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 Species A in the reply filed on October 20, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the species are all directed to the same common patentable subject matter. This is not found persuasive because while it is agreed the previously cited prior art does not meet the claimed subject matter as previously averred, it appears there is a serious question whether the claims accurately describe the disclosed subject matter. While common subject matter is apparent, the species differ in other aspects. If the common subject matter is determined to be allowable, all claims to the common subject matter will be allowed.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification or by the drawings in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The independent claims 1, 5, 6 and 9 each recite “wherein the skirt structure has a pre-loading form before application to the group of articles and a post-loading form after loading with articles, in which the articles are received by the skirt structure, the skirt structure in the pre-loading form has a first pre-loading length L1 (sic) measured between distal ends of the opposing panels and wherein the skirt structure in the post-loading form has a first post-loading length (L2)(sic) measured between the distal ends of the opposing panels, the post-loading form differs from the pre-loading form such that the first post-loading length (L2) is greater than the first pre-loading length (L1)”. Sutherland (5,960,945) will be used as an example. Sutherland has opposing panels (22 and 22) and a skirt structure (two panels 22 and two panels 24) with a pre-loading form (Figure 2) before application to the group of articles and a post-loading form (Figure 1) after loading with articles (B), in which the articles are received by the skirt structure, the skirt structure in the pre-loading form has a first pre-loading length L1 (sic) measured between distal ends of the opposing panels (22 and 22) and wherein the skirt structure in the post-loading form (Figure 1) has a first post-loading length (L2)(sic) measured between the distal ends of the opposing panels (22 and 22), the post-loading form differs from the pre-loading form such that the first post-loading length (L2) is greater than the first pre-loading length (L1). In comparing Figures 1 and 2 of Sutherland and Figures 1 and 2 of the instant application, it appears the recitation “the post-loading form (Figure 1 of Sutherland and Figure 2 of the instant application) differs from the pre-loading form (Figure 2 of Sutherland and Figure 1 of the instant application) such that the first post-loading length (between the free ends of 22 and 22 and the free ends of 14 and 16) is greater than the first pre-loading length (between the free ends of 22 and 22 and the free ends of 14 and 16). The distances between the free ends of 22 and 22 of Sutherland and the free ends of 14 and 16 of the instant application appear to be greater in the pre-loading condition as opposed to the post-loading condition in contradiction of claims 1, 5, 6 and 9. Accordingly, claims 1, 5, 6 and 9 and their dependent claims are indefinite under 112(a).
As to claim 3, such relationship between diagonally opposing corner panels appears to be similarly in error.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sutherland (5,960,945). Sutherland discloses an article carrier (14) comprising a main panel (16) and a skirt structure (22-24-22-24) surrounding and extending from the main panel, the skirt structure comprising a plurality of panels (22-24-22-24) including at least a first pair of opposing panels (22 and 22), the plurality of panels connected together such that the skirt structure provides a continuous loop for surrounding a group of articles to bundle the articles of the group together, the first pair of opposing panels extend from the main panel to respective distal ends (free ends of 22 and 22) thereof such that the opposing panels diverge away from each other as they extend away from the main panel (see Figure 1), wherein the skirt structure has a pre-loading form (Figure 2) before application to the group of articles and a post-loading form (Figure 1) after loading with articles, in which the articles are received by the skirt structure, the skirt structure in the pre-loading form has a first pre-loading length (between the free ends of 22 in Figure 2) measured between distal ends of the opposing panels and wherein the skirt structure in the post-loading form has a first post-loading length (between the free ends of 22 in Figure 1) measured between the distal ends of the opposing panels, the post-loading form differs from the pre-loading form and the distances between the respective free ends of the opposing panels are similar in relation to that of the present application.
As to claim 2, the plurality of panels (22-24-22-24) includes a pair of opposing end panels (22 and 22) and a pair of opposing side panels (24 and 24), wherein the opposing panels of the first pair comprise the opposing end panels.
As to claims 3 and 8, the plurality of panels (22-24-22-24) includes a pair of opposing end panels (22 and 22), a pair of opposing side panels (unscored portions of 24 and 24) and at least one pair of diagonally opposing corner panels (two diagonally opposing of scored portions 44 of 24), wherein the opposing panels of the first pair comprise the opposing corner panels.
As to claim 4, disclosed is a second pair of opposing panels (24, 24) of a similar relationship in separation lengths as the applicant’s disclosed structure.
As to claims 6 and 7, the end panels (22) are each divided into upper and lower portions by a respective fold line (38), and the side panels (24) are each divided into upper and lower portions by a respective fold line (32).
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the additional references listed on the attached PTO-892, which, while not relied upon for the claim rejection, these references are deemed relevant to the claimed invention as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON P GEHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4555. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday through Thursday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Orlando Aviles, can be reached on (571) 270-5531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYON P GEHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Bryon P. Gehman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
BPG