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
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment, filed on 09/03/2025, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 14 and 15-22 are pending for examination.
Claims 5, 11 and 23-33 are canceled.
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 12-14 are currently amended.
Darwing Objection withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-18 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zacherle et al. (WO 2019/245949 A1; hereinafter referred to as Zacherle).
Regarding claim 15, Zacherle discloses an apparatus (90) for packaging one or more articles in an article carrier (Fig. 5), the apparatus (90) comprises an article engagement tool (100) for engaging an article (B) and conveying the article (B) in a downstream direction (via rotational movement; Fig. 5 se explanation below), the article engagement tool (100) comprises a reference device (122, 124) for aligning a plurality of connected blanks (10a-10d) with two or more groups of articles (B).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the apparatus (90) comprises an applicator (30 and/or 80) for separating the plurality of connected blanks (10a-10d) into discrete blanks (10a) and pressing each a blank onto the two or more groups of articles (B), the applicator (30 and/or 80) comprises a plurality of article receiving orifices (R) each for receiving a respective article (B) and a disconnecting device (35) for breaking frangible connections (42) between adjacently disposed blanks (10a-10d).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the applicator (30 and/or 80) comprises at least one stabilisation peg (P1) receivable in an opening of a stabilisation device (Fig. 3) provided in a main panel of each blank (10a-d), the at least one stabilisation peg (P1) being configured to constrain movement of said blank (10a-d) with respect to the applicator (Pg 20 lines 7-22; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the at least one stabilisation peg (P1) prevents or inhibits movement of the blanks (10a-d) with respect to the group of articles (B) in a direction parallel with the direction of flow of the blanks (10a-d) through the apparatus and in a lateral direction perpendicular with respect to the direction of flow of the blanks through the apparatus (Figs. 3 and 5-7).
Regarding claim 21, wherein the reference device (122, 124) comprises an abutment pin (P3) extending upwardly from the article engagement tool (100) beyond the upper extremity of the one or more articles (B; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 22, wherein the article engagement tool (100) comprises a removable head (sidewalls 116, 112) to which the reference device (122, 124) is mounted (Fig. 1)
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.
Claims 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zacherle (WO 2019/245949 A1) in view of Moore (US 20040003573 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Zacherle discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 16, including the applicator (30 and/or 80) is mounted to an overhead unit (96, 98, 97, 92), such that the applicator (30 and/or 80) applies the blanks (10a-d) to the groups of articles (B) as it is conveyed downstream by the plurality of article engagement tools (100).
However, Zacherle as modified does not disclose wherein the applicator is mounted to an overhead conveyor, in the form of a wheel.
Moore teaches that it is old and well known to have an applicator (43) is mounted to an overhead conveyor (40), in the form of a wheel (Figs. 1 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the machine of Zacherle as modified by incorporating the applicator is mounted to an overhead conveyor, in the form of a wheel as taught by Moore in order to allow for various adjustments to the machine ([0062]).
Regarding claim 20, Zacherle fails to disclose an overhead conveyor for conveying the plurality of connected blanks onto the one or more articles.
Moore teaches that it is old and well known to have an overhead conveyor (70) for conveying the plurality of connected blanks (15) onto the one or more articles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the machine of Zacherle as modified by incorporating an overhead conveyor, as taught by Moore in order to convey the blanks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-14 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 USC 103:
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8 of the Remarks, filed on 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 15 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(a) Applicant argues that Zacherle does not disclose conveying the articles in a downstream direction because the metering component (100) is stationary during application and the applicator plate (30) moves the blanks rather than the articles. This argument is not persuasive.
Zacherle discloses an apparatus (80) forming part of a packaging line in which articles (B) are received into and transported by the metering component (100) to an applicator station (see description of loading and sequential operation of bases and applicator; Fig. 5). The metering component (100) includes chambers (V1–V4) defined by internal walls (122A, 122B, 124A, 124B) that engage and maintain the articles (B) in grouped positions while the metering component is moved within the apparatus. Conveyance of the articles occurs by transport of the metering component carrying the articles to the applicator location.
The claim does not require that the articles move relative to the engagement tool during application, nor that conveying occur at the applicator plate. Movement of a support carrying the articles constitutes conveying of the articles under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, Zacherle discloses an article-engagement tool that engages the articles and conveys the articles in a downstream direction. Alternatively, even if the metering component were considered stationary during application, the articles are conveyed downstream into and out of the metering component within the apparatus and conveyance in a downstream also occurs through sequential use of multiple bases (100), enabling one base to be loaded while another undergoes application, implying transport of the engaged articles to downstream stations for efficient packaging flow. Under BRI, this encompasses conveyance of the tol carrying the article, without requiring relative motion during application, which satisfies the conveying limitation. Therefore, Zacherle continues to anticipate claim 15.
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 NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731