DETAILED ACTION
The Office acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s response of 23 November 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 16-18 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zacherle et al. (WO 2019/245949 A1) hereinafter referred to as Zacherle.
Regarding claim 1, Zacherle discloses an applicator device (30, 80; fig. 5; pg. 17 lines 15-17) for application of a blank (1; 10; 10a-d) to a group of articles (B; G1-G4) to form a carrier (90; fig. 11) of the top engaging type (fig. 11), the applicator device comprises a plate (30) having at least one receiver (R; 32, 38; fig. 8) for receiving a portion of an article (pg. 17 lines 24-34; pg. 19 lines 28-33), wherein the at least one receiver comprises an orifice (R) defined in the plate, a bore having an internal wall (32, 38; fig. 8), and at least one lug (34, 36), the lug projects radially inward from the internal wall (fig. 8; pg. 18 lines 8-11, “truncated circle” – surfaces 34, 36 project inward of the circular surface 32 and is therefore deemed to read on the claim language).
Regarding claim 17, Zacherle discloses wherein the lugs (34, 36) are integral with the internal wall forming the bore of the receiver (fig. 8; pg. 18 lines 8-14).
Regarding claim 18, Zacherle discloses wherein the lugs (34, 36) are integral with the plate in which the receivers are provided (fig. 8; pg. 18 lines 8-14).
Regarding claim 21, Zacherle discloses wherein the at least one lug is separate from the internal wall (see 35 USC 112a/b rejections above. Surfaces 34, 36 project inward of the circular surface 32 and is therefore deemed to read on the claim language).
Regarding claim 22, Zacherle discloses wherein the at least one lug comprises a pair of lugs (34, 36) that define a void therebetween (There is a space between 34 and 36 and thus they read on the claim as broadly interpreted).
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 Zacherle (WO 2019/245949 A1) in view of Kooc et al. (US 2019/0233145 A1) hereinafter referred to as Kooc.
Regarding claim 4, Zacherle fails to disclose an alignment guide extending from a lower surface of the plate for aligning the blank with respect the applicator device.
However, 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 Zacherle 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, Zacherle 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.
Claims 2-3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zacherele fails to disclose the “lug projects radially inward from the internal wall”. Applicant states that the cited lugs (34, 36) are flat surfaces and therefore “cannot project inward from the wall, let along radially inward”.
The Office notes that, per the Applicant’s own Specification (pg. 13 lines 2-4, pg. 16 lines 3-4, and pg. 17 lines 10-20), the lugs (P) are an integral component of the wall (W). Given that the lug is part of the wall and that a part of something can’t project inward of itself, the Office must interpret as best understood. This language was interpreted to mean that, in light of the Applicant’s disclosure, a lug projecting radially inward from the internal wall means that the regular structural pattern of the internal wall is temporality changed at the site of the lug and moves closer to the radial center of the orifice.
In this same way, Zacherele’s cited lugs (34, 36) are an integral part of the interior wall (32) that moves closer to the radial center when compared to the other circular parts (32) of the interior wall. As such, Zacherele’s cited lug (34, 36) is deemed to “projects radially inward from the internal wall” in that they are closer to the radial center of the orifice than the rest of the interior wall (32).
Claim 21 is deemed to introduce new matter as detailed above (35 USC 112a) and is being rejected in view of Zacherele as best understood (35 USC 112b and 35 USC 102a1).
Claim 22 is deemed to recite language that is broad and still read on by Zacherele in that it is merely claiming a space between two lugs which is present in the prior art.
The remainder of the Applicant’s arguments rely on those made towards claim 1 and the Office points to those responses for claim 1.
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 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