DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:.
Claim 14: “the rear face comprises include” is a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1, 3, 5-9, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiroshi (US 4106615).
Regarding claims 1, 7, Hiroshi discloses, fig. 8, a packaging for a dental care instrument but fully capable of housing a wiper blade since some dental instruments are relatively long and some wiper blades, like for the windscreen of a motorcycle helmet, can be relatively short, the packaging comprising:
a front face 4, a rear face 2,
an assembly flap 1 (bonding flap) extending from one of said front and rear faces and configured to be permanently attached to the other of said front and rear faces, col. 3: 5-15,
the front face and rear face are laminated to each other at least at one of a first longitudinal extremity and a second longitudinal extremity of the packaging, the lamination of the front and rear faces thereby forming a tab where 20 is bonded (gluing) to top of rear wall near 22, col. 3: 1-10, figure 8 shows that the tab is formed by an extension of the front wall at 20 and an extension of the back wall at 22.
Hiroshi further discloses that the packaging be made from paper or cardboard sheets, col. 5: 57-65 and that the layers can be bonded together with an adhesive or cement, col. 1: 54-65.
PNG
media_image1.png
744
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Hiroshi further discloses at least one closure flap 25, fig. 8, extending from at least one of the front and rear faces at the first longitudinal extremity thereof, the front and rear faces being laminated at the second longitudinal extremity (top) opposing the at least one closure flap (bottom) to form the tab.
Regarding claim 5, Hiroshi discloses that the tab further includes a hole 23 or slot for a peg hook, fig. 8.
Regarding claim 6, Hiroshi discloses the at least one tab is aligned to a plane substantially parallel to the front and rear faces of the packaging, reference fig. 10, the tab is aligned parallel to the rear face.
Regarding claim 8, Hiroshi discloses at least one of the front and rear faces include a crease line (edge crease lines at 14, 15, fig. 8), the crease line being configured to bend or fold along its length in order to form the shape of the package.
Regarding claim 9, Hiroshi discloses that at least one of the front and rear faces include at least two longitudinal crease lines 14 and 15, fig. 8, that run along a longitudinal direction of the packaging and at least one transverse crease line 17 runs along a transverse direction of the packaging and is disposed proximal to the first and second longitudinal extremities.
Regarding claim 12, Hiroshi discloses that when the packaging is folded it presents a generally polygonal cross-section, reference fig. 2 or 10.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Hiroshi discloses that at least one of the front face and rear face include a cutout forming a window A, fig. 8 for viewing the packaged product, col. 2:60-65 and further that the window may be covered with a transparent plastic material (cellophane film), col. 3: 11-17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jameson (US 2581664).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 7, James discloses an elongated packaging fully capable of holding a windscreen wiper blade of a corresponding size, comprising
a front face 10, a rear face 12, an assembly flap 13 extending from one of said front and rear faces and configured to be permanently attached to the other of the front and the rear faces (via a strip of tape 75), or (further regarding the assembly flap) col. 3:20-25 by an anchorage flange,
wherein the front face and the rear face are laminated to each other at a first longitudinal extremity via staples at 76 and a second longitudinal extremity via staples at 78 of the packaging, thereby forming thereby forming two tabs by the lamination of the front and rear faces, col. 4: 5-10.
James shows that the container is folded from a blank, fig. 2, but does not disclose what material the package is made from. However, it is well- known to form a container folded from a blank made from cardboard, cardstock, fiberboard, paper, or paperboard.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the undisclosed material of James to be made of a paper or fiber-based material in order to provide a biodegradable container.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, James further discloses that at one longitudinal end, closure flaps are formed at 19 and 27 of respective front and rear faces, fig. 2, that extend from front and rear faces, and as applied above, laminated at an opposed second longitudinal extremity.
Regarding claim 6, the tabs of James are parallel with a plane of a front and back face of the packaging, fig. 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 12, James discloses that the packaging cross-section is a polygon, fig. 4.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herring et al. (US 7690509) in view of Hiroshi.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 15 Herring discloses a cardboard (col. 4: 60-65) wiper blade 14 packaging with a front face 24, a rear face 26, an assembly flap (flap at 28 and glue flap 46) extending from the front face, fig. 9, configured to permanently attach (via glue) to the rear face, fig. 9, and wherein the front face is wider than the rear face along a transverse direction, fig. 10.
Herring discloses a hang tab 36 formed from only one layer, not a from lamination of a front and rear.
However, Hiroshi is analogous art in regard to an elongated packaging with a hanging opening at 23 and a window at A, fig. 8. Hiroshi further teaches that packaging made from plastic leads to waste and is not economical, col. 1: 11-25, and that packages made from paper can have a suspension tongue (tab) that has inadequate strength, col. 1: 60-40. Hiroshi teaches that the solution to this problem is to strengthen the hanging support member by joining at least two layers that are bonded (laminated) via adhesive (glue), col. 1: 50-60.
In figure 8, Hiroshi teaches that the hanger tab is formed from two bonded hanger flaps 20 and 30 that are respectively located on a front 4 and back 2 face of the blank forming the packaging, the flaps include a hole 23 for a hook col. 4: 35-43. Referencing other figures of Hiroshi, fig. 2, for example, the tab formed by the extended flaps are in the plane of the rear face.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the packaging of Herring to be fabricated from cardboard (disclosed as an alternative material, col. 4: 60-65 of Herring) and to form a double layer laminated hang tab by bonding flaps that extend from the front and rear panels of the packaging as taught by Hiroshi in order to provide an economical container that also has a sufficiently strong hang tab, as discussed in col. 1 of Hiroshi.
Regarding claim 3, Herring further discloses that a bottom (first) lateral end of the container has a closure flap 34 extending from the front/rear face and the other end has the laminated hanging tab, as applied above, fig. 8.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach a cutout window in the packaging.
Hiroshi teaches providing the paper-based container with a display window A for viewing the packaged product, col. 2:60-65 and further that the window may be covered with a transparent plastic material (cellophane film), col. 3: 11-17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the packaging of Herring to have a window covered by a transparent plastic material in order to allow a customer to view the contents of the packaging while also providing a protective cover for the contents as per the teaching of Hiroshi.
Claim(s) 1, 3- 9, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2014/0069847) in view of Hiroshi.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 15 Kim discloses a packaging and a windscreen wiper blade comprising
a front face 120, a rear face 130, fig. 1 and 7, [0047], with a generally hexagonal cross-section, fig. 7, formed from transparent, translucent, or opaque plastic material or any other flexible material [0042],
an assembly flap 141 and 170, fig. 1 and 2, extending from one of said front and rear faces configured to be permanently attached to the other of said front and rear faces, fig. 7, [0049], top of page 4.
Kim further discloses a tab 170 at a top extremity of the packaging, but the tab is only formed from an extension of the rear face, [0054]. The tab 170 of Kim has a double thickness when it is folded down at fold line 132, best seen in fig. 2 and 9.
However, Hiroshi is analogous art in regard to an elongated packaging with a hanging opening at 23 and a window at A, fig. 8. Hiroshi further teaches that packaging made from plastic leads to waste and is not economical, col. 1: 11-25, and that packages made from paper can have a suspension tongue (tab) that has inadequate strength, col. 1: 60-40. Hiroshi teaches that the solution to this problem is to strengthen the hanging support member by joining at least two layers that are bonded (laminated) via adhesive (glue), col. 1: 50-60.
In figure 8, Hiroshi teaches that the hanger tab is formed from two bonded hanger flaps 20 and 30 that are respectively located on a front 4 and back 2 face of the blank forming the packaging, the flaps include a hole 23 for a hook or peg col. 4: 35-43. Referencing other figures of Hiroshi, fig. 2, for example, the tab formed by the extended flaps are in the plane of the rear face.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the packaging of Kim to be fabricated from cardboard (a flexible material [0042] of Kim) and to form a double layer laminated hang tab by bonding flaps that extend from the front and rear panels of the packaging as taught by Hiroshi in order to provide an economical container that also has a sufficiently strong hang tab, as discussed in col. 1 of Hiroshi.
Regarding claim 3 and 4, Kim further discloses two closure flaps, (at 160 and 180, fig. 3) at a longitudinal extremity (bottom), one extending from the front face and one extending from the back face at an opposite end of where the tab is formed by lamination.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the front face of the hexagonal shaped container of Kim includes a crease line 121, fig. 7 tending to bend or fold along the length of the front face or rear face in order to form two faces of the hexagonal shape, fig. 7. And a second longitudinal crease line 114 running along a longitudinal direction of the packaging, and at least one transverse crease line 133, fig. 3, that runs along a transverse direction and is proximal to a longitudinal extremity (end) and helps form the closure flap at 180.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach a cutout window in the packaging.
Hiroshi teaches providing the paper-based container with a display window A for viewing the packaged product, col. 2:60-65 and further that the window may be covered with a transparent plastic material (cellophane film), col. 3: 11-17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the packaging of Kim to have a window covered by a transparent plastic material in order to allow a customer to view the contents of the packaging while also providing a protective cover for the contents as per the teaching of Hiroshi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument in part IV against Hiroshi - that the hanger portion of Hiroshi is formed by extensions of only the back section, examiner disagrees. Although many of the embodiments disclosed by Hiroshi have the hanger flap extending solely from the back section, figure 8, in particular teaches lamination of a tab extensions that extend from a front face 20 and a rear face 30. With this in mind, applicant’s argument that Hiroshi only teaches hanger flaps extending from the back section is not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Kim expressly discloses that the sheet be made of plastic, examiner disagrees. Paragraph [0042] of Kim recites plastic material or other flexible material. Cardboard is a flexible material and is more economical as taught by Hiroshi. With this in mind, applicant’s argument that substituting the plastic of Kim for cardboard has no teaching or suggestion to do so is not found persuasive because the modification of Kim’s packaging material with the material of Hiroshi teaches that cardboard material is more economical.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the other combinations have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combinations thereof applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
