DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Action is in response to the Response to Restriction Requirement filed 08/20/2025.
The status of the Claims is as follows:
Claims 10-13, 17, and 22 have been cancelled;
Claims 1 has been amended;
Claims 1-9, 14-16, 18-21 and 23-25 are pending and have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-9, 14-16, 18-21) in the reply filed on 08/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 23-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/31/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the Application on 07/31/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 include:
Article translation device: conveyor (not shown)
Opposed side members: folding walls of exterior tool (118, 120)
Carrier preforming device: interior tool , exterior tool (10, 110)
Interior tool /Internal mold: carrier mandrel/forming tool (10)
External applicator/ Exterior tool: carrier folding tool (110)
Carrier retention device: barb or detent (CL1, CL2)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 1-3, 5, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Joyce (EP 0031992).
Regarding Claim 1 Joyce discloses an apparatus for packaging articles in an article carrier, the apparatus comprising
an article translation device (Fig. 17) for moving a group of articles in a downstream direction through an application section, and
a carrier-preforming device (Fig. 1) for folding a carrier blank (Fig. 8) into a preformed top-engaging carrier (Fig. 10) and conveying the top-engaging carrier (Fig. 10) in a downstream direction to the application section where the top engaging carrier (Fig. 10) is applied to the group of articles. (par 18, 21, 35 Espacenet translation)
Regarding Claim 2 Joyce teaches the invention as described above. Joyce further discloses the carrier-preforming device (Fig. 1) comprises an internal mold (2) and an external applicator (11) to effect folding of the carrier blank (Fig. 8) about the internal mold (2).
Regarding Claim 3 Joyce teaches the invention as described above. Joyce further discloses the external applicator (11) comprises at least one carrier retention device (6) for retaining the preformed top-engaging carrier (Fig. 10) whilst conveying the top-engaging carrier (Fig. 10) in a downstream direction to the application section.
PNG
media_image1.png
676
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5 Joyce teaches the invention as described above. Joyce further discloses the external applicator (11) comprises an opening (annotated Fig. 1) at least one end thereof to accommodate an end portion of the internal mold (2).
Regarding Claim 9 Joyce teaches the invention as described above. Joyce further discloses the external applicator (11) comprises at least one aperture (opening; annotated Fig. 1) for receiving a portion of an article during application of the top engaging carrier to the group of articles. (Fig. 4)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-8, 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 4 the Prior Art does not teach the internal mold comprises a groove for receiving at least a portion of the at least one carrier retention device to allow the external applicator to slide with respect to the internal mold.
Regarding Claim 6 the Prior Art does not teach the external applicator comprises a pair of opposed side walls each comprising a recess in an end edge thereof, the recesses being aligned to receive a static panel folding guide.
Regarding Claim 8 the Prior Art does not teach the external applicator comprises a pair of opposed side walls each comprising a chamfered lower edge for engaging with a panel of the article carrier to effect folding thereof.
Regarding Claim 14 the Prior Art does not teach the interior tool comprises a plurality of mandrel surfaces which include a pair of opposed side surfaces and at least one end surface for supporting at least two end closure flaps of a carrier in an overlapping arrangement with an end closure panel of the carrier, wherein the exterior tool is structured and dimensioned such that when the side members bring the side panels of the carrier into the folded positions, the at least one end surface of the interior tool is offset outwardly from adjacent ends of the side members of the exterior tool.
Claims 15, 16 and 18-21 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 15 The Prior Art does not teach folding opposed side panels of a carrier into downwardly folded positions along an exterior of the interior tool, at least one of the side members of the exterior tool comprising an engaging ledge for engaging the carrier, in which the ledge is disposed within the interior of the exterior tool, and a yielding position, in which the ledge is disposed outside the interior of the exterior tool, wherein the ledge is biased towards the engaging position when disposed in the yielding position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: Joyce does not teach any structure that corresponds to the claimed “carrier preforming device” or that is even capable of performing the claimed function of “folding a carrier blank into a preformed top-engaging carrier”
Examiner’s Response: Joyce teaches at par 18, 21, 35 (Espacenet translation) “support member 3…second members 2 exert pressure over the upper wall 21 and the folds 7a, 7b with folds 26 of the holder to apply the force from second member 2 (par 18) “the blank when folded into a holder must necessarily be straight with straight longitudinal lines of fold (par 35);
Applicant’s Argument: Support 3 does not participate in conveying the alleged top-engaging carrier.
Examiner’s Response: Figs. 4-7 of Joyce discloses the support member 3, conveys the holder onto the bottles 32.
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 CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)270-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 4 pm - 11:59 pm Monday - Friday.
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.
/CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights