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 .
This action is written in response to the amendment filed 03/12/2026
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination
This action is Non-Final
Response to Amendment
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland (US 5,328,024) in view of Galbierz et al. (US 5,590,776).
Claim 9. Sutherland discloses an article carrier for packaging one or more articles, the article carrier comprising an engaging panel 42 comprising a first upper ply and a second lower ply 60 secured together in face contacting arrangement (fig. 4), the upper ply including at least one upper aperture 18 having an annular series of upper ply tabs 20 formed around the at least one upper aperture, the upper ply tabs each having a base and an inner edge opposite said base, wherein the upper ply tabs are folded upwardly with respect to the engaging panel when a portion of at least one article is received in the at least one upper aperture (fig. 1), the lower ply includes at least one lower aperture 64 substantially coaxial with the at least one upper aperture, the at least one lower aperture has an annular series of lower ply tabs 66 formed around the at least one lower aperture (fig. 4), wherein the lower ply tabs each has a base and an inner edge opposite said base of each lower ply tab, the at least one lower aperture has a notional lower outer circle @64 defined by the bases of lower ply tabs, the notional lower outer circle has a lower outer circle diameter, wherein the upper ply tabs each has a base and an inner edge opposite said base of each upper ply tab, the at least one upper aperture has a notional upper outer circle @22 defined by the bases of the upper ply tabs (fig. 5-7).
Sutherland discloses aligning upper and lower openings for the insertion of the bottles into the carrier with the notional upper outer circle has an upper outer circle diameter (fig. 2-3). However, a specific diameter of the notional circles fails to be taught. Galbierz teaches wherein the upper outer circle diameter 65 is equal to or less than the lower outer circle diameter (@69) (col. 12, ll. 6-35; fig. 14-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the openings of Sutherland to include the circular dimensions of Galbierz to accommodate the varied sizes of stored bottles.
Claim 10. Sutherland-Galbierz discloses an article carrier according to claim 9 wherein the at least one lower aperture has a notional lower inner circle defined by the inner edges of the lower ply tabs, the notional lower inner circle has a lower inner circle diameter, wherein the at least one upper aperture has a notional upper inner circle defined by the inner edges of the upper ply tabs, the notional upper inner circle has an upper inner circle diameter, and wherein the upper inner circle diameter is greater than the lower inner circle diameter (Sutherland; see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
229
161
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 11. Sutherland-Galbierz discloses an article carrier according to claim 9 wherein each of the upper ply tabs is spaced apart from an adjacent one of the upper ply tabs by a recess and wherein at least some of the recesses each is aligned with a respective one of the lower ply tabs (Sutherland; fig. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 19-20 are allowed.
Claims 12-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered. The search has been updated, new prior art has been identified and applied, and a new rejection has been made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm 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, 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.
/RAVEN COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights