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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of the Species I and Applicant indicates that the Species I encompasses all pending claims 1, 2, 6-21 and 23-35 (due to the amendment to the claims) is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that “all pending claims are generic to the alleged species” is noted, but not persuasive because the species forms from the combination of claims 1 and 2, or claims 1 and 6 is not the same as the species forms from the combination of claims 1 and 7-8, and also is not the same as the species forms from the combination of claims 1 and 9. Also, the instant patent applicant has support for the combination of claims 1 and 7-8? Which comprises an article carrier as claimed comprising at least one engaging panel, a pair of side panels as claimed, a plurality of end panels as claimed, with the pair of side panels hingedly connected to each other along a fold line to form a ridge, the carrier also comprising at least a pair of top-receiving devices struck in part from each of the pair of side panels so as to be disposed along the ridge, and the end panel as claimed. Applicant further argues that “the Office Action fails to complete as of the items (1) and (2) …” is noted, this is not persuasive because the Office Action is clearly listed the different groups of claims (as originally filed) as per item (1) and as per item (2), MPEP 1893.03(d) further states “A group of inventions is considered linked to form a single general inventive concept where there is a technical relationship among the inventions that involves at least one common or corresponding special technical feature.” and the Office Action is also indicated the technical relationship that is common in each independent claim (as originally filed) among species such as an article carrier or a blank for forming an article carrier comprising at least one engaging panel as claimed are not the special technical features since these features do not avoid the prior art of The United States Patent No. 5,390,784 to Sutherland because Sutherland discloses an article carrier for packaging at least one article or a blank for forming an article carrier (40) comprising at least one engaging panel (26). Applicant indicates “and the Office Action’s determination solely based on the figures is improper” is noticed but not correct because the claims are listed in the Requirement for Unity of Invention, not the Figures. Applicant further argues that Sutherland fails to disclose or suggest “a corner panel hingedly connected to each of the pair of opposed side edges; a securing panel hingedly … as recited in independent carrier claims 1 and 20 and their corresponding independent blank claims 10 and 15 respectively” is also not persuasive because these features are not the common special technical features among all the independent claims since the independent claims 3, 6, 7, 9 and 22-25 (as originally filed) have not such features. The Office Action is also listed that examination of each species will necessitate disparate searches which would clearly pose a burden as clearly shown by the Examiner in the Requirement. Therefore, claims 7-9 and 24-25 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention since these claims are not encompassed by the species I.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 and 21 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. In claim 2, the phrase “the at least one of pair of side panels” lacks proper antecedent basis. It should be replaced with --at least one of the pair of side panels--. In claim 21, the phrase “at least one of pair of side panels” is a double recitation of claim 15 and should be replaced with --at least one of the pair of side panels--.
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, 10-11, 14-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Graser (4,304,329; hereinafter Graser'329).
As to claim 1, Graser'329 discloses an article carrier (Fig. 2) for packaging at least one article, the article carrier comprising at least one engaging panel (12), a pair of side panels (22, 26) hinged (24) to opposed edges of the at least one engaging panel, a plurality of end panels (30, 34) hinged (32) to a first end of the at least one engaging panel, the plurality of end panels including a first end panel (30) having a pair of opposed side edges (along a fold line 44), a corner panel (48, 50) hingedly connected (42; 44) to each of the pair of opposed side edges, a securing panel (52) hingedly connected (56) to each corner panel, and a flap (58) hingedly connected (60) to an upper edge of each securing panel, the flap having a free upper edge having a rounded, arcuate or curvilinear shape (Fig. 1).
As to claim 10, Graser'329 discloses a blank (10; Fig. 1) for forming the article carrier as above.
As to claims 15 and 20, Graser'329 discloses a blank (10; Fig. 1) for forming the article carrier as above.
As to claims 11 and 16, Graser'329 further discloses the flap extends between the securing panel to which it is hinged (60) and a side edge of one of the pair of side panels.
As to claims 14 and 19, Graser'329 further discloses the free upper edge forms an inner edge facing towards a portion of the first end panel and is separated therefrom by an aperture (the aperture defines between panels (22, 26, 58, 52, 50; 30, 34, 50, 52, 58)).
Claim(s) 1, 10-11, 14-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sutherland (5,390,784).
As to claim 1, Sutherland discloses an article carrier (10, 12; Fig. 1) for packaging at least one article (B), the article carrier comprising at least one engaging panel (26), a pair of side panels (58, a panel defines between fold lines 64, 68; Fig. 3) hinged (34) to opposed edges of the at least one engaging panel, a plurality of end panels (16, 42; 16, 44) hinged (22) to a first end of the at least one engaging panel, the plurality of end panels including a first end panel (16) having a pair of opposed side edges (along a fold line 34), a corner panel (32) hingedly connected (34) to each of the pair of opposed side edges, a securing panel (a panel disposed between two fold lines 22, 24) hingedly connected (38) to each corner panel, and a flap (62) hingedly connected (24) to an upper edge of each securing panel, the flap having a free upper edge having a rounded, arcuate or curvilinear shape (Fig. 2).
As to claim 10, Sutherland discloses a blank (40; Fig. 2) for forming the article carrier as above.
As to claims 15 and 20, Sutherland discloses a blank (40; Fig. 2) for forming the article carrier as above.
As to claims 11 and 16, Sutherland further discloses the flap (62) extends between the securing panel to which it is hinged (24) and a side edge of one of the pair of side panels.
As to claims 14 and 19, Sutherland further discloses the free upper edge forms an inner edge facing towards a portion of the first end panel and is separated therefrom by an aperture (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1, 10-11, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Merzeau (2018/0297744).
As to claim 1, Merzeau discloses an article carrier (90; Fig. 2) for packaging at least one article (B), the article carrier comprising at least one engaging panel (16), a pair of side panels (30a, 60; 30b, 60) hinged (31a; 31b) to opposed edges of the at least one engaging panel, a plurality of end panels (14a, 14b; 18a, 18b) hinged (17; 19) to a first end of the at least one engaging panel, the plurality of end panels including a first end panel (14b) having a pair of opposed side edges (along a fold line 29a, 29b), a corner panel (40a, 42a; 40b, 42b) hingedly connected (27a, 29a; 27b, 29b) to each of the pair of opposed side edges, a securing panel (26a; 26b) hingedly connected (41a; 41b) to each corner panel, and a flap (28a; 28b) hingedly connected (44a; 44b) to an upper edge of each securing panel, the flap having a free upper edge having a rounded, arcuate or curvilinear shape (Fig. 1).
As to claim 10, Merzeau discloses a blank (10; Fig. 1) for forming the article carrier as above.
As to claims 15 and 20, Merzeau discloses a blank (10; Fig. 1) for forming the article carrier as above.
As to claims 11 and 16, Merzeau further discloses the flap extends between the securing panel to which it is hinged and a side edge of one of the pair of side panels (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.
Claim(s) 6, 12-13, 17-18 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graser'329 or Sutherland or Merzeau in view of Graser (4,378,878; hereinafter Graser'878).
As to claims 6 and 23, Graser'329 or Sutherland or Merzeau discloses the article carrier and the blank as above and further discloses at least a pair of top-receiving devices struck from the at least one engaging panel and other limitations of the claims except for the at least one engaging panel comprises a pair of engaging panels hingedly connected to each other along a fold line to form a ridge, and the at least a pair of top-receiving devices struck in part from each of the pair of engaging panels so as to be disposed along the ridge as claimed. Graser'878 teaches an article carrier (10; 12; Figs. 1 & 4) for packaging at least one article (14), the article carrier comprising a pair of engaging panels (46, 48) hingedly connected to each other along a fold line (50) to form a ridge (Fig. 1), and at least a pair of top-receiving devices (16) struck in part from each of the pair of engaging panels so as to be disposed along the ridge. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Graser'878 to modify the article carrier and the blank of Graser'329 or Sutherland or Merzeau so the article carrier and the blank is constructed with the at least one engaging panel comprises a pair of engaging panels hingedly connected to each other along a fold line to form a ridge, and the at least a pair of top-receiving devices struck in part from each of the pair of engaging panels so as to be disposed along the ridge as claimed because the selection of the specific type of the article carrier and the blank for forming the article carrier for carrying various numbers of articles such as six articles as taught by Graser'329 or eight articles as taught by Sutherland or two articles or six articles as taught by Graser'878 would have been an obvious matter of design choice based upon conventional design considerations, such as for better protecting the articles.
As to claims 12-13 and 17-18, it appears that each of Graser'329 and Merzeau discloses the flap is separated from the side edge of the one of the pair of side panels by a cutline line and Sutherland discloses the flap is separated from the side edge of the one of the pair of side panels by a score line (68). To the extent that the carrier or the blank of Graser'329 or Sutherland or Merzeau fails to disclose the flap is separated from the side edge of the one of the pair of side panels by a cutline line or a severable line as claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article carrier or the blank of Graser'329 or Sutherland or Merzeau so the article carrier or the blank is constructed with the flap is separated from the side edge of the one of the pair of side panels by a cutline line or a severable line to facilitate forming the article carrier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 21 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN K BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4552. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F, 7-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531 or orlando.aviles-bosques@uspto.gov. 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.
/LUAN K BUI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736