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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 17, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veret et al. (US 2016/0251145 A1, hereinafter Veret) in view of Sharman (US 2015/0225161 A1) and Peterson (WO 97/11890).
Regarding claim 1, Veret teaches a blank for manufacturing a packaging device for at least one windshield wiper blade,
wherein the blank is of elongated shape and comprises at least first and second adjacent longitudinal zones (2, 3),
wherein each of the at least first and second adjacent longitudinal zones is configured to form a longitudinal face (2’, 3’) of the packaging device (Fig. 7),
wherein the at least first and second adjacent longitudinal zones are respectively articulated at each of their ends to first and second end zones (21, 22, 31, 32) with a transverse fold line (5, 6, 7, 8), and
wherein the first and second end zones are configured to form, respectively, first and second transverse flaps (21’, 31’) of the packaging device (Fig. 7) (paragraphs 49-55, 71, 77 and Fig. 1-2B, 7).
Veret fails to teach a first longitudinal length of the first end zone being greater than a second longitudinal length of the second end zone, and the first transverse flap being configured to be formed before the second transverse flap. Sharman teaches an analogous blank for manufacturing a packaging device, wherein the blank comprises first and second longitudinal zones (1) configured to form longitudinal faces of the packaging device, and wherein the first and second longitudinal zones are respectively articulated at an end to first and second end zones (5, 10) via a transverse fold line (4, 11). Sharman further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure a longitudinal length of the first end zone to be greater than a longitudinal length of the second end zone (Fig. 1) and to configure a first flap of the first end zone to be formed before a second flap of the second end zone (Fig. 3, 5), in order to allow the formed packaging device to be selectively collapsible (paragraphs 37-41 and Fig. 1-6).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Veret by configuring a first longitudinal length of the first end zone to be greater than a second longitudinal length of the second end zone and by configuring the first transverse flap to be formed before the second transverse flap, as taught by Sharman, in order to allow the formed packaging device to be selectively collapsible.
Veret also fails to teach the first end zone comprising a poka-yoke means disposed on a surface of the first transverse flap at a location that is adjacent to a convex curved edge of the first transverse flap and opposite of the transverse end zone of the first flap, where the surface is located towards an outside of the packaging device and wherein the second transverse flap is configured to mask the poka-yoke means after the second transverse flap is formed. Peterson teaches an analogous blank for manufacturing a packaging device and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the blank with poka-yoke indicators (14) configured to be visible in the case of erroneous (FIG. 3) folding and forming (page 6 line 17-page 9 line 33 and FIG. 1-3).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Veret by providing the first end zone with a poka-yoke means disposed on a surface of the first transverse flap that is configured to be covered by the second transverse flap, including the surface of the first transverse flap that is located towards an outside of the formed packaging device, and at a location that is adjacent to a convex curved edge of the first transverse flap and opposite of the transverse end zone of the first flap, such that the second transverse flap is configured to mask the poka-yoke means after the second transverse flap is formed, as suggested by Peterson, in order to provide an indication that the packaging device has been folded and formed incorrectly.
Although Peterson fails to specifically teach the poka-yoke indicators being disposed on a surface that is located toward an outside of the formed packaging device, Peterson does teach the poka-yoke indicators being disposed on a surface configured to be covered or masked during formation of the packaging device such that a visible poka-yoke indicator would indicate erroneous folding and forming and such that a masked poka-yoke indicator would indicate proper folding and forming. Accordingly, as there are a finite number of surfaces configured to be covered or masked during proper formation of the packaging device, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to dispose the poka-yoke mean on any of the finite number of appropriate surfaces configured to be covered or masked during proper formation of the packaging device, including the surface located towards an outside of the formed packaging device.
Additionally, although Peterson fails to specifically teach the poka-yoke indicators being at a location that is adjacent to a convex curved edge of the first transverse flap and opposite of the transverse end zone of the first flap, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found any portion of the surface configured to be covered or masked during proper formation of the packaging device to be an obvious location for placement of the poka-yoke means, including the claimed location that is adjacent to a convex curved edge of the first transverse flap and opposite of the transverse end zone of the first flap, absent persuasive evidence that the claimed location is critical, produces a new or unexpected result, provides a specific advantage over other locations on the same surface configured to be covered or masked during proper formation of the packaging device, or is used for a particular purpose not covered by other locations on the same surface configured to be covered or masked during proper formation of the packaging device.
Regarding claim 2, Veret as modified by Sharman and Peterson teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein the transverse fold line is curved in a form of an arc of a circle, and curved concavely toward a center of the first or the second longitudinal zone (Veret: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Veret as modified by Sharman and Peterson teaches the blank of claim 2 above, wherein the first end zone comprises, opposite from the transverse fold line, a convex curved edge complementary to a shape of the transverse fold line (Veret: Fig. 1-2B) and wherein the second end zone comprises, opposite from the transverse fold line, a straight edge (Sharman: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Veret as modified by Sharman and Peterson teaches the blank of claim 3 above, wherein the second longitudinal length of the second end zone is equal to or less than half of the first longitudinal length of the first end zone (Sharman: paragraph 40).
Regarding claim 6, Veret as modified by Sharman and Peterson teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein the poka-yoke means comprises indicators in a form of at least one of a sentence, a symbol or a solid color (Peterson: page 9 line 26-33).
Regarding claim 7, Veret as modified by Sharman and Peterson teaches the blank of claim 1 above, wherein the blank is made of plastics material or cardboard (Veret: paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 8, Veret as modified by Sharman and Peterson teaches a packaging device for the at least one windshield wiper blade, wherein the packaging device is manufactured from the blanks of claim 1 above (Veret: paragraphs 49-55, 71, 77 and Fig. 1-2B, 7 and Sharman: paragraphs 37-41 and Fig. 1-6).
Regarding claim 9, Veret as modified by Sharman and Peterson teaches the packaging device of claim 1 above, wherein the packaging device comprises the at least one windshield wiper blade (paragraphs 33-35, 49, 71, 77).
Regarding claim 10, Veret teaches a method for manufacturing a packaging device for at least one windshield wiper blade using a blank,
wherein the blank is of elongated shape and comprises at least first and second adjacent longitudinal zones (2, 3),
wherein each of the at least first and second adjacent longitudinal zones is configured to form a longitudinal face (2’, 3’) of the packaging device (Fig. 7),
wherein the at least first and second adjacent longitudinal zones are respectively articulated at each of their ends to first and second end zones (21, 22, 31, 32) via a transverse fold line (5, 6, 7, 8), and
wherein the first and second end zones form, respectively, first and second transverse flaps (21’, 31’) of the packaging device (Fig. 7) (paragraphs 49-55, 71, 77 and Fig. 1-2B, 7).
Veret fails to teach a first longitudinal length of the first end zone being greater than a second longitudinal length of the second end zone and the method comprising forming the first transverse flap from the first end zone and then forming the second transverse flap from the second end zone by folding and gluing. Sharman teaches an analogous blank for manufacturing a packaging device, wherein the blank comprises first and second longitudinal zones (1) configured to form longitudinal faces of the packaging device, and wherein the first and second longitudinal zones are respectively articulated at an end to first and second end zones (5, 10) via a transverse fold line (4, 11). Sharman further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure a longitudinal length of the first end zone to be greater than a longitudinal length of the second end zone (Fig. 1) and to configure a first flap of the first end zone to be formed before a second flap of the second end zone by folding and gluing (Fig. 3, 5), in order to allow the formed packaging device to be selectively collapsible (paragraphs 37-41 and Fig. 1-6).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Veret by configuring a first longitudinal length of the first end zone to be greater than a second longitudinal length of the second end zone and by forming the first transverse flap from the first end zone and then forming the second transverse flap from the second end zone by folding and gluing, as taught by Sharman, in order to allow the formed packaging device to be selectively collapsible.
Veret also fails to teach the first end zone comprising a poka-yoke means disposed on a surface of the first transverse flap at a location that is adjacent to a convex curved edge of the first transverse flap and opposite of the transverse end zone of the first flap, where the surface is located towards an outside of the packaging device and wherein the second transverse flap is configured to mask the poka-yoke means after the second transverse flap is formed. Peterson teaches an analogous blank for manufacturing a packaging device and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the blank with poka-yoke indicators (14) configured to be visible in the case of erroneous (FIG. 3) folding and forming (page 6 line 17-page 9 line 33 and FIG. 1-3).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Veret by providing the first end zone with a poka-yoke means disposed on a surface of the first transverse flap that is configured to be covered by the second transverse flap, including the surface of the first transverse flap that is located towards an outside of the formed packaging device, and at a location that is adjacent to a convex curved edge of the first transverse flap and opposite of the transverse end zone of the first flap such that the second transverse flap is configured to mask the poka-yoke means after the second transverse flap is formed, as suggested by Peterson, in order to provide an indication that the packaging device has been folded and formed incorrectly.
Although Peterson fails to specifically teach the poka-yoke indicators being disposed on a surface that is located toward an outside of the formed packaging device, Peterson does teach the poka-yoke indicators being disposed on a surface configured to be covered or masked during formation of the packaging device such that a visible poka-yoke indicator would indicate erroneous folding and forming and such that a masked poka-yoke indicator would indicate proper folding and forming. Accordingly, as there are a finite number of surfaces configured to be covered or masked during proper formation of the packaging device, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to dispose the poka-yoke mean on any of the finite number of appropriate surfaces configured to be covered or masked during proper formation of the packaging device, including the surface located towards an outside of the formed packaging device.
Additionally, although Peterson fails to specifically teach the poka-yoke indicators being at a location that is adjacent to a convex curved edge of the first transverse flap and opposite of the transverse end zone of the first flap, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found any portion of the surface configured to be covered or masked during proper formation of the packaging device to be an obvious location for placement of the poka-yoke means, including the claimed location that is adjacent to a convex curved edge of the first transverse flap and opposite of the transverse end zone of the first flap, absent persuasive evidence that the claimed location is critical, produces a new or unexpected result, provides a specific advantage over other locations on the same surface configured to be covered or masked during proper formation of the packaging device, or is used for a particular purpose not covered by other locations on the same surface configured to be covered or masked during proper formation of the packaging device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that even if a person skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to pick a particular panel or flap to dispose poka-yoke means, there is no reason the skilled person would be expected to pick a specific location on the selected flap or panel, is not persuasive.
The specific location as claimed on the selected flap or panel would have been an obvious matter of design choice and is of no patentable significance. The claimed location is no more critical or significant than any other location on the same selected flap or panel in an area intended to be covered or masked during proper formation.
Applicant’s argument that due to the small and inobtrusive size of poka-yoke means, there are a near-infinite number of potential locations that poka-yoke means may be located on 5 flaps and 2 panels, is not persuasive.
As stated in the advisory action, the group of acceptable locations for a packaging device having 5 flaps and 2 panels is minimal. Once a particular surface of the 5 flaps and 2 panels has been identified to address the issues with erroneous folding and forming, the specific location on the identified flap at that point would have been an obvious matter of design choice as stated above.
Applicant’s argument that the advisory action and the office action are necessarily premised on hindsight recognition because “a finite number of locations for a poka-yoke means” is not a finite number of solutions to the general problem of an “improperly folded packaging device”, is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As previously stated, one skilled in the art having problems with erroneous folding and forming of a packaging device would have looked to other packaging devices that address issues with erroneous folding and forming. In this case, as taught by Peterson, the particular and single solution identified is a poka-yoke means. Accordingly, the examiners conclusion of obviousness is proper as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure.
Further, a poka-yoke means is a finite singular structural solution to the general problem of improperly folding a packaging device. Applicant argues a Jidoka, however, Jidoka is not a structural solution to the general problem of improperly folding a packaging device. Applicant further argues “other mechanism for preventing erroneous folding” but fails to give other examples. Accordingly, absent persuasive evidence otherwise, there are a finite number of structural solutions to the general problem of an improperly folded packaging device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM EST.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/NINA K ATTEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights