DETAILED ACTION
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 1-15 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.
Limitations of amended claim 1 are not supported by applicant’s original disclosure. Claim 1 now recites “laminated to each other by a transparent or a translucent material” however the disclosure has no support for using a transparent material to laminate the front and rear faces to each other. The disclosure recites that the packaging is fabricated from a transparent plastic material, but the means for connecting the front and rear faces to each other are as listed in claim 7, see also page 3 of the specification at the third dash, “The front and rear faces are laminated to each other by gluing, crimping, tacking, or stapling.” None of which are disclosed as being transparent materials.
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.
Claim 7 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.
Regarding claim 7, it is not clear is the means for lamination listed in claim 7 are in addition to that of claim 1, or if applicant is suggesting that each of these lamination means are all transparent means – transparent stapling? Or claim 7 should be canceled because the laminating means are broader than those now in amended claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ulrike (DE 202010001360 U1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Ulrike discloses 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, fig. 1 at 15, a rear face, fig. 3 at 35,
an assembly flap, fig. 3, at 38, extending from one of said front and rear faces and configured to be permanently attached to the other of said front and rear faces,
wherein the front face and the rear face are laminated to each other at opposing longitudinal extremities thereby forming a tab at each longitudinal extremity, at 12 and 13, fig. 1. Ulrike further discloses that the laminating means is done via welding, see translation, under “Description” in the 2nd line of the 6th paragraph. Welding fuses the material together, the material disclosed by Ulrike is transparent film. With this in mind, the lamination is done by melted transparent material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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.
Hiroshi further discloses that the packaging can be made from material that is transparent plastic sheet or film, col. 1: 40-45, and that the layers can be bonded together with an adhesive or cement, col. 1: 54-60. Hiroshi does not disclose whether the adhesive or cement is clear. However clear adhesive is well known and typically dries clear even if not clear when applied. In addition, using an opaque adhesive or cement to bond the container parts together would typically be aesthetically pleasing, especially if the spread of adhesive is hard to control and is inconsistent.
In addition, applicant has no support for a transparent material being used to laminate the front and rear face together.
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the adhesive or cement of Hiroshi to be transparent in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing see-through experience with a container made from transparent plastic.
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 (crease lines at 14, 15, 16, and 17, fig. 8), the crease line being configured to bend or fold along its length.
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 10, Hiroshi discloses that the packaging is made from cardboard, cardstock, fiberboard, paper, or paperboard, col. 5: 55-65.
Regarding claim 11, before the box is folded along the crease lines the front face of Hiroshi, (panels 3, 4, and 5), is wider than the rear face along a transverse direction, fig. 8.
Regarding claim 12, Hiroshi discloses that when the packaging is folded it presents a generally polygonal cross-section, reference fig. 2 or 10.
Regarding claim 14, Hiroshi discloses that at least one of the front face and rear face include a cutout forming a window A, fig. 8.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 2014/0069847) in view of HÄFLIGER et al. (US 2022/0219860).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 15, Kim discloses a packaging for a windscreen wiper blade comprising
a front face 120, a rear face 130, fig. 1 and 7, [0047], formed from transparent, translucent, or opaque plastic 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. Kim does not teach that the tab is formed by lamination of the front face and rear face.
HÄFLIGER teaches multiple methods for forming a double thickness tab for hanging packaging for an elongated object. In fig. 17, HÄFLIGER teaches a folded over tab, like the one disclosed by Kim in fig. 2. HÄFLIGER alternatively teaches a double thickness hanging tab 70d, fig. 7-9d, [0189], formed by portions of the front at 18b, plan view, fig. 9c, and the rear, seen plan view in fig. 7c and at 18b in fig. 9, being laminated together at the top extremity of the packaging, fig. 9b and 9d, the lamination (bonding by glue, [0010]) of the front and rear faces thereby forming a tab, 70b.
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known double thickness tab forming means for another known means, such as the alternative means taught by HÄFLIGER where an extension of the front and rear faces are bonded together with the same reasonable expectation of providing a hanging means for the packaging of an elongated object. In addition, the tab forming means of HÄFLIGER described in fig. 7-9d would prevent the wiper from being easily removed from the top of the packaging and thereby prevent theft or damage to the product by a user removing the item for inspection.
Neither Kim nor HÄFLIGER teaches clear bonding material. However clear bonding material is well known and typically dries clear even if not clear when applied. In addition, applicant has no support for a transparent material being used to laminate the front and rear face together.
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the bonding means of Kim as modified above with a transparent bonding with the same reasonable expectation of laminating/sealing the front and rear together.
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 claim 5, Kim as modified above discloses a hole for a peg in the tab, fig. 2, 134.
Regarding claim 6, the tab of Kim as modified above is substantially parallel to the plane of the front and rear faces, fig. 8.
Regarding claim 8, Kim further discloses a crease line at 121 and 131, fig. 2 on the front and rear face for causing the front and rear to bend along the length.
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches one crease line in the center. Kim further discloses at least one transverse crease line at 133, fig. 1, running along a transverse direction of the packaging and disposed proximal to at least one of the first and second longitudinal extremities.
As applied above, HÄFLIGER is analogous art in regard to hanging packaging for elongated consumer products. Like Kim, fig. 7, HÄFLIGER also teaches a hexagonal cross section, fig. 7e by two front crease lines 48b’ and 48b’”, fig. 6, and two rear crease lines 48b and 48b” running along a longitudinal direction of the packaging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the single crease means for forming a hexagonal cross-sectional shape disclosed by Kim with an alternative crease means for forming hexagonal cross-sectional shape, two front creases as taught by HÄFLIGER as required by design and shape of the product dimensions intended to be packaged and with the same reasonable expectation of providing a tessellating packaging shape for maximizing storage as seen in fig. 12 of Kim.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Kim further discloses that the packaging has a generally hexagonal cross-section, fig. 7.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8, 12 and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denney et al. (US 20140360914) in view of Ulrike (DE 202010001360 U1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 12, and 15, Denney discloses packaging 100 for a wiper blade 2, having a polygonal cross-section, fig. 20 and 21, [0040], [0054]. At the top of fig. 21, a longitudinal assembly flap (not numbered, near 102) permanently attached to a face (either front or rear). As seen in fig. 20, the material of Denney is transparent.
Denney does not disclose closing or hanging means for the packaging.
Ulrike is analogous art in regard to elongated packaging formed from a tube and teaches that extensions of the front and rear of the elongated packaging are laminated at both ends thereby forming two tabs, fig. 1. The top tab of Ulrike has an opening 14 for a hanging the package on a hook or rod, fig. 1. Ulrike further discloses that the laminating means is done via welding, see translation, under “Description” in the 2nd line of the 6th paragraph. Welding fuses the material together, the material disclosed by Ulrike is transparent film. With this in mind, the lamination is done by melted transparent material.
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 Denney (who discloses no particular closing or hanging means for the ends of the packaging), to be closed by lamination at both ends as per the teaching of Ulrike in order to completely seal the package such that the contents cannot be disturbed by a user prior to purchase (Denney teaches that the blade can be deformed if not packaged properly [0003] if a user removes the blade for inspection in store and does not repackage it properly, the blade could be deformed) and further to decrease production time by sealing the package without having to folding flaps.
Regarding claim 8, Denney further discloses that opposing faces have a crease line configured to fold along its length, fig. 20 and 21.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and HÄFLIGER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Broderick (US 2289236).
Regarding claim 11, Kim as modified above teaches all of claim 1, as applied above. Kim does not teach that the front face is wider than the rear face.
Broderick teaches a folded consumer packaging container for presenting an elongated object, fig. 6 and 7. Broderick further teaches a front face 14 that is wider than a rear face to provide a rounded front, fig. 4.
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 front face of Kim to be wider in order to allow the front of the packaging to be curved as per the teaching of Broderick or for aesthetic purposes or to increase volume.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Hiroshi not explicitly teaching lamination by a transparent material, Hiroshi teaches adhesive or cement, but does not disclose a color for the adhesive or cement. Applicant then suggests that Hiroshi explicitly indicates paper sheets laminated with foil but ignores other materials explicitly disclosed by Hiroshi such as transparent sheets of plastic. With this in mind, and in light of the above rejection, modified to have motivation for using clear adhesive, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Ulrike (rejection over Ulrike and over Denney in view of Ulrike) does not identify how the plastic film method is applied, examiner disagrees. Ulrike discloses the method of lamination is via welding. With this in mind, Ulrike teaches that the transparent sheet used to make the film also, during welding, laminates the front and back. With this in mind, the lamination of Ulrike is done via the welded transparent material of the package. As such, applicant’s arguments against Ulrike are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that neither Kim nor HÄFLIGER makes explicit mention of lamination using transparent or translucent plastics, in light of the above rejection, modified to have motivation for using clear bonding material, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. In addition, Kim teaches a multitude of bonding means, [0049], page 4: “An outer surface of the bonding flap 141 and an inner surface of the second panel 130 are bonded together by a bonding means, thus forming the body of the package 100 and defining the receiving cavity 111. Said bonding means may include a double-sided adhesive tape, a bonding agent, thermal fusion bonding, ultrasonic bonding, etc.” Thermal fusion bonding or ultrasonic bonding would also result in transparent laminating means.
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 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