the second wedge panel being hingedly connected to the first wedge panel at a first bend line 27; and a third wedge panel 29 hingedly connected to the second wedge panel at a second bend line 26 opposite the first wedge panel; wherein the first wedge panel, second wedge panel, and third wedge panel are folded to define a substantially triangular wedge, the substantially triangular wedge configured to limit movement of a bicycle received in some bicycle packaging, depending on such factors as, the size, the positioning and type of bicycle package to be used, and the first wedge panel and the third wedge panel define an interior angle greater than 90 degrees, during the process of folding of the panels.
With regards to claim 14, YARMAN discloses further comprising a fourth wedge panel 30 (opposite side) hingedly connected to the third wedge panel (a) at a third bend line 26 opposite the second wedge panel, wherein; the third wedge panel is configured to abut a first packaging panel of some bicycle packaging to reinforce the first packaging panel; and the fourth wedge panel is configured to abut a second packaging panel of some bicycle packaging adjacent to the first packaging panel to reinforce the second packaging panel.
With regards to claim 15, the third bend line 26 of YARMAN is capable of being configured to be disposed in a corner of some bicycle packaging formed between a first packaging panel and a second packaging panel, depending on the size and type of bicycle package to hold the insert.
With regards to claim 16, YARMAN discloses the first bend line 27 is formed at the second end of the first wedge panel; and the first end of the first wedge panel confronts an inner surface of the third wedge panel.
With regards to claim 17, YARMAN discloses the first end of the first wedge panel 31 confront the inner surface of the third wedge panel 29 at an intermediate location between the second bend line 26 and the third bend line 26; a gap is defined between the first wedge panel and the fourth wedge panel 30; and the wedge insert is substantially g-shaped (when viewed at another angle, shown above).
With regards to claim 18, YARMAN discloses the first wedge panel 31 is oriented substantially parallel to the fourth wedge panel 30.
With regards to claim 19, YARMAN discloses further comprising a fifth wedge panel 33 hingedly connected to the first wedge panel 31 at a fourth bend line 28 opposite the first bend line 27, wherein the fifth wedge panel is coupled to and lies substantially flat against the inner surface of the third wedge panel 29.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that there is no motivation to modify the wheel insert (13) as taught by Locke with the seat post tab as taught by Yarman in that Locke already discloses "two flaps 59 and 60 which serve to engage ... that portion of the frame 14 to which the seat attaches.". The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Locke and YARMAN both teach the use of insert to secure bicycles inside of a box or carton however, YARMAN teaches in (Col 3:55-70) that the flap in conjunction with the aperture provides a rigid structure to hold the seat post and additional structures secured in place.
The Applicant also argues YARMAN does not disclose the limitation “the first wedge panel and the third wedge panel define an interior angle greater than 90 degrees”. As stated above, the original specification does not provide any details with regards to the angles of the derailer wedge insert, therefore, it is unclear how to interpret the limitation. However, as far as the Examiner can interpret the limitation as at this time, it appears YARMAN discloses the first wedge panel and the third wedge panel defines an interior angle greater than 90 degrees, during the process of folding of the panels.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENINE SPICER whose telephone number is (313)446-4924. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm, Monday-Thursday.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JENINE SPICER/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736