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 1-6 in the reply filed on 09/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/30/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: “the faces” in line 3 should read “the interior face or the exterior face”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“one the” in line 2 should read “one of the”.
“paint, a glue,” in line 2 should read “paint, glue,”.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "at least one of the two longitudinal edges" in lines 1-2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the “at least one of said longitudinal edges” mentioned in lines 5 of claim 1 or to totally new longitudinal edge(s). For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the at least one of said longitudinal edges”.
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.
(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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Odenthal (CA 2191779 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Odenthal discloses a device (5 in Figures 8g and 8h; or 5 in Figures 8k and 8l) for packaging a compact batch (the three boxes 3 in Figure 2, collectively) of at least two containers (the three boxes 3 in Figure 2) grouped together (Page 5 lines 1-5 and 25-29), said device (5 in Figures 8g and 8h; or 5 in Figures 8k and 8l) comprising: a tape (5 in Figures 8g and 8h; or 5 in Figures 8k and 8l), said tape having an interior face (the surface labeled “interior face 1” in an annotated version of Figure 8h of Odenthal, hereinafter Figure 8x, below; or the surface labeled “interior face 2” in an annotated version of Figure 8l of Odenthal, hereinafter Figure 8y, below), an exterior face (the surface labeled “exterior face 1” in Figure 8x below; or the surface labeled “exterior face 2” in Figure 8y below) and two longitudinal edges (the two free ends of tape 5 shown in Figure 8h; or the two free ends of tape 5 shown in Figure 8l), wherein the device (5 in Figures 8g and 8h; or 5 in Figures 8k and 8l) forms a handle (6 in Figure 2) for manipulating said batch (the three boxes 3 in Figure 2, collectively) (Page 5 lines 1-5), wherein at least one of said longitudinal edges (the two free ends of tape 5 shown in Figure 8h; or the two free ends of tape 5 shown in Figure 8l) is folded against the interior face (“interior face 1” in Figure 8x below; or “interior face 2” in Figure 8y below) to form at least one fold (the two bent-over portions 10 in Figure 8h; or the two bent-over portions 10 in Figure 8l) (clear from Figure 8x and Page 5 lines 25-26; or clear from Figure 8y and Page 5 lines 28-29).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 8x: an annotated version of Figure 8h of Odenthal
PNG
media_image2.png
245
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 8y: an annotated version of Figure 8l of Odenthal
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Thus, the recitation “for packaging a compact batch of at least two containers grouped together, said containers being bottles or brick packs of rounded section” of claim 1 does not differentiate the claimed device from the device (5) of Odenthal which satisfies the claimed structural limitations and is suitable for the intended use. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Odenthal discloses that at least one of the two longitudinal edges (the two free ends of tape 5 shown in Figure 8h) is folded against the interior face (“interior face 1” in Figure 8x above) (clear from Figure 8x and Page 5 lines 25-26) and wherein the at least one fold (the two bent-over portions 10 in Figure 8h) covers the interior face (“interior face 1” in Figure 8x above) of the tape (5 in Figures 8g and 8h) only partly (clear from Figure 8x and Page 5 lines 25-26).
Regarding claim 3, Odenthal discloses that each of the two longitudinal edges (the two free ends of tape 5 shown in Figure 8h) is folded against the interior face (“interior face 1” in Figure 8x above) forming at least two folds (the two bent-over portions 10 in Figure 8h) (clear from Figure 8x and Page 5 lines 25-26) and wherein the at least two folds (the two bent-over portions 10 in Figure 8h) together cover the interior face (“interior face 1” in Figure 8x above) of the tape (5 in Figures 8g and 8h) only partly (clear from Figure 8x and Page 5 lines 25-26).
Regarding claim 4, Odenthal discloses the two longitudinal edges (the two free ends of tape 5 shown in Figure 8l) are folded such that each forms a respective fold (one of the two bent-over portions 10 in Figure 8l) (clear from Figure 8l and Page 5 lines 28-29) and wherein together the respective folds (the two bent-over portions 10 in Figure 8l) cover one (“interior face 2” in Figure 8y above) of the faces of the tape (5 in Figures 8k and 8l) completely (clear from Figure 8y and Page 5 lines 28-29).
Regarding claim 5, Odenthal discloses that the at least two folds (the two bent-over portions 10 in Figure 8h) formed by the two longitudinal edges (the two free ends of tape 5 shown in Figure 8h) are symmetrical (apparent from Figure 8h).
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 of this title, 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odenthal in view of Cadmus (US 2,575,580).
Regarding claim 6, Odenthal discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above but does not expressly disclose: the tape has a coating on at least one the interior face and the exterior face, and the coating is paint, a glue, lacquer, or treatment.
Cadmus teaches that it was known to provide a tape (“handle” 50 in Figures 8-10) with a coating (the “plastic” coating of “handle” 50 described in Col. 6 lines 27-36) on at least one of an interior face and an exterior face of the tape (because Col. 6 lines 27-36 states that “handle” 50 is “plastic coated” on “both sides”), wherein the coating (the “plastic” coating of “handle” 50) is treatment (Col. 6 lines 35-40), in order to make the tape (“handle” 50) water-proof, give the tape a very smooth and hard surface which materially increases both the dry and wet strengths of the tape, allow articles attached to the tape to be refrigerated without disintegration of the tape, and allow the tape to be strongly joined to a surface almost instantly upon application of heat (Col. 6 lines 33-55).
It would have been obvious to one have provided the tape of Odenthal with a coating on at least one of the interior face and the exterior face, wherein the coating is treatment, as taught by Cadmus, because doing so would make the tape water-proof, give the tape a very smooth and hard surface which materially increases both the dry and wet strengths of the tape, allow articles attached to the tape to be refrigerated without disintegration of the tape, and allow the tape to be strongly joined to a surface almost instantly upon application of heat.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Odenthal (DE 19537829 A1) also teaches folding longitudinal edges (the two free ends of band 5 shown in Figure 3) of a tape (5 in Figure 3) against an interior face of the tape (5) to form at least one fold (the two sections 7 in Figure 3) (clear from Figure 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached on 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 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.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
