Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/250,618

MATERIAL BLANK FOR A CONTAINER SUPPORT, BUNDLE OF MULTIPLE CONTAINERS, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A BUNDLE OF MULTIPLE CONTAINERS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 26, 2023
Examiner
PAL, PRINCE
Art Unit
3735
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Khs GmbH
OA Round
4 (Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
143 granted / 205 resolved
At TC average
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
244
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.0%
+1.0% vs TC avg
§102
35.6%
-4.4% vs TC avg
§112
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 205 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed 09/18/2025 (hereafter “the amendment”) has been accepted and entered. 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. Claim(s) 20-25,27 and 29-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster (US5103971A), Graser (US3612266A) and further in view of Sutherland (US5355999A). Regarding claim 20, Schuster a material blank for attachment to a container group formed of a plurality of containers, the material blank comprising (fig.1 shows blank 10 with a container group C): a connection section formed with a plurality of container receiving openings to be arranged at the containers of the container group, said connection section having a first edge, a second edge opposite said first edge, and an upper face (see annotated fig.2 below for the connection section with openings and first, second and the upper face); a first folding tab connected to said first edge of said connection section; and a second folding tab connected to said second edge of said connection section opposite said first edge (see annotated fig.2 below); said first folding tab and said second folding tab being configured for pivoting relative to said connection section into a bundle position, in which said first and second folding tabs overlap one another, at least in part, and cover said upper face of said connection section (see annotated fig.2 for the two tabs and fig.1 shows the two tabs capable of overlap) wherein said first folding tab comprises two locking elements (see annotated fig.2 of Schuster below for the two locking elements 24). Schuster does not teach wherein the two locking elements are T-shaped and each of said T-shaped locking elements is in engagement with a respective carrying opening of said connection section in a positive fit thereby blocking a relative movement of the first folding tab in relation to the connection section; and wherein, in the bundle position, said two T-shaped locking elements are moveable out of the folding plane into the locking position, wherein the respective said carrying opening of said connection section has a substantially circular shape with two deviations to the circular shape, wherein the two deviations to the circular shape are in the form of mutually opposing opening extensions for allowing said locking elements to pass through when being moved out of the folding plane into the locking position. Graser does teach wherein the two locking elements are T-shaped and each of said T-shaped locking elements is in engagement with a respective carrying opening of said connection section in a positive fit thereby blocking a relative movement of the first folding tab in relation to the connection section; and wherein, in the bundle position, said two T-shaped locking elements are moveable out of the folding plane into the locking position, wherein the respective said carrying opening of said connection section has a substantially circular shape (fig.3-5 shows the tabs 22 that are T-shaped similar to applicant with one end have an bigger width then the other and the tabs 22 shown in fig.5 having positive fit and blocking relative movement of the folding tab in relation to the connection section as modified with Schuster and locking the two tabs as the widths are different and the opening is substantially circular). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the locking elements disclosed by Schuster by adding the teaching of locking elements being inserted into apertures as disclosed by Graser in order to add rigidity to the structure when it is being carried. “As will be readily apparent, the carrier tabs, 22--22 and 22'--22', can be rotated downwardly through apertures, 18--18, and secured below securing panel, 6, to afford added rigidity to the handle section when the carrier is erected and to prevent contact with the raw edges when the erected carrier is carried.” (Col.2 lines 62-67, Graser) Schuster as modified right above does not teach wherein carrying opening has two deviations to the circular shape, wherein the two deviations to the circular shape are in the form of mutually opposing opening extensions for allowing said locking elements to pass through when being moved out of the folding plane into the locking position. Sutherland does teach wherein carrying opening has two deviations to the circular shape, wherein the two deviations to the circular shape are in the form of mutually opposing opening extensions for allowing said locking elements to pass through when being moved out of the folding plane into the locking position (fig.3 shows the opening 25 with two deviations on the edges of the substantially circular shape that once modified as above will allow the locking elements to pass through when being moved out of the folding plane into locking position). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carrying opening disclosed by Schuster as modified above by adding the teaching of substantially circular shape opening having two deviations as disclosed by Sutherland in order to positively lock the T shaped locking elements with the deviation as they have narrow width on the edges creating a better grip/hook with the T-shaped locking elements. Annotated fig.2 of Schuster PNG media_image1.png 826 936 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 21, the references as applied to claim 20 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Schuster as modified in claim 20 further teaches wherein said connection section has a rectangular shape with a first longitudinal edge and a second longitudinal edge opposite said first longitudinal edge, and wherein said first folding tab is connected to said first longitudinal edge and said second folding tab is connected to said second longitudinal edge (see annotated fig.2 above where the first and second longitudinal edges are labeled 1st and 2nd edges). Regarding claim 22, the references as applied to claim 20 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Schuster as modified in claim 20 further teaches wherein said first folding tab is formed so that, in the bundle position, a free edge of said first folding tab, opposite said first edge, is arranged in a region of said second edge of said connection section (see annotated fig.2 above). Regarding claim 23, the references as applied to claim 20 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Schuster as modified in claim 20 further teaches wherein said second folding tab is configured, in the bundle position, to only partially cover said upper face of said connection section (see annotated fig.2 above where the second tab is capable of only partially cover the upper face of the connections section). Regarding claim 24, the references as applied to claim 23 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Schuster as modified in claim 23 further teaches wherein, in the bundle position, a free edge of said second folding tab, opposite said second edge, is arranged in a region between a mid-line of said connection section which runs parallel to and equidistant from said first and second edges of said connection section, and said second edge of said second folding tab (see annotated fig.2 and 1 above for the bundled position which are similarly to that of the applicants drawings). Regarding claim 25, the references as applied to claim 20 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Schuster as modified in claim 20 further teaches wherein: said connection section is formed with two mutually opposite free edges, each of which delimit said first and second edges of said connection section, and with two carrying openings (see annotated fig.2 above); each of said carrying openings being arranged equidistant from said first and second edges of said connection section (see annotated fig.2 above); and one of said carrying openings is formed at a distance interval from one of said two free edges of said connection section that is equal to a distance interval of the other said carrying opening to the other said free edge of said connection section (see annotated fig.2 above the openings are formed at a distance similarly to applicant’s fig.1). Regarding claim 27, the references as applied to claim 20 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Schuster as modified in claim 20 further teaches wherein said locking elements are formed from partially separable sections of said first folding tab (see annotated fig.2 above). Regarding claim 29, the references as applied to claim 25 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Schuster as modified in claim 25 further teaches wherein said container receiving openings comprise retaining tabs that project inwards (see annotated fig.2 above). Regarding claim 30, the references as applied to claim 20 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Schuster as modified in claim 20 further teaches wherein said connection section and said first and second tabs are formed from a paper-based material (fig.2 above the blank is made from paperboard). Regarding claim 31, the references as applied to claim 20 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Schuster as modified in claim 20 further teaches wherein the material blank is a one-piece material blank (fig.2 above shows the blank in one piece). Regarding claim 32, the references as applied to claim 20 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Schuster as modified in claim 20 further teaches wherein said second folding tab is configured without locking elements and without carrying openings (see annotated fig.2 above for the second tab without openings and locking tabs). Regarding claim 33, Schuster a container bundle, comprising (fig.1 shows the bundle): a plurality of containers and a container carrier (fig.1 shows the containers C with the carrier 10); said container carrier being formed of the material blank according to claim 20 (Schuster as modified in claim 20 further teaches that the container is formed form a blank material see annotated fig.2 above); said container receiving openings of said material blank being arranged coaxially with said containers and each of said container receiving openings engaging behind a projecting edge of a respective said container in a positive fit (see annotated fig.2 above and fig.3 shows the container edge being fit into the opening); and said first and second folding tabs of said material blank being in the bundle position (see annotated fig.2 above and fig.1). Regarding claim 34, the references as applied to claim 33 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Schuster as modified in claim 33 further teaches wherein said containers are arranged in at least two container rows, and said carrying openings are formed in said connection section of said material blank at a position centrally between the container rows (fig.1 shows the orientation of the containers C in the claimed manner). Regarding claim 35, the references as applied to claim 33 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Schuster as modified in claim 33 further teaches wherein said first and second folding tabs are adhesively bonded to one another in an overlapping region, in which said folding tabs overlap one another (fig.2 above the first tab and the 2nd tab are glue tab that be adhered together to overlap). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant similpy stated that new limitation are not taught by prior art. Newly modified art teaches applicant “deviations”. Applicant fails to describe the deviations and how they are arranged and leave it up to interpretation on what they are. Deviation is interpreted as “an act or instance of diverging from an established way or in a new direction”. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (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. /PRINCE PAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3735 /STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 26, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 10, 2025
Response Filed
May 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 02, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 18, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595100
CLOSURE DEVICE WITH SUPPORT RING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583656
CONTAINER SYSTEM AND METHOD OF ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577021
SEALING MEMBER FOR PACKAGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570446
AEROSOL CAPS AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570434
Carton With Locking Features
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+17.7%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 205 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month