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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species of Group 1 represented by Figs 2a-2h in the reply filed on 12/5/25 is acknowledged. The examiner also acknowledges applicant’s indication that “At least claim 1 and each dependent claim is believed to be generic and/or directed to Group 1”. See the Remarks of 12/5/25 at page 1. The examiner finds the second of the applicant’s responses indicated above to be somewhat vague as it relates to applicant’s duty to identify the claims encompassing the elected species as set forth at the top of page 4 of the Election of Species requirement. The statement “At least claim 1” does not identify all of the claims encompassing the elected species. Same for the statement “each dependent claim”. The examiner notes that the application contains 3 independent claims with each having claims that are dependent thereon.
However, the examiner has elected to identify the claims that read on the elected species and those that do not, in order not to delay prosecution further.
Claims 3-5, 11-13 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/5/25. Claims 2-5, 11-13 and 19 have been found to recite features that are not included in elected Group 1 (Figs 2a through 2h). Thus, the noted claims are considered to be non-elected without traverse. An action on the merits of elected claims 1-2, 6-10, 14-18 and 20 follows.
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.
Claimsrejected 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.
It is apparent from the preamble of each independent claim that the wiper blade and its blade side connector are not positively claimed, much less the wiper arm and its arm side connector (that the wiper blade is configured to engage). Instead, based on the way each independent claims is constructed (including the claim preambles) the wiper blade and its blade side connector as well as the wiper arm appear to be merely recited in the independent claims as intended uses of the claimed packaging. In other words, the wiper blade and its blade side connector as well as the wiper arm appear to be only functionally claimed in examined claims 1-2, 6-10, 14-18 and 20.
On the other hand, each independent claim and some dependent claims contain limitations on the package that depend on one or more of the wiper blade and blade side connector. For example only, see the requirement in the last paragraph of claim 1 requiring that the claimed packaging comprise a connector-identification feature configured to indicate a compatible arm-side connector of the wiper arm. In another example see dependent claim 2’s requirement further limiting the connector-identification feature to one that is a pre-punched cutout that is sized and shaped to correspond to a size and shape of the compatible arm-side connector. And so on. These claim limitations suggest that perhaps the applicant’s intention is to positively claim the wiper blade and/or the wiper arm (since the claimed packaging structure is further limited by reference to these elements).
Therefore, the claims are found to be indefinite because they are drafted in such a way that they are not clear whether they are directed to the sub-combination of the packaging only or whether they are directed to the combination of the packaging and the wiper blade and/or the wiper arm. The examiner notes in connection with this finding that it is by now well settled that features that are not claimed may not be relied upon by the applicant in support of patentability.
In the comparison of the claims and the prior art below, the claims are interpreted as being directed to the sub-combination of the packaging only, in order to give them their broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, all references in the claims to the wiper blade or a part thereof as well as to the wiper arm or a part thereof are interpreted to the extent possible in the rejections below as being only functional.
On the other hand, amendments to the claims are required to clarify their scope.
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 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fournier et al. (2014/0262863). Fournier discloses packaging that meets all of the structural elements of the claimed packaging (note the embodiments of the Fournier packaging discussed in more detail below). Moreover, the packaging of Fournier is capable of all of the claimed functions such as holding or housing some wiper blade (not necessarily a particular wiper blade show in Fournier) having a blade-side connector configured to engage some wiper arm, as functionally claimed in the independent claim preambles.
Regarding independent claims 1 and its dependent claims, refer to the embodiment of packaging shown in Figs. 9A-9B and discussed in [0048] through [0052] of Fournier. Thus, the claimed inner component can be container 402. It can house some wiper blade as functionally claimed.
The claimed outer sleeve component can be cardboard cover 410 of the same embodiment.
The claimed connector identification feature can be indicia 416 on the outer sleeve component that according to Fournier contains information regarding use of the items contained in the packaging. As the claims have been interpreted to require functionally, the indicia can indicate a compatible arm-side connector of some wiper arm housed in the inner component. In this regard, the examiner notes that throughout the Fournier disclosure, Fournier intends for the indicia on the disclosed packaging to contain information regarding the use of the package content as set forth in [0052] lines 1-5 and [0047] lines 1-12, for example only. The examiner also notes that per Fournier [0044] the Fournier indicia identified above can even pertain to wiper blade connectors, although this is not believed to be required for the rejection, given the way the claims are interpreted as indicated in the rejection for indefiniteness.
Regarding independent claim 9 and its dependent claims, refer to the embodiment of packaging shown in Figs 7-8 and discussed in [0042] through [0047]. Thus, the claimed backing panel can be panel 304 and the claimed enclosure coupled to the backing panel can be enclosure 310 or 312. The enclosure can hold some wiper blade (not necessarily a wiper blade disclosed in Fournier) as functionally required in line 4 of claim 9. The claimed connector identification feature reads on indicia 320. As functionally claimed, the indicia can indicate a compatible arm-side connector of some wiper arm housed in the inner component. Refer again to [0047] lines 1-12 that is also discussed above.
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(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier. The disclosure of Fournier relative to claim 9 and its dependent claims (the embodiment of Figs 7-8) may not specifically mention that the backing panel is fabricated from cardboard. On the hand the feature is conventional in the relevant art as disclosed for the Figs 9A through 9B embodiment. Note the construction of backing panel 404 as disclosed in [0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of Fournier to provide for the backing panel in the Figs 7-8 embodiment to be fabricated from cardboard in order to provide a more economical packaging.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier in view of Niedzwiedz (6,168,020). Fournier may not disclose that the backing panel and the enclosure are each fabricated from a plastic material. On the other hand, Niedzwiedz discloses this to be conventional in the relevant art. That is to say, in the Niedzwiedz disclosure, both the backing panel (backing section 130) and the enclosure (container 120) can be fabricated from plastic material. It would have been obvious in view of Niedzwiedz to fabricate both the backing panel and enclosure of Fournier from plastic material, for the purpose of providing a more durable packaging.
Claim(s) 2, 10, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier in view of Barr (3,899,073). Fournier discloses all of the elements of these claims as indicated above, but for the connector-identification feature being a cutout (claims 2, 10 and 18) and for the cutout being J-shaped (claim 20).
On the other hand Barr is cited to show that indicia that identifies the content of a package can take the form of one or more cutouts. See indicia 18 on lid 16 in Fig. 1 in the form of holes that read “soap”, the intended content of the Barr package. See column 2 lines 53-63. It would have been obvious in view of Barr to provide the indicia of Fournier as a cutout or cutouts for the purpose of making the container more attractive to a prospective user thereof. Such a cutout can be made to correspond to some compatible arm-side connector as functionally claimed as best understood in view of the claim indefiniteness.
Additionally, a cutout that is J-shaped is well within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art to provide. For example, the artisan has the skill to make the letter “J” (that is J-shaped) in the form of a single cutout. It would have been obvious in view of Barr to make the cutout provided to Fournier J-shaped, for the purpose of providing that particular shape as content identifying indicia in a particular application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB K ACKUN whose telephone number is (571)272-4418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 11am-7pm.
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. Aviles 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.
/JACOB K ACKUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736