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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed 10/24/2025. Claims 1-15 and 17 are currently pending. Claims 1, 8, and 14 have been amended. Claim 16 has been previously canceled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a device for aligning” in claim 8, “a device for strapping” in claim 8, and “a device for fixing” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrigan (US 2006/0053754 A1) in view of Vantilt (US 7311199 B2) and Moriyama (JP H1159632 A).
Regarding claim 1, Carrigan discloses a method for producing a multi-pack having a plurality of products, wherein the method comprises the following method steps: aligning a plurality of products (10 – Fig. 5) end-to-end in a single row (see Fig. 5, 20 is on the front face, hence the products are arranged end-to-end in a single row) provided for a respective multi-pack (30 – Fig. 5) so that a strip-shaped packaging material or blank (32 – Fig. 5) can subsequently be applied to the aligned products (paras. 0046-0049); strapping the aligned products with the strip-shaped packaging material or blank (para. 0064) so that a top and bottom of the aligned product is covered by the strip-shaped packaging material or blank (see Fig. 5, 32 covers the top and the bottom of 30), while a forward facing end of the products are each entirely exposed (the right edges of 10 as seen in Fig. 5 are interpreted to be forward facing); and fixing the opposing end regions of the strip-shaped packaging material or blank (para. 0065), wherein the strip-shaped packaging material or blank comprises a biocompatible and biodegradable material (paper, cardboard, para. 0032).
However, Carrigan does not expressly disclose that at least 80% of the top and bottom is covered by the strip-shaped packaging material or blank.
Vantilt teaches a method for producing a multi-pack having a plurality of products, the method comprising the following steps: aligning a plurality of products (1 – Fig. 2 and col. 4, lines 1-3) and strapping the aligned products with a strip-shaped packaging material or blank (7– Fig. 3) so that at least 80% of a top (the upper portion of 1 as seen in Fig. 3) and bottom (the lower portion of 1 as seen in Fig. 3) of the aligned product is covered by the strip-shaped packaging material (see Fig. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Vantilt, would have recognized that providing a strip-shaped packaging material or blank that covers more than 80% of the top or bottom provides more stability to a pack than less than 80%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the strip-shaped packaging material or blank of Carrigan to cover at least 80% of the top and bottom of the aligned products as taught by Vantilt in order to provide more stability to a pack, thereby lowering the probability of an individual product becoming misaligned.
However, Carrigan, as modified by Vantilt, does not disclose that the plurality of products is a plurality of beverage containers.
Moriyama teaches beverage containers (11 – Fig. 3), wherein the beverage containers include outflow openings (at 18 – Fig. 4). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Moriyama, would have recognized that the products of Carrigan are analogous to the beverage containers of Moriyama, since both are used for holding objects and have a front, back, left, right, top, and bottom side with the overall shape substantially rectangular. Since they have substantially the same shape, one of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized that the beverage containers of Moriyama may be formed into a multi-pack in the same manner as taught by Carrigan and Vantilt.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the products of Carrigan such that they are beverage containers as taught by Moriyama since it is obvious to substitute one analogous item for another. Further note that when the beverage containers of Moriyama are packed according to the method of Carrigan and Vantilt, the strip-shaped packaging material or blank would cover the outflow openings since the strip-shaped packaging material or blank covers the top of a container and the outflow openings are located on a top of a container. Similarly, the strip-shaped packaging material would cover the opposing ends of the end-to-end row of beverage containers since Carrigan teaches covering opposing ends of the end-to-end row of products. Note that the right surface of 11 as seen in Fig. 3 of Moriyama is analogous to the right edges of 10 as seen in Fig. 5 of Carrigan. Hence, in the combination of Carrigan, Vantilt, and Moriyama, the right surface of 11 would be interpreted as a forward facing surface and would be entirely exposed.
Carrigan, as modified by Vantilt and Moriyama, further discloses (citations are to Carrigan unless otherwise noted):
Claim 2, the strip-shaped packaging material or blank (32 – Fig. 5) consists of a material that is biocompatible, biodegradable, and consists substantially of fibers of plant origin (paper, cardboard, para. 0032).
Claim 3, the strip-shaped packaging material or blank consists of a paper-containing material (paper, cardboard, para. 0032).
Claim 4, the aligned beverage containers (10 – Fig. 5 as modified to be 11 – Fig. 3 of Moriyama) are strapped with the strip-shaped packaging material or blank (32 – Fig. 5) in such a way that the top and bottom of the aligned beverage containers are covered with only a single strip-shaped packaging material or blank (see Fig. 5).
Claim 5, the beverage containers (10 – Fig. 5 as modified to be 11 – Fig. 3 of Moriyama) are aligned in a single row (see Fig. 5), and wherein the aligned beverage containers are strapped with the strip-shaped packaging material or blank (32 – Fig. 5) in such a way that the opposing end faces of the beverage container group formed by the aligned products are at least regionally covered with the strip-shaped packaging material or blank (see Fig. 5).
Claim 8, an apparatus (Fig. 20) for producing a multi-pack (30 – Fig. 5) having a plurality of products (10 – Fig. 5), wherein the apparatus comprises the following: a device (48 – Fig. 7) for aligning a plurality of products end-to-end in a single row (see Fig. 5, 20 is on the front face, hance the products are arranged end-to-end in a single row) provided for a respective multi-pack, wherein the device is configured to in order to align the products in such a way that a strip-shaped packaging material or blank (32 – Fig. 5) can be subsequently applied to the aligned products (paras. 0046-0049); a device (the portion of 76 – Fig. 23 that performs strapping, para. 0065) for strapping the aligned products with the strip-shaped packaging material or blank (para. 0065) so that a top and bottom of the aligned product is covered by only a single strip-shaped packaging material or blank (see Fig. 5, 32 covers the top and the bottom of 30), while a forward facing end of the products are each entirely exposed (the right edges of 10 as seen in Fig. 5 are interpreted to be forward facing); and a device (the portion of 76 – Fig. 23 that performs fixing, para. 0065) for fixing opposing end regions of the strip-shaped packaging material or blank (para. 0065).
However, Carrigan does not expressly disclose that at least 80% of the top and bottom is covered by the strip-shaped packaging material or blank.
Vantilt teaches a method for producing a multi-pack having a plurality of products, the method comprising the following steps: aligning a plurality of products (1 – Fig. 2 and col. 4, lines 1-3) and strapping the aligned products with a strip-shaped packaging material or blank (7 – Fig. 3) so that at least 80% of a top (the upper portion of 1 as seen in Fig. 3) and bottom (the lower portion of 1 as seen in Fig. 3) of the aligned product is covered by the strip-shaped packaging material (see Fig. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Vantilt, would have recognized that providing a strip-shaped packaging material or blank that covers more than 80% of the top or bottom provides more stability to a pack than less than 80%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the strip-shaped packaging material or blank of Carrigan to cover at least 80% of the top and bottom of the aligned product as taught by Vantilt in order to provide more stability to a pack, thereby lowering the probability of an individual product becoming misaligned.
However, Carrigan, as modified by Vantilt, does not disclose that the plurality of products is a plurality of beverage containers.
Moriyama teaches beverage containers (11 – Fig. 3), wherein the beverage containers include outflow openings (at 18 – Fig. 4). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Moriyama, would have recognized that the products of Carrigan are analogous to the beverage containers of Moriyama, since both are used for holding objects and have a front, back, left, right, top, and bottom side with the overall shape substantially rectangular. Since they have substantially the same shape, one of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized that the beverage containers of Moriyama may be formed into a multi-pack in the same manner as taught by Carrigan and Vantilt.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the products of Carrigan such that they are beverage containers as taught by Moriyama since it is obvious to substitute one analogous item for another. Further note, the strip-shaped packaging material would cover the opposing ends of the end-to-end row of beverage containers since Carrigan teaches covering opposing ends of the end-to-end row of products. Note that the right surface of 11 as seen in Fig. 3 of Moriyama is analogous to the right edges 10 as seen in in Fig. 5 of Carrigan. Hence, in the combination of Carrigan, Vantilt, and Moriyama, the right surface of 11 would be interpreted as a forward facing surface and would be entirely exposed.
Claims 9-10 recite similar limitation to claims 2-3 are rejected in the same manner.
Claim 11, the device for strapping the aligned beverage containers with the strip-shaped packaging material or blank is configured to strap the aligned beverage containers to the strip-shaped packaging material or blank in such a way that the top and bottom of the aligned beverage containers are at least 90% covered with the single strip-shaped packaging material or blank (see Fig. 3, Vantilt).
Regarding claim 14, Carrigan discloses a multi-pack (30 – Fig. 5) having a plurality of products (10 – Fig. 5), wherein the products are end-to end in a single row (see Fig. 5, 20 is on the front face, hence the products are arranged end-to-end in a single row) and are strapped with a strip-shaped packaging material or blank (32 – Fig. 5) in such a way that the strip-shaped packaging blank at least regionally covers the top and bottom of the aligned products (see Fig. 5), while a forward facing end of the products are each entirely exposed (the right edges of 10 as seen in Fig. 5 are interpreted to be forward facing).
However, Carrigan does not discloses that at least 80% of the top and bottom is covered by the strip-shaped packaging material or blank.
Vantilt teaches a method for producing a multi-pack having a plurality of products, the method comprising the following steps: aligning a plurality of products (1 – Fig. 2 and col. 4, lines 1-3) and strapping the aligned products with a strip-shaped packaging material or blank (7 – Fig. 3) so that at least 80% of a top (the upper portion of 1 as seen in Fig. 3) and a bottom (the lower portion of 1 as seen in Fig. 3) of the aligned products is covered by the strip-shaped packaging material (see Fig. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Vantilt, would have recognized that providing a strip-shaped packaging material or blank that covers more than 80% of the top or bottom provides more stability to a pack than less than 80%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the strip-shaped packaging material or blank of Carrigan to cover at least 80% of the top and bottom of the aligned products as taught by Vantilt in order to provide more stability to a pack, thereby lowering the probability of an individual product becoming misaligned.
However, Carrigan, as modified by Vantilt, does not disclose that the products are beverage containers.
Moriyama teaches beverage containers (11 – Fig. 3), wherein the beverage containers each include an outflow opening (at 18 – Fig. 4). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Moriyama, would have recognized that the products of Carrigan are analogous to the beverage containers of Moriyama, since both are used for holding objects and have a front, back, left, right, top, and bottom side with the overall shape substantially rectangular. Since they have substantially the same shape, one of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized that the beverage containers of Moriyama may be formed into a multi-pack in the same manner as taught by Carrigan and Vantilt.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the products of Carrigan such that they are beverage containers as taught by Moriyama since it is obvious to substitute one analogous item for another. Further note that when the beverage containers of Moriyama are packed according to the method of Carrigan and Vantilt, the strip-shaped packaging material or blank would cover the outflow openings since the strip-shaped packaging material or blank covers the top of a container and the outflow openings are located on a top of a container. Similarly, the strip-shaped packaging material would cover the opposing ends of the end-to-end row of beverage containers since Carrigan teaches covering opposing ends of the end-to-end row of products. Note that the right surface of 11 as seen in Fig. 3 of Moriyama is analogous to the right edges of 10 as seen in Fig. 5 of Carrigan. Hence, in the combination of Carrigan, Vantilt, and Moriyama, the right surface of 11 would be interpreted as a forward facing surface and would be entirely exposed.
Regarding claim 15, the multi-pack is capable of being formed by the recited method as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 as noted above in the rejection of claim 14. Also note that this is a product-by-process claim. Even if Carrigan and Vantilt didn’t expressly disclose the recited method steps, since the multi-pack is capable of being formed by the recited method, Carrigan, as modified by Vantilt and Moriyama, would still meet the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected based on the same reasoning set forth in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrigan (US 2006/0053754 A1) in view of Vantilt (US 7311199 B2), Moriyama(JP H1159632 A), and Lingle (US 2021/0122507 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Carrigan, as modified by Vantilt and Moriyama, discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claims 1 and 8 respectively with Carrigan further disclosing that the device for fixing the opposing end regions is configured to join the opposing end regions of the strip-shaped packaging material or blank together with glue or any other joining process (para. 0065).
However, Carrigan does not expressly disclose that the glue is a hot glue.
Lingle teaches fixing a strip-shaped packaging material or blank (14a – Fig. 1) around a multi-pack of products (12 – Fig. 1) using hot glue (para. 0029, lines 18-22) in order to increase the speed of assembly (para. 0029, lines 20-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the fixing of Carrigan such that it used hot glue as taught by Lingle in order to increase the speed of assembly.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrigan (US 2006/0053754 A1) in view of Vantilt (US 7311199 B2), Moriyama (JP H1159632 A), Lingle (US 2021/0122507 A1) and Kreckel (US 5747131).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Carrigan discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claims 1 and 8 respectively with Carrigan further disclosing that the device for fixing the opposing end regions is configured to join the opposing end regions of the strip-shaped packaging material or blank together with glue or any other joining process (para. 0065).
However, Carrigan does not expressly disclose that the glue is a hot glue.
Lingle teaches fixing a strip-shaped packaging blank (14a – Fig. 1) around a multi-pack of products (12 – Fig. 1) using hot glue (para. 0029, lines 18-22) in order to increase the speed of assembly (para. 0029, lines 20-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the fixing of Carrigan such that it used hot glue as taught by Lingle in order to increase the speed of assembly.
However, Carrigan, as modified by Lingle does not expressly teach that the opposing end regions are fixed to a product of the group of beverage containers formed by the aligned beverage containers.
Kreckel teaches fixing opposing end regions of a strip-shaped packaging blank to a product of a product group formed by aligned products (col. 2, lines 37-48). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Kreckel, would have recognized that fixing the opposing end regions to a product as taught by Kreckel is an alternative to the fixing of the strip-shaped material as taught by Carrigan since both fix a strip-shaped blank around a group of aligned products.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Carrigan such that the opposing end regions of the strip-shaped packaging blank are fixed to a product of the group of beverage containers formed by the aligned beverage containers as suggested by Kreckel since the fixing of Kreckel is a known alternative to the fixing of Carrigan.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 14, applicant argues that the combination of Carrigan, Vantilt, and Moriyama does not teach “a forward facing surface of the beverage containers are each entirely exposed” because the band of Carrigan runs over the front face of the envelopes and there is no teaching in either Vantilt or Moriyama to suggest arranging any of the envelopes, rolls, or containers end-to-end such that a forward facing surface is entirely exposed.
In response it is pointed out that in the current rejections of claims 1, 8, and 14, the right edge of the envelopes of Carrigan and the corresponding right surface of the containers of Moriyama are interpreted to be “forward facing.” As is clear from Fig. 5 of Carrigan, the right edges are entirely exposed and hence, when Carrigan is modified by Moriyama, the right surfaces of the beverage containers of Moriyama would be entirely exposed. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
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 THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
12/2/2025