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 Non-Final filed 01/22/2026.
The status of the Claims is as follows:
Claims 18-20 are new;
Claim 9 has been cancelled;
Claims 8, 10 and 16 have been amended;
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2024 and 11/19/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 10/23/2024. 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.
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamauchi (US 4641483; Yamauchi).
Regarding Claim 18 Yamauchi discloses a method for applying packaging (34) to an article combination (36) comprising at least two articles (36), the method comprising:
folding a packaging blank at one or more folding edges (Fig. 4)
thereafter applying the folding packaging blank (34) to an article combination (36) by a downward movement,
wherein the packaging blank (34) applied to the articles (36) is disposed, at least in part, between the articles (36) and at least partially surrounds outer lateral surfaces of the article combination (36). (Col 3 line 63-Col 4 line 30)
Regarding Claim 19 Yamauchi discloses the invention as described above. Yamauchi further discloses folding over at least two opposing edge regions (40) of a packaging blank (34) wherein the folding edges (Fig. 4) facilitate the folding of the regions. (Col 3 line 63-Col 4 line 30)
Regarding Claim 20 Yamauchi discloses the invention as described above. Yamauchi further discloses the folding over of the at least tow opposing edge regions comprises folding over to approximately 90 degrees. (Col 3 line 63-Col 4 line 30)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1 the Prior Art teaches a die for prepping blanks and applying blanks:
Kalden DE20314088
Frederick et al. (US 20220348368)
Wimmer et al. (DE 102022115413)
However the Prior Art does not teach a preparation die and an application die in the manner claimed in the instant application.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Regarding Claim 8 the Prior Art does not disclose simultaneously or approximately simultaneously applying at least two packaging blanks to articles to form at least two packaging units, feeding the articles directly adjacent to one another in the ordered mass flow, disposing the at least two folded packaging blanks next to one another in receptacles of at least one application die, wherein the application die comprises at least one vertically formed or vertically aligned separating device between the receptacles, wherein the a folded edge region of packaging blanks rests against the separating device, and wherein the separating device projects downward beyond the folded edge regions of the packaging blanks, lowering the application die , with the at least two folded packaging blanks over the articles being fed in the ordered mass flow, inserting the separating device between articles of the ordered mass flow and whereupon the at least two packaging blanks are applied to a defined number and composition of articles of the ordered mass flow for to simultaneously approximately simultaneously form at least two adjacent packaging units.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kalden (DE20314088)
Federick et al. (US 20220348368)
Wimmer et al. (DE 102022115413)
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 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