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 .
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.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 3, line 5, “the opposite side” is indefinite as to an “opposite side” of what.
In claim 4, line 5, “the curved edge” is indefinite, as two discrete curved edges have been previously defined.
In claim 5, lines 2 and 2-3, “the curved edge” is indefinite, as two discrete curved edges have been previously defined.
In claim 8, line 3, “the curved edge” and lines 3-4, “the free edge” are each indefinite, as two discrete curved edges and two discrete free edges have been previously defined.
In claim 9, line 3, “one and/or the other” is indefinite due to the slash and should be --at least one or the other--. In line 4, the “and/or” phrase is again indefinite and should be --the free edge of at least one of the closure panel and the closure flap--.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Veret et al. (10,661,977). Claims 1-4, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hun et al. (8,434,621). Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamilton Jr. et al. (3,343,743). Each discloses a packaging (Figure 7; 10; 1; respectively) for a wiper blade (intended use), comprising a first peripheral wall (2; 11; 10) and a second peripheral wall (3; 21; 11) adjacent to the first peripheral wall, the peripheral walls extending along a longitudinal axis and forming a sleeve in side of which the wiper blade is intended or capable to be housed, a closure panel (22; 35; 21) integral with a longitudinal end of the first peripheral wall, a closure flap (32; 25b; 23) integral with a longitudinal end of the second peripheral wall, wherein the closure panel and the closure flap each have an ovoid geometry.
As to claim 2, each discloses the closure panel (22; 35; 21) and the closure flap (32; 25b; 23) each extend secantly (at an angle) with respect to the peripheral walls.
As to claim 3, each discloses the closure panel (22; 35; 21) includes a curved edge (6; fold line between 11 and 35; 19) by means of which the closure panel is attached to the first peripheral wall (2; 11; 10) and a free edge (free edge of 22 opposing 6; free edge of 35; free edge of 21) on an opposite side of the closure panel to the curved edge, the free edge being configured to be brought to bear against the second peripheral wall (3; 21; 11).
As to claim 4, each discloses the closure flap (32; 25b; 23) includes a curved edge (8; fold line between 21 and 25b; 17) by means of which the closure flap is attached to the second peripheral wall (3; 21;11) and a free edge (free edge of 32 opposing 8; free edge of 25b; free edge of 23) on an opposite side of the closure flap to the curved edge of the closure flap, the free edge being configured to be brought to bear against the first peripheral wall (2; 11; 10).
As to claim 6, each discloses the curved edge (6; fold line between 11 and 35; 19) of the closure panel (22; 35; 21) and the curved edge (8; fold line between 21 and 25b; 17) of the closure flap (32; 25b; 23) being configured inherently to allow a bistable state of the closure panel and the closure flap.
As to claim 9, Veret et al. and Hun et al. each disclose the packaging includes a groove (one of 11 and 12; between 25b and 35) formed in at least one of the peripheral walls (2 and 3; 11 and 21) and configured to cooperate with the free edge of at least one of the closure panel (22; 35) and the closure flap (32; 25b).
As to claim 10, Veret et al. and Hun et al. each further includes a wiper blade (windscreen wiper; Figure 1) housed in the packaging.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veret et al. in view of Herring et al. (7,690,509). Veret et al. do not disclose the curved edge of the closure panel being discontinuous and comprised of perforations. However, Herring et al. disclose a similar packaging wherein a curved edge (48) of a closure panel (34) being discontinuous and comprised of perforations (see column 4, line 58 through column 5, line 5). 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 Veret et al. with the curved edge of the closure flap being perforated in the manner of Herring et al. as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a foldable connection between the flap and the associated peripheral wall. .
Claims 7 and 8 would each be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the additional references listed on the attached PTO-892, which, while not relied upon for the claim rejection, these references are deemed relevant to the claimed invention as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON P GEHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4555. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday through Thursday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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 Aviles-Bosques, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYON P GEHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Bryon P. Gehman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
BPG
