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 .
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.
Claims 14-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 14, the parenthesized portion in lines 2-3 is indefinite, as such is unclear whether such an actual part of the claim due to the parentheses.
In claims 14, line 5 and claim 24, line 4, “each of which” is indefinite as to the antecedent (apertures or columns or rows) and should be –each aperture—or similar to be clear.
In claims 19 and 29, line 1 of each, “the opening” lacks antecedent basis from indicated parent claims 14 and 24. Also the relationship of the opening size relationship to a non-included article is indefinite.
In claims 21 and 31, line 2 of each, “the two adjacent apertures” lacks antecedent basis from indicated parent claims 14 and 24
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 14-15, 18-19, 22, 24-25, 28-29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by L’Heureux et al. (2015/0191287). Claims 14-16, 18-19, 22, 24-26, 28-29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sutherland (5,415,278). Each discloses a blank and a top engaging carrier formed therefrom configured to hold a plurality of articles having a maximum diameter or a maximum cross-sectional width, the blank and carrier comprising a main panel (300; 14; respectively) having a plurality of top-receiving apertures (encircled by 302; 40) arranged in an array of columns and rows (two columns, three rows; two columns, three rows), each aperture configured to receive a portion of a generally cylindrical article, and a plurality of tabs (302; 20, 22, 46, etc.) formed about a periphery of each aperture in the main panel, the plurality of tabs being connected to the main panel such that the tabs yield out of the plane of the main panel (see Figure 3B; see Figure 3) to bear against the article received in the aperture, wherein the main panel is configured to be dimensioned to have a maximum width greater than a product of the maximum diameter of each of the articles and a number of the columns of the array (see Figure 3B; see Figure 1).
As to claims 15 and 25, each discloses the main panel (300; 14) dimensioned to have a maximum length greater than a product of the maximum diameter of each article and a number of rows of the array (see Figure 3B; see Figure 1).
As to claims 16 and 26, Sutherland discloses each tab (20, 22, 46, etc.) separated from its adjacent neighbor tab by a first cutline (see Figure 2), wherein each first cutline defines side edges of the tabs, wherein the first cutline is a linear cutline.
As to claims 18 and 28, each discloses a plurality of article retention structures, each of which is defined by an opening formed in part by its respective top-receiving aperture (encircled by 302; 40) and from the tabs (302; 20, 22, 46, etc.) associated with each aperture.
As to claims 19 and 29, each discloses the opening comprises a diameter or maximum lateral dimension less than the maximum diameter of the article to be received therein.
As to claims 22 and 32, such are directed to an intended use with an extraneous and unclaimed content. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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.
Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either one of L’Heureux et al. and Sutherland in view of Berry et al. (4,139,094). Neither L’Heureux et al. nor Sutherland disclose the main panel defined by a perimeter of convexly curved edges and concavely curved edges, wherein the radii of curvature of the curved edges are equal. However, Berry et al. discloses a similar carrier with a main panel (14) defined by a perimeter of convexly curved edges and concavely curved edges, wherein the radii of curvature of the curved edges are equal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the blank and carrier of either one of L’Heureux et al. and Sutherland with curved edges in the manner of Berry et al. as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a change in shape known in the art. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claims 17, 20, 21, 27, 30 and 31 would each be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the additional references listed on the attached PTO-892, which, while not relied upon for the claim rejection, these references are deemed relevant to the claimed invention as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON P GEHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4555. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday through Thursday from 7:30 am to 5:00 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 Aviles-Bosques, 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 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.
/BRYON P GEHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Bryon P. Gehman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
BPG
Prosecution Insights