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 .
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)(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 1-6, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by de Larosiere (4,518,081).
PNG
media_image1.png
249
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Larosiere discloses an article carrier (10a) of the top-engaging type for packaging articles (as shown in Figure 3 and 4), the article carrier comprising a main panel having a plurality of article retention structures (openings 12 with flange 13) each comprising a receiving aperture defined through the main panel, the receiving apertures being arranged in rows and columns to form a rectangular array (Figure 1 above) such that the receiving apertures include four corner apertures (as shown in Figure above 1 above, the carrier have six apertures for holding containers and four of the apertures are at each corner of the carrier), the main panel defining a first notional footprint (as shown above the outer periphery of the carrier being the first notional footprint), the arrangement of the receiving apertures defining a second notional footprint (the outer periphery of all six opening adjacent to the edges of the carrier being the second notional footprint) , wherein the first notional footprint defines a first footprint center, the second notional footprint defines a second footprint center, and wherein the first footprint center is offset from the second footprint center (as shown in above Figure 1, the second footprint have at the upper portion are closer to the periphery of the carrier as the lower portion of the second footprint are farther to the periphery of the carrier compare to the upper portion. Therefore, a center point of the first footprint are offset from a center point of the second footprint).
As to claims 2-3, Larosiere further disclose the first footprint center is laterally offset from the second footprint center, or the first footprint center is offset from the second footprint center in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the main panel (as shown in Figure 1 above distance d3 is less than distance d4, which the second footprint is laterally offset from the first footprint), and the first footprint center is longitudinally offset from the second footprint center, or the first footprint center is offset from the second footprint center in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the main panel (by rotating the Figure 1 90 degrees, distance d1 is less than d2, which the first footprint center is offset from the second footprint center longitudinally).
As to claim 4, Larosiere further discloses the first footprint center is offset from the second footprint center in two orthogonal directions (as discussed in above 2-3, the offset is both longitudinally and laterally, which are in two orthogonal directions).
PNG
media_image2.png
249
397
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claims 5-6, Larosiere discloses an article carrier (10a) for packaging articles (Figure 4), the article carrier comprising a main panel (10a) having a plurality of article retention structures (openings 12 with flange 13) each comprising a receiving aperture defined through the main panel, the receiving apertures being arranged in rows and columns to form a rectangular array (Figure 1 above) such that the receiving apertures include four corner apertures (as shown in Figure above 1 above, the carrier have six apertures for holding containers and four of the apertures are at each corner of the carrier), the main panel comprising four peripheral edges comprising a first edge as and a second edge opposing the first edge (as shown in above Figure 1, right edge being the first edge, left edge being the second edge), and a third edge and a fourth edge opposing the third edge (as shown in above Figure 1, bottom edge being the third edge, top edge being the fourth edge), wherein a first one of the four corner apertures is located at a portion of the main panel defined by an intersection of the first edge and the third edge (as shown in Figure 1 above, bottom right aperture), a second one of the four corner apertures is located at a portion of the main panel defined by an intersection of the second edge and the fourth edge (as shown in Figure 1 above, top left aperture), and wherein a first distance (d1) defined between the first edge and a center of the first one of the four corner apertures is substantially different from a second distance (d2) defined between the second edge and a center of the second one of the four corner apertures and the second distance is less than the first distance (as shown in Figure 1 above, the distance d2 is less than distance d1).
As to claim 15, Larosiere further discloses a third distance defined between the third edge (bottom edge) and the center of the first one (bottom right aperture) of the four corner apertures is substantially different from a fourth distance defined between the fourth edge (top edge) and the center of the second one (top left aperture) of the four corner apertures (as shown in Figure 1 above, the distance d3 are different than distance d4).
PNG
media_image3.png
437
711
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 17, Larosiere discloses a set of article carriers comprising at least two article carriers (10a, 10b) arranged next to each other and detachably connected together by a severance line (tear strip 15) to form a connected carrier group (Figure 1), each article carrier of the set comprising a main panel (10a, 10b) having a plurality of article retention structures (openings 12 with flange 13) each comprising an aperture (opening 12) defined through the main panel, wherein the apertures of the connected carrier group are arranged in one or more rows (Figure 1), the connected carrier group comprises peripheral edges comprising a first edge and a second edge opposing the first edge (Figure 1 above), and at least a portion of each of the first edge and the second edge is disposed parallel to the severance line (15), wherein the apertures of the connected carrier group comprise a first aperture (top left aperture as annotated above) disposed at an end of the one or more rows and adjacent to the first edge, the apertures of the connected carrier group further comprising a second aperture and a third aperture that are disposed next to each other on opposite sides of the severance line (as shown in above annotation) such that the severance line (15) extends between the second aperture and the third aperture, wherein a first distance defined between the first edge and a center of the first aperture is less than one half of a second distance defined between a center of the second aperture and a center of the third aperture (as shown in Figure 1 above, the distance between the first edge and the circumference of the first aperture are smaller than the distance between the second edge and the circumference of the second aperture, Figure 1 also shows that the distance between the edge the tear tape 15 and the circumference of the third aperture are almost identical. Therefore, the a first distance defined between the first edge and a center of the first aperture is less than one half of a second distance defined between a center of the second aperture and a center of the third aperture.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-12, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Larosiere (4,518,081).
As to claims 7-12, Larosiere does not disclose distances between the centers of each aperture and the centers of orthogonally adjacent apertures are equal, wherein a dimension of the main panel along a longitudinal axis x is represented by the formula 𝑀𝑀 × 𝐷𝐷1 − 𝑎𝑎2, and wherein a dimension of the main panel along a transverse axis y is represented by the formula 𝑁𝑁 × 𝐷𝐷1 − 𝑎𝑎1, wherein the transverse axis is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, "𝐷𝐷1" is the distance between the centers of orthogonally adjacent apertures, "𝑀𝑀" is a first integer number equal to the number of said rows of the array of apertures, "𝑁𝑁" is a second integer number equal to the number of said columns of the array of apertures, "𝑎𝑎1" is a first numerical value greater than zero, and "𝑎𝑎2" is a second numerical value no less than zero, "𝑎𝑎2" is different from “𝑎𝑎1", “𝑎𝑎2" is greater than “𝑎𝑎1", “𝑎𝑎2" is twice “𝑎𝑎1", the main panel has a maximum width no greater than 𝑁𝑁 × 𝐷𝐷1, the main panel has a maximum length less than 𝑀𝑀 × 𝐷𝐷1, where "𝐷𝐷1" is a maximum diameter of each article that the plurality of article retention structures are configured to receive, “𝑀𝑀” is a first integer number equal to the number of said rows of the array of apertures, "𝑁𝑁" is a second integer number equal to the number of said columns of the array of apertures, the maximum width of the main panel is less than 𝑁𝑁 × 𝐷𝐷1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance and size of the carrier of Larosiere so the distances and dimension between the centers of each aperture and the centers of orthogonally adjacent apertures are equal, wherein a dimension of the main panel along a longitudinal axis x is represented by the formula 𝑀𝑀 × 𝐷𝐷1 − 𝑎𝑎2, and wherein a dimension of the main panel along a transverse axis y is represented by the formula 𝑁𝑁 × 𝐷𝐷1 − 𝑎𝑎1, wherein the transverse axis is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, "𝐷𝐷1" is the distance between the centers of orthogonally adjacent apertures, "𝑀𝑀" is a first integer number equal to the number of said rows of the array of apertures, "𝑁𝑁" is a second integer number equal to the number of said columns of the array of apertures, "𝑎𝑎1" is a first numerical value greater than zero, and "𝑎𝑎2" is a second numerical value no less than zero, "𝑎𝑎2" is different from “𝑎𝑎1", “𝑎𝑎2" is greater than “𝑎𝑎1", “𝑎𝑎2" is twice “𝑎𝑎1", the main panel has a maximum width no greater than 𝑁𝑁 × 𝐷𝐷1, the main panel has a maximum length less than 𝑀𝑀 × 𝐷𝐷1, where "𝐷𝐷1" is a maximum diameter of each article that the plurality of article retention structures are configured to receive, “𝑀𝑀” is a first integer number equal to the number of said rows of the array of apertures, "𝑁𝑁" is a second integer number equal to the number of said columns of the array of apertures, the maximum width of the main panel is less than 𝑁𝑁 × 𝐷𝐷1 because the selection of the specific distance and dimension such as disclosed by Larosiere or as claimed would have been an obvious matter of design choice inasmuch as the resultant structures will work equally well and inasmuch as applicant's specification does not state that using these specific distance as claimed solves any particular problem or yields any unexpected results.
As to claim 16, Larosiere does not disclose a third distance defined between the third edge and the center of the first one of the four corner apertures is substantially equal to a fourth distance defined between the fourth edge and the center of the second one of the four corner apertures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carrier of Larosiere so a third distance defined between the third edge and the center of the first one of the four corner apertures is substantially equal to a fourth distance defined between the fourth edge and the center of the second one of the four corner apertures because the selection of the specific distance such as the distance as disclosed by Larosiere or as claimed would have been an obvious matter of design choice inasmuch as the resultant structures will work equally well and inasmuch as applicant's specification does not state that using these specific distance as claimed solves any particular problem or yields any unexpected results.
As to claim 18, Larosiere further discloses the connected carrier group comprises a third edge and a fourth edge opposing the third edge, wherein the one or more rows comprises a second end row extending alongside the fourth edge and extending transversely with respect to the severance line (as shown in Figure 1 above), but does not disclose a third distance defined between the fourth edge and a center of each of the apertures in the second end row is less than one half of the second distance defined between the center of the second aperture and the center of the third aperture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carrier of Larosiere so a third distance defined between the fourth edge and a center of each of the apertures in the second end row is less than one half of the second distance defined between the center of the second aperture and the center of the third aperture because the selection of the specific distance such as the distance as disclosed by Larosiere or as claimed would have been an obvious matter of design choice inasmuch as the resultant structures will work equally well and inasmuch as applicant's specification does not state that using these specific distance as claimed solves any particular problem or yields any unexpected results.
Claims 13-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Larosiere (4,518,081) in view of Galbierz (6,293,392).
As to claims 13-14 and 19, Larosiere does not disclose the main panel further comprises one or more tabs formed about a periphery of each of the apertures in the main panel, the one or more tabs of each aperture being connected to the main panel such that the tabs yield out of the plane of the main panel upon receiving one of the articles in the aperture so as to bear against that article in an article-carrying configuration in which the main panel is applied to a group of the articles, the article carrier further comprises a reinforcing panel hingedly connected to the main panel and secured thereto in a face-contacting arrangement, wherein the reinforcing panel comprises a plurality of article receiving structures each having a receiving aperture defined through the reinforcing panel and disposed in registry with a respective one of the apertures of the main panel.
Galbierz discloses a beverage container carrier (7) comprises a main panel (3) comprises a plurality of article retention structures (13) each comprising a receiving aperture defined through the main panel, the receiving apertures being arranged in rows and columns to form a rectangular array (Figure 1) such that the receiving apertures include four corner apertures (as shown in Figure above 1, the carrier have four apertures for holding containers and each of the apertures are at each corner of the carrier), the main panel (3) further comprises one or more tabs (23) formed about a periphery of each of the apertures in the main panel (Figure 1), the one or more tabs of each aperture being connected to the main panel such that the tabs yield out of the plane of the main panel upon receiving one of the articles in the aperture so as to bear against that article in an article-carrying configuration in which the main panel is applied to a group of the articles (Figures 5b or 6b), the article carrier further comprises a reinforcing panel (5) hingedly (hinge 11) connected to the main panel and secured thereto in a face-contacting arrangement, wherein the reinforcing panel comprises a plurality of article receiving structures each having a receiving aperture (15) defined through the reinforcing panel and disposed in registry with a respective one of the apertures of the main panel (Figure 5A-6B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the molded plastic carrier of Larosiere with paper material with plurality of tab surrounding the aperture and additional reinforcement panel as taught by Galbierz in order to reduce manufacturing cost and more environmentally friendly to substitute the molded plastic with paper and plurality of tabs able to hold slightly different size of the container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument “nowhere in Larosiere discloses or suggest any footprints let alone discloses or suggest an offset between footprint center of the main panel and footprint center of the arrangement of the openings”.
Such argument is not found persuasive.
According applicant’s claim and specification, applicant recites “a first notional footprint”, “ second notional footprint”, which by definition “existing only in theory or as a suggestion or idea or imaginary”-Merriam- Webster dictionary definition. Which applicant does not properly claiming the “footprint” or “footprint center” in the claim.
Second, Larosiere Figure clearly suggest the limitation as claimed in claim 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
378
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As annotated above, examiner drawn the notional footprint between the perimeter of the article carrier and the notional footprint of the six openings of the article carrier. It is clear that the distance between of the right side of the second notional footprint of the perimeter of the article carrier and the right side of the first notional footprint of the openings of the article carrier are much greater distance in compare with the distance between of the left side of the second notional footprint of the perimeter of the article carrier and the left side of the first notional footprint of the openings of the article. Thus inherently making the first footprint center offset from the second footprint center.
In response to applicant’s argument “due to the uniform symmetrical arrangement of the openings and the carrier shape. The alleged second footprint would also need to centered within the overall carrier, similar to the first footprint, causing center of both the first and second footprint to coincide with one another”.
Such argument is not found persuasive. Examiner search the entire specification of the prior art Larosiere and cannot find such language as applicant argue that “uniform symmetrical arrangement of the openings and the carrier shape. The alleged second footprint would also need to centered within the overall carrier, similar to the first footprint, causing center of both the first and second footprint to coincide with one another”. The only place examiner found with the phrase “uniformly” are in column 4, line 4, line 51 and column 5, line 8. Which recites to 1) fingers holes that distribute uniformly with respect to the openings and 2) uniformly distribute flanged opening, which the flanged openings can be uniformly distribute and spacing from each other. As examiner annotated above, It is clear that the distance between of the right side of the second notional footprint of the perimeter of the article carrier and the right side of the first notional footprint of the openings of the article carrier are much greater distance in compare with the distance between of the left side of the second notional footprint of the perimeter of the article carrier and the left side of the first notional footprint of the openings of the article.
In response to applicant’s argument that “drawing not to scale”. Such argument is not found persuasive. Examiner rejected applicant’s claim due to the drawing as prior art. MPEP 2125 (I), which the as recited below:
“Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian”
Therefore, since the drawing as shown and as examiner provided in the non-final office action, the top two article carrier clearly shows that the distance between of the right side of the second notional footprint of the perimeter of the article carrier and the right side of the first notional footprint of the openings of the article carrier are much greater distance in compare with the distance between of the left side of the second notional footprint of the perimeter of the article carrier and the left side of the first notional footprint of the openings of the article.
MPEP 2125 (II), which the as recited below:
“the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977)”
Examiner does not need or use a ruler to specifically measure the distance between the right side of the right side of the second notional footprint of the perimeter of the article carrier and the right side of the first notional footprint of the openings of the article carrier and the distance between the left side of the second notional footprint of the perimeter of the article carrier and the left side of the first notional footprint of the openings of the article. It is clear by the naked eye that the distances between the two are clearly shown by the drawing. Thus the difference in distance would reasonably teach one ordinary skill in the art to understand that the first footprint center are offset from the second footprint center.
Similar argument to claim 5 and claim 17 are also found not persuasive due to the same argument above.
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 CHUN HOI CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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 E Aviles can be reached at (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 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.
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights