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 .
Status of Claims
This final office action is in response to amendments filed on March 5, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 18, and 22 is acknowledged.
Claims 2, 11-14, 16, 17 and 19 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-10, 15, 18, 20-26 are being pending.
Claims 18 and 20-26 are being examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 18 and 20-26) in the reply filed on May 3, 2024, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the special technical feature is not disclosed nor taught by the previous prior art of record (Anderson). This is not found persuasive because amended claims 18 and 22 rely on new limitations to the claims, which have necessitated the new grounds of rejection, as detailed in the present Office Action. As such, the arguments are directed towards prior art that is no longer being applied.
Thus, Examiner has applied new prior art which discloses the supposed special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonnain et al. (US 7,322,171 B2, herein Bonnain).
Regarding claim 18, Bonnain discloses a package of secured containers comprising:
a plurality of containers (i.e. pouches or similar articles) (Col. 3, lines 25-27) positioned in a predetermined orientation;
a paperboard package blank (10) (Col. 3, line 33) comprising a plurality of connected panels wrapped around the containers, wherein the plurality of connected panels include opposing bottom panels (12, 20) (Fig. 1), opposing side panels (14, 18) (Fig. 1) each of which is connected to a respective bottom panel of the opposing bottom panels, a top panel (16) (Fig. 1) connected to a respective side panel of the opposing side panels, wherein each of the plurality of panels include an interior surface and an exterior surface opposite the interior surface, wherein the interior surface faces an internal volume of the package; and
an adhesive applied to at least one spot on the interior surface of at least one panel of the plurality of connected panels to secure the containers in the predetermined orientation within the package (see Step A11, Fig. 3) (Col. 7, lines 9-13).
Regarding claim 20, Bonnain discloses (Col. 7, lines 9-13) wherein the one or more interior surfaces of the at least one panel of the package to which the adhesive is applied comprises a bottom panel (12, 20) portion of the package.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnain in view of Anderson (US 5,887,717, herein Anderson).
Regarding claim 21, Bonnain discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention, as discussed above.
However, Bonnain does not expressly disclose wherein the adhesive is applied between adjacent containers in the package to secure the containers.
Anderson teaches (see Figs. 7, 8) wherein the adhesive (124) is applied between adjacent containers (114) in the package to secure the containers in the predetermined orientation within the package (Col. 5, lines 40-48) (Column 8, line 30-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the application of adhesive to include application of the adhesive between adjacent containers, as this would assist and further improve in securing the containers in the predetermined orientation within the package.
Regarding claim 22, Bonnain discloses a system for packaging containers comprising:
a conveyor for transporting a group of containers in a predetermined orientation (see Step A5, Fig. 3);
a packaging station disposed along the conveyor (see Step A7, Fig. 3), wherein a package blank is wrapped around the group of containers, wherein the package blank comprises a plurality of connected panels wrapped around the group of containers, wherein the plurality of connected panels include opposing bottom panels (12, 20) (Fig. 1), opposing side panels (14, 18) (Fig. 1) each of which is connected to a respective bottom panel of the opposing bottom panels, a top panel (16) (Fig. 1) connected to a respective side panel of the opposing side panels.
While Bonnain does disclose applying an adhesive (see Step A11, Fig. 3) (Col. 7, lines 9-13), Bonnain does not expressly disclose that the adhesive is applied via a glue gun.
Anderson teaches (Col. 8, lines 13-29) a glue gun adjacent to the packaging station for applying an adhesive to at least one spot on an interior surface of the package blank within the package to secure the group of containers in the predetermined orientation within the package, wherein the interior surface faces an internal volume of the package.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have employed a glue gun to apply adhesive, as glue guns are old and well known in the art as exceptional tools for applying strips of quick setting, frangible adhesive to products.
Regarding claim 23, Anderson further teaches (Col. 8, lines 13-29) wherein the glue gun is a high speed, hot melt adhesive gun configured to apply a hot melt adhesive onto a moving surface.
Regarding claim 24, Anderson teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above, but does not expressly teach for the incorporation of a nozzled glue gun that is mounted approximately 2 to 5 mm from the surface of the package.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the applicant's claimed invention to utilized a common knowledge glue gun and mount it within the range of 2-5mm from the surface of a package, as described in Applicants Detailed Description in paragraph 0029, line 01-09, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, page 03, Paragraph 0029 line 09-18, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 25, Bonnain discloses (see steps A6 and A7, Fig. 3) wherein the conveyor is configured to position the containers in the predetermined orientation in advance of the packaging station.
Regarding claim 26, Bonnain discloses (see steps A8 and A9, Fig. 3) wherein the conveyor is configured to position the containers in the predetermined orientation within the packaging station after the package blank is wrapped around the group of containers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 18 and 20-26 rely on new limitations to the claims, which have necessitated the new grounds of rejection, as detailed in the present Office Action. As such, the arguments are directed towards prior art that is no longer being applied.
Thus, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 18 and 20-26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the reference being used in the current rejection.
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 PRAACHI M. PATHAK whose telephone number is (571)272-8005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday & Tuesday 8:30 am-5:30 pm ET.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/Praachi M Pathak/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
September 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights