DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 15 May 2026.
Claims 1-7, 10-14, and 17-37 are currently pending and being examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 35 recites “The system claim 34”, should read “The system of claim 34”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10, 17, 37, and their dependents 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.
Claim 10, line 25 recites “the method comprises”, which makes the claim unclear because claim 10 is drawn to a system, not a method. It is further unclear if this is functional language or the structural configuration of the system. Examiner will interpret as “the system comprises”.
Claim 17, line 21 “the method comprises”, which makes the claim unclear because claim 10 is drawn to a blank processing assembly, not a method. It is further unclear if this is functional language or the structural configuration of the blank processing assembly. Examiner will interpret as “the blank processing assembly comprises”.
Claim 37, line 1 recites “The system claim 36”, which is unclear because claim 36 is directed to a blank processing assembly, not a system. Examiner will interpret as “The blank processing assembly of claim 36”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-7, 10-14, and 17-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curry (US 4,018,027) in view of L’Heureux (US 2018/0362234), further in view of Best (US 3,742,677).
Curry teaches:
Claim 1: A method for processing at least one blank (54-fig.8) for forming a carrier (4-fig.2) for a plurality of containers (2-fig.1), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
270
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
obtaining at least one blank comprising a central panel (10-fig.2) having plurality of container openings (see fig.3 showing 20 in the container openings) and plurality of container retention tabs (24-fig.5) extending into respective container openings of the plurality of container openings (4:34-59);
loading the at least one blank into a blank infeed assembly (at least A, 56-annot. fig.8);
moving the at least one blank from the blank infeed assembly to a blank processing assembly (at least 46,44,50,42-fig.8), the blank processing assembly comprising a forming belt (42-fig.8) having a plurality of openings (see figs.9-10 showing belt 42 showing openings) extending at least partially therethrough (5:30-48); and
moving the at least one blank to a product engagement portion of the blank processing assembly (5:28-6:5); and
engaging the at least one blank with a group of containers (5:63-6:22), the engaging of the at least one blank comprises aligning the plurality of openings of the forming belt with a respective container opening of the plurality of container openings of the at least one blank (5:28-6:22), pressing the at least one blank onto top portions of the group of containers (5:28-6:22), and receiving the top portions of the group of container through a respective opening of the plurality of openings of the forming belt (5:28-6:22).
Curry does not expressly teach each container retention tab of the plurality of container retention tabs is defined by respective lines of weakening in the central panel.
L’Heureux teaches each container retention tab (4910-fig.49) of the plurality of container retention tabs is defined by respective lines of weakening in the central panel (¶[0227]-[0228]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the method of Curry, by having weakening lines on the container retention tabs, as taught by L’Heureux, “in order to assist in the reduction of deflection force that may help reduce the amount of force necessary to apply the carriers in the application process or aid in removal of the packages contained.” (L’Heureux ¶[0227]).
Curry as modified by L’Heureux does not expressly teach the at least one blank is a first blank attached to a second blank, the blank processing assembly comprises a nick breaking assembly, and the method comprises moving the first blank and the second blank along the nick breaking assembly and separating the first blank form the second blank prior to engagement of the first blank and the second blank with a respective group of containers, the nick breaking assembly comprises a nick support supporting at least one cutting member and the method comprises positioning the at least one cutting member to separate the first blank from the second blank prior to engagement of the first blank and the second blank with a respective group of containers.
However, Best teaches at least one blank (15-fig.2) is a first blank (15-fig.2) attached to a second blank (15-fig.2; 1:65-2:15), the blank processing assembly comprises a nick breaking assembly (20,21-fig.1), and the method comprises moving the first blank and the second blank along the nick breaking assembly and separating the first blank form the second blank prior to engagement of the first blank and the second blank with a respective group of containers (1:65-2:15),
the nick breaking assembly comprises a nick support (20-fig.1) supporting at least one cutting member (21-fig.1) and the method comprises positioning the at least one cutting member to separate the first blank from the second blank prior to engagement of the first blank and the second blank with a respective group of containers (1:65-2:15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the method of Curry and L’Heureux, by having the individual container carriers be cut from the continuous web before being applied to the containers, as taught by Best, to prevent damage of the plastic carriers by not requiring fingers to stretch and possibly damage the carriers when they are applied to the containers. This also simplifies and makes the machine smaller by having the cutter be before the carriers are applied. (Best 1:8-29)
Curry as modified by L’Heureux and Best further teaches:
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, further comprising aligning a plurality of openings of the forming belt (Curry: 42-fig.8) with respective container openings of the at least one blank (Curry: 5:30-48).
Claim 7: The method of claim 5, further comprising rotating the at least one roller of the plurality of rollers to rotate the forming belt to align a plurality of openings of the forming belt with respective container openings of the at least one blank (Curry: at least 5:63-6:5).
Curry teaches:
Claims 10 and 17: A system for processing at least one blank (54-fig.8) for forming a carrier (4-fig.2) for a plurality of containers (2-fig.1), the at least one blank comprising a central panel (10-fig.2) having a plurality of container openings (see fig.3 showing 20 in the container openings) and a plurality of container retention tabs (24-fig.5) extending into respective container openings of the plurality of container openings (4:34-59), the system comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
319
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an upstream end (A-annot. fig.8), a downstream end (B-annot. fig.8), and a machine direction (MD-annot. fig.8) extending from the upstream end to the downstream end;
a blank infeed assembly (at least A, 56-annot. fig.8) for moving the at least one blank in the machine direction (5:28-44); and
a blank processing assembly (at least 46,44,50,42-fig.8), the blank processing assembly comprising a forming belt (42-fig.8) arranged in a closed path (see fig.8) and having a plurality of openings (see figs.9-10 showing belt 42 showing openings) extending at least partially therethrough for being aligned with a respective container opening of the plurality of containers openings of the at least one blank (5:30-48),
the blank processing assembly comprising a product engagement portion for being positioned above a group of containers for engaging the at least one blank with a group of containers (5:63-6:22), the engaging of the at least one blank comprises aligning the plurality of openings of the forming belt with a respective container opening of the plurality of container openings of the at least one blank (5:28-6:22), pressing the at least one blank onto top portions of the group of containers (5:28-6:22), and receiving the top portions of the group of container through a respective opening of the plurality of openings of the forming belt (5:28-6:22).
Curry does not expressly teach each container retention tab of the plurality of container retention tabs is defined by respective lines of weakening in the central panel.
L’Heureux teaches each container retention tab (4910-fig.49) of the plurality of container retention tabs is defined by respective lines of weakening in the central panel (¶[0227]-[0228]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the method of Curry, by having weakening lines on the container retention tabs, as taught by L’Heureux, “in order to assist in the reduction of deflection force that may help reduce the amount of force necessary to apply the carriers in the application process or aid in removal of the packages contained.” (L’Heureux ¶[0227])
Curry as modified by L’Heureux does not expressly teach the at least one blank is a first blank attached to a second blank, the blank processing assembly comprises a nick breaking assembly, and the system comprises moving the first blank and the second blank along the nick breaking assembly and separating the first blank form the second blank prior to engagement of the first blank and the second blank with a respective group of containers, the nick breaking assembly comprises a nick support supporting at least one cutting member and the method comprises positioning the at least one cutting member to separate the first blank from the second blank prior to engagement of the first blank and the second blank with a respective group of containers.
However, Best teaches at least one blank (15-fig.2) is a first blank (15-fig.2) attached to a second blank (15-fig.2; 1:65-2:15), the blank processing assembly comprises a nick breaking assembly (20,21-fig.1), and the system comprises moving the first blank and the second blank along the nick breaking assembly and separating the first blank form the second blank prior to engagement of the first blank and the second blank with a respective group of containers (1:65-2:15),
the nick breaking assembly comprises a nick support (20-fig.1) supporting at least one cutting member (21-fig.1) and the method comprises positioning the at least one cutting member to separate the first blank from the second blank prior to engagement of the first blank and the second blank with a respective group of containers (1:65-2:15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the method of Curry and L’Heureux, by having the individual container carriers be cut from the continuous web before being applied to the containers, as taught by Best, to prevent damage of the plastic carriers by not requiring fingers to stretch and possibly damage the carriers when they are applied to the containers. This also simplifies and makes the machine smaller by having the cutter be before the carriers are applied. (Best 1:8-29)
Curry as modified by L’Heureux and Best further teaches:
Claims 3, 11 and 18: The system of claims 2, 10 and 17, wherein the forming belt (Curry: 42-fig.8) comprises a body arranged about a closed path, the forming belt defining the plurality of openings extending fully through the body (Curry: see figs.8-10 showing a plurality of openings extending fully through the body, clearly shown in fig.9).
PNG
media_image3.png
326
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 4, 12 and 19: The system of claim 2, 10, and 18, wherein the blank processing assembly is supported above a linear product path (Curry: C-annot. fig.8), the forming belt has a lower portion (Curry: D-annot. fig.8) facing the linear product path, and the lower portion of the forming belt is obliquely arranged relative to the linear product path (Curry: 5:45-62).
Claims 5, 13 and 20: The system of claims 2, 12, and 19, wherein the forming belt extends around a plurality of rollers (Curry: 44,70,50,46-fig.8) for facilitating rotation of the forming belt, at least one roller (Curry: 70-fig.8) of the plurality of rollers at least partially defines a recess for at least partially receiving a respective container of the plurality of containers (Curry: 5:63-6:5).
Claims 6, 14 and 21: The system of claim 5, 13, and 20, wherein the at least one roller (Curry: 70-fig.8) comprises at least one outer portion and at least one inner portion, the recess at least partially defined between the at least one outer portion and the at least one inner portion of the at least one roller (Curry: see fig.10 showing an outer portion of the wheel facing outwards and on the other side of the wheel would be an inner portion and the recesses are between the inner and outer portions).
Claim 22: The method of claim 1, wherein the engaging the at least one blank with a group of containers comprises folding the plurality of container retention tabs relative to the central panel and engaging the plurality of container retention tabs with a respective container of the group of containers (L’Heureux: ¶[0227]-[0228];figs. 51-53).
Claims 23, 26, and 29: The system of claim 1, 10, and 17, wherein the product engagement portion of the blank processing assembly comprises a backpressure assembly (Curry: 70-fig.10; Best: 36-fig.1) positioned downstream of the nick breaking assembly (Best: 20,21-fig.1) for facilitating the engaging the at least one blank with the group of containers (Curry: 5:63-6:14; Best: 1:65-2:15).
Claims 24, 27, and 30: The system of claim 23, 26, and 29, wherein the backpressure assembly includes a backpressure guide (projections of 70-fig.10; Curry: 5:63-6:14), and the backpressure guide is for contacting the forming belt during the engagement of the at least one blank with the group of containers (Curry: 5:63-6:14).
Claims 25, 28, and 31: The system of claim 27, 27, and 30, wherein the backpressure guide is positioned for pressing against the central panel of the at least one blank during the engagement of the at least one blank with the group of containers (Curry: 5:63-6:14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-33 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.
Claims 34-37 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Claims 32, 34, and 36: The subject matter of the method, system, and blank processing assembly would be allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Claims 32, 34, and 36 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claims 1, 10, 17, 32, 34, and 36, are what makes the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of the claims is neither taught or suggested by the prior art: “the nick support is located below the forming belt and between a bedplate of the blank processing assembly located below the forming belt and a ramp of the blank processing assembly located below the forming belt and adjacent a downstream end of the blank infeed assembly.” The prior art is silent in regard to this configuration and would require improper hindsight and substantial redesign of the prior art of record, that would not result in a realistic case of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, 17, and their dependents have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATIE L GERTH whose telephone number is (303)297-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-4pm (CT).
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571)272-4524. 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.
/KATIE L GERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights