DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Pre-Appeal Brief of 15 June 2026 were persuasive and the previous prior art rejections of record were withdrawn.
The claims of record are those filed by the Applicant on 23 November 2025.
The claims filed by the Applicant on 14 May 2026 were not entered per the Advisory Action of 21 May 2026.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites, "wherein the at least one lug is separate from the internal wall." The lugs (P) of the original disclosure are not deemed to be "separate" from the internal wall (W).
Per the instant Specification, pg. 13 lines 2-4, "The wall W may comprise at least one lug P extending or projecting radially inward therefrom." This means that the lugs (P) are a component of the wall and not separate from it. This language is repeated in the Specification on pg. 16 lines 3-4.
On page 17 lines 10-20 the Specification further reads, "The applicator device 100; 300 may be formed as a unitary piece, the lugs or ribs P may be integral with the plate 112; 312 or at least with a portion of the plate 112 The component or insert defines or provides the orifice A3; A3, A5 and the internal wall W of the bore. The lugs or ribs P maybe integral with the component or insert". The original disclosure is deemed to set forward the lug as being a component of and integral to the internal wall and not a separate structure as claimed. Even if such integral structures would be argued to be merely one possible configuration, the original disclosure is at the very least deemed to be silent with regards to the lugs being "separate from the internal wall".
For the reasons set forth above, the cited subject matter of claim 21 is deemed to constitute new matter.
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.
Claim 21 is 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.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites, "wherein the at least one lug is separate from the internal wall." The lugs (P) of the original disclosure are not deemed to be "separate" from the internal wall (W) when viewed in light of the original disclosure per Specification pg. 13 lines 2-4, pg. 16 lines 3-4, and pg. 17 lines 10-20 (see 35 USC 112a rejection above for full details). Given that the limitations of the claim conflicts with the original disclosure the claim is deemed to be indefinite as what the metes and bounds the claim are cannot be fully ascertained when read in light of the Specification. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted such that the lugs are visually distinct from the structure of the internal wall.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poupitch (US Patent 2,929,181).
Regarding claim 1, Poupitch discloses an applicator device (figs. 1, 9 and 10) for application of a blank (28) to a group of articles (22) to form a carrier of the top engaging type (seen in fig. 3), the applicator device comprises a plate (32) having at least one receiver (88) for receiving (figs. 9-10) a portion of an article (22), wherein the at least one receiver comprises an orifice (any of openings in 88 including #94) defined in the plate, a bore (bore that accommodates bushings 100 and shafts 98 seen in figs. 9-10) having an internal wall (inner wall formed by the bushing 100), and at least one lug (102), the lug projects radially inward from the internal wall (As seen in figs. 9-10, #102 projects in the radially inward direction from at least the inner wall of 100).
Regarding claim 4, Poupitch discloses an alignment guide (#96, col. 5 lines 11-13) extending from a lower surface of the plate for aligning the blank with respect the applicator device (figs. 9-10).
Regarding claim 21, Poupitch discloses wherein the at least one lug (102) is separate from the internal wall (figs. 9-10).
Regarding claim 22, Poupitch discloses wherein the at least one lug (102) comprises a pair of lugs (fig. 9) that define a void therebetween (void between lugs 102 is where blank 28 is held).
Claim(s) 1-3, 17-18 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by L’Heureux et al. (US Patent 11,511,895 B1) hereinafter referred to as L’Heureux.
Regarding claim 1, L’Heureux discloses an applicator device (10; figs. 6-7) for application of a blank (40) to a group of articles (20) to form a carrier of the top engaging type (fig. 2A), the applicator device comprises a plate (90) having at least one receiver (receiver formed by skirt 100 seen in fig. 6) for receiving (col. 9 lines 41-67) a portion of an article (20), wherein the at least one receiver comprises an orifice (open bottom end of 100) defined in the plate, a bore (bore defined by skirt 100 extending from open bottom end to platen 60) having an internal wall (inner wall of 100 which 70, 71 are formed into), and at least one lug (70, 71; fig. 7), the lug projects radially inward from the internal wall (fig. 7; #70, 71 project radially inward from the corners).
Regarding claim 2, L’Heureux discloses wherein the at least one lug (70, 71) comprises a leading end (part closer to the center) and trailing end (part closer to the skirt 100), and wherein the at least one lug is tapered to be narrower at the leading end than the trailing end (figs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 3, L’Heureux discloses wherein the at least one lug (70, 71) comprises a rounded leading end (figs. 6-7; leading end is shown as having a curved profile and is therefore deemed to be rounded).
Regarding claim 17, L’Heureux discloses wherein the lugs (70, 71) are integral with the internal wall forming the bore of the receiver (figs. 6-7; col. 9 lines 51-56).
Regarding claim 18, L’Heureux discloses wherein the lugs are integral with the plate in which the receivers are provided (figs. 6-7; col. 9 lines 51-56).
Regarding claim 22, L’Heureux discloses wherein the at least one lug (70, 71) comprises a pair of lugs (fig. 7) that define a void therebetween (void between lugs is where blank is held).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poupitch (US Patent 2,929,181) in view of Kooc et al. (US 2019/0233145 A1) hereinafter referred to as Kooc.
Regarding claim 4, Poupitch is deemed to disclose an alignment guide (#96, col. 5 lines 11-13) extending from a lower surface of the plate for aligning the blank with respect the applicator device.
Wherein the Applicant may argue that this does not constitute such an alignment guide, Kooc teaches an alignment guide (28a-d, 30a-e, 32a-e) extending from a lower surface (14; fig. 2A-B) of the plate (10) for aligning (paragraphs 0084, 0089 - "the arrangement of pegs 28a-32e are located around the articles to ensure proper alignment between the applicator plate 10, clip 110 and group 88"; fig. 9) the blank (110) with respect the applicator device.
Given the teachings of Kooc (paragraph 0089), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Poupitch to incorporate the alignment guide of Kooc. Doing so would ensure proper alignment between the applicator plate, clip (i.e. the blank) and group of articles so that all elements were properly attached to one another.
Regarding claim 5, Poupitch as modified by Kooc above discloses wherein the alignment guide comprises a post (Kooc - 28a-d, 30a-e, 32a-e) extending from the plate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-15 and 20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 17-18 and 21-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights