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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I – claims 1-26 in the reply filed on March 24, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 27-52 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information should be eliminated. If a long list is submitted, those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance should be highlighted. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), affd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). See MPEP §2004
Applicant's duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores real world conditions under which, applicant has a duty not just to disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1889, at 1899 (D.Del 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D. F1. 1972).
The examiner is not afforded the time to thoroughly review each reference, given the number of references cited. By initialing each of the cited references on the accompanying 1449 form(s), the examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review was made of the cited references.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because
reference characters 125, 141, 157 and 169 have been used to designate “container retention tab(s)” (see [0031-0077])
reference characters 189, 197 and 201 have been used to designate “deflection tab(s)” (see [0049-0077])
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: as noted in the drawing objections above. 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 11-12 and 24-25 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claims 11 and 24, ln. 2, the phrase in each claim, “…the first cut…” lacks antecedent basis and render the claims to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT established “a first cut” per se in claim 10 NOR claim 23 (which claims 11 and 24 respectively depend from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
As for claims 12 and 25, due to their dependencies from claims 11 and 24 (respectively), they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 13-17 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zacherle et al. (US 20200010255 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Zacherle).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Zacherle discloses a carrier (90) or blank (10) embodiment (as shown in Figs. 1-3b) for holding a plurality of containers (B), the carrier or blank comprising:
a central panel (12) comprising a plurality of container retention openings (A1-A4; for at least partially receiving a respective container of the plurality of containers);
a plurality of container retention tabs (16, 18 and 20) positioned extending into respective container retention openings of the plurality of container retention openings, the plurality of container retention tabs positioned for engaging a respective container of the plurality of containers, at least one container retention tab of the plurality of container retention tabs foldably connected to the central panel at a fold line (31); and
at least one deflection tab (28) positioned extending away from the at least one container retention tab of the plurality of container retention tabs, the fold line intersecting a respective at least one deflection tab (Zacherle [0065-0107]).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Zacherle further discloses wherein the at least one deflection tab is at least partially separable from the central panel at a curved cut (22, 25, 26 or 28) such that the at least one deflection tab is at least partially separable from the central panel for being positioned in nonplanar relation with the central panel (see Zacherle Figs. 1-1a).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Zacherle further discloses wherein the curved cut has a convex arrangement relative to the fold line (see Zacherle Figs. 1-1a).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Zacherle further discloses wherein the at least one deflection tab interrupts the fold line (see Zacherle Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 13 and 26, Zacherle further discloses handle features (A5; for facilitating grasping of the carrier), the handle features comprising at least one handle opening at least partially defined in the central panel and at least one handle flap (14) foldably connected to the central panel and positioned extending into the at least one handle opening (see Zacherle Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12 and 18-25 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (in particular claims 1-4 and 14-17), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11-12 and 24-25 is/are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 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 E. Avilés 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 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 ttps://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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights