DETAILED ACTION
Second Nonfinal
This second nonfinal office action is issued as a result of applicant’s arguments and to apply art not previously applied in the first nonfinal office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/15/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the handle opening". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 should read “a first panel” to properly introduce this element.
Claim 6 should read “a second panel” to properly introduce this element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3,822,822 to Arneson in view of US Patent 6,102,280 to Dowd.
Regarding claim 1, Arneson discloses an auto-end closure structure for a tubular carton, the structure comprising at least three overlapping end closure flaps (34, 36, 46, 48) including a pair of flaps (46, 48) which are hinged to respective ones of a pair of opposing panels (42, 44) of the tubular carrier and provide a multi-ply handle (Figs. 1-3 – panels overlap to form multi-ply handle at 76, 76’ (including the multi-ply area between 76, 76’)). Arneson fails to disclose the pair of flaps being the innermost flaps. However, Dowd discloses a carton with an automatic bottom in which the minor, smaller flaps (50) are scored and secured to the outside of the major flaps (52, 54; see Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Dowd’s automatic end design in Arneson (i.e. using Dowd’s end (Fig. 4) with Arneson’s holes for the bottle necks and multi-ply handle) because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent automatic carton end for another to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the pair of flaps (52, 54 - Dowd) are the innermost flaps.
Regarding claim 2, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the pair of innermost flaps being arranged to be disposed in, at least partial, overlapping relationship with each other and provide a multi-ply handle (Arneson Figs. 1-3, as modified by Dowd), at least one of the pair of innermost flaps comprising a handle opening (74 – Arneson) providing a first edge, the other one of the pair of innermost flaps comprising a second edge (72’ – Arneson) reinforcing the first edge.
Regarding claim 3, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein at least one of the pair of innermost flaps comprises a handle flap (76’ – Arneson).
Regarding claim 4, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the handle flap is internally of the carton in use and is received in the handle opening (Arneson Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 5, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the at least three overlapping end closure flaps comprises a first outer end closure flap (50 – Dowd Fig. 4) hinged to first panel (30 – Arneson) adjacent to each of the pair of opposing panels and comprising a first securing flap (64 – Dowd Fig. 4) hingedly connected to the first outer end closure flap and secured to one of the pair of innermost flaps (Dowd Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the at least three overlapping end closure flaps comprises a second outer end closure flap (50 – Dowd) hinged to second panel (32 – Arneson) opposing the first panel and comprising a second securing flap (64 – Dowd Fig. 4) hingedly connected to the second outer end closure flap and secured to the other one of the pair of innermost flaps (Dowd Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein a first one of the pair of innermost flaps is disposed outside a second one of the pair of innermost flaps (Dowd Fig. 4 – 52 is outside of 54).
Regarding claim 8, the combination from claim 1 discloses an article carrier for packaging one or more articles, the article carrier comprising a tubular structure (formed by 30, 32, 42, 44 – Arneson) and an automatically erectable end closure structure for closing an end of the tubular structure, wherein the end closure structure comprises at least three overlapping end closure flaps (50 (right/left), 52, 54 – Dowd Fig. 4) including a pair of innermost flaps (52, 54 – Dowd Fig. 4) which are hinged to respective ones of a pair of opposing panels (42, 44 – Arneson) of the article carrier, the pair of innermost flaps being arranged to be disposed in, at least partial, overlapping relationship with each other (Dowd Fig. 4), and wherein the pair of innermost flaps provide a multi-ply handle (Arneson Figs. 1-3, as modified by Dowd), at least one of the pair of innermost flaps comprises a handle opening (74 – Arneson) providing a first edge, the other one of the pair of innermost flaps comprising second edge (72’ – Arneson) reinforcing the first edge.
Regarding claim 9, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the first edge defining a first handle portion, and the second edge defining a second handle portion disposed in face-to-face relationship with the first handle portion to provide reinforcement (Dowd Fig. 4 – 52 and 54 (including the edges from Arneson) are face to face).
Regarding claim 10, the combination from claim 1 discloses an end closure structure for a tubular carrier comprising inner and outer overlapping end flaps (52, 54 – Dowd Fig. 4) hinged to respective ones of a first pair of opposing panels (42, 44 – Arneson) of the tubular structure, the tubular carrier comprising a pair of first and second outermost end flaps (50 (right/left) – Dowd Fig. 4) hinged to respective ones of a second pair of opposing panels (30, 32 – Arneson) of the tubular structure, wherein the first outermost end flap has a first hinged securing flap portion (64 – Dowd Fig. 4) secured to the outside surface of the inner flap, the second outermost end flap has a second hinged securing flap portion (64 – Dowd Fig. 4) secured to the outside surface of the outer end flap, and wherein at least one of the inner and outer end flaps has a multi-ply handle (Arneson Figs. 1-3, at 76, 76’, as modified by Dowd) disposed between the outermost end flaps such that it is exposed to view from the outside of the carrier (Arneson Fig. 1/Dowd Fig. 4 – multi-ply handle includes the middle of the top portion between the finger holes, which is between the end flaps and is in view as claimed).
Regarding claim 11, the combination from claim 1 discloses a blank for forming a carton, the blank comprising a plurality of panels (30, 32, 42, 44 – Arneson) for forming a tubular structure and an automatically erectable end closure structure for closing an end of the tubular structure, wherein the end closure structure comprises at least three overlapping end closure flaps (50 (right/left), 52, 54 – Dowd Fig. 4) including a pair of innermost flaps (52, 54 - Dowd) which are hinged to respective ones of a pair of opposing panels (42, 44 – Arneson) of the carton, the pair of innermost flaps being arranged to be disposed in, at least partial, overlapping relationship with each other in a set-up condition (Dowd Fig. 4), and wherein the pair of innermost flaps provide a multi-ply handle (Arneson Figs. 1-3 – at 76, 76’), at least one of the pair of innermost flaps comprises a handle opening (74 – Arneson) providing a first edge, the other one of the pair of innermost flaps comprising second edge (72’ – Arneson) reinforcing the first edge.
Regarding claim 12, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the first edge defining a first handle portion, the second edge defining a second handle portion disposed in face-to-face relationship with first handle portion to provide reinforcement (Dowd Fig. 4 – 52 and 54 (including the edges from Arneson) are face to face).
Regarding claim 13, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the pair of innermost flaps are disposed substantially closest to an interior space of the tubular carton among the end closure flaps (Dowd Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the innermost flaps have a maximum length that is greater than maximum length of other end closure flaps (Dowd Fig. 3 – 52 and 54 have a longer dimension along fold lines 60 than flaps 50).
Regarding claim 15, the combination from claim 1 discloses an interior surface of the innermost flaps is free of adhesive (adhesive is applied to the outside of the innermost flaps – Dowd Fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that Arneson fails to disclose a pair of innermost flaps that provide a multi-ply handle (page 5), this is persuasive as to the previous nonfinal office action. However, see the new rejection above based on Arneson and Dowd, in which the flaps (46, 48 – Arneson) are the innermost flaps (via the Dowd modification) and they overlap to provide a multi-ply handle (Arneson Figs. 1-3, at 76, 76’).
As to applicant’s argument against the ‘550 patent (page 6), this reference is not used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T MCNURLEN whose telephone number is (313)446-4898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights