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 .
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
Figures 1 and 2;
Figures 3 and 4;
Figures 5-5B;
Figures 6 and 7;
Figures 8 and 9;
Figure 10;
Figures 11 and 12;
Figures 13 and 14; and
Figures 15 and 16.
Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, the following claim(s) are generic: No claim is currently identified as generic.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
The article retention structure of each species is substantially different in its construction and it is not currently clear that a generic claim directed to all species would be allowable to define a single common invention.
During an email exchange conversation with Rohini Garg on September 29, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species F, Figure 10, claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because The opening phrase “Aspects of the invention relate to” is an impliable phrase. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-2, 5-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sutherland et al. (5,323,895). Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oliff et al. (4,190,149). Each discloses an article engaging carrier (10; article carrier; respectively) for packaging at least one article, the carrier comprising a blank including a main panel (12 and/or 14; 1) having at least one article retention structure comprising a plurality of teeth (20; T) for engaging an article, the carrier comprising a side panel (outside 26 and/or 34; 2 or 3) hingedly connected to the main panel by a first hinged connection (including 26 and/or 34; including 8 or 9) and having a first free edge opposing the first hinged connection, wherein the first hinged connection is defined, at least in part, by a linear fold line (26 or 34; 8 or 9), and wherein a further hinged connection (36 or 38; F) between one of the plurality of teeth and the main panel is arranged to converge (get closer to) with the linear fold line (at 26 or 34).
As to claims 2 and 8, each discloses wherein the further hinged connection (36 or 38; F) is at least partially spaced apart from the linear fold line.
As to claims 3 and 9, Oliff et al. disclose the plurality of teeth (T) define a circumferential fold line (summation of all Fs) surrounding an article receiving opening (one of 16-21) and defining an outer perimeter thereof, and wherein the circumferential fold line is spaced apart from the linear fold line (8 or 9).
As to claim 5, each discloses the plurality of teeth (20; T) is a series of engaging teeth, each struck, at least in part, from the main panel (12 and/or 14; 1) and defining at least, in part, an article receiving opening.
As to claims 6 and 12, Sutherland et al. disclose a first tooth (20) adjacent to and integral with a side panel (outside 26 and/or 34).
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 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either one of Sutherland et al. and Oliff et al.. Each discloses the article engaging carrier (10; article carrier) further comprises an end panel (other panel outside 26 or outside 34; 6 or 7) hingedly connected to the main panel (12 and/or 14; 1) by a second hinged connection (including 26 or 34; including 8 or 9) and having a second free edge opposing the second hinged connection, the end panel being disposed adjacent to the side panel. A combination of rounded and squared corners is not disclosed. However, 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 carrier of either one of Sutherland et al. and Oliff et al. with a combination of square and rounded corners as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a mere change in shape. 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.
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
