Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/926,724

FORMER

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 12, 2020
Examiner
WITTENSCHLAEGER, THOMAS M
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Keymac Usa LLC
OA Round
9 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
9-10
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
384 granted / 542 resolved
+0.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
585
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.7%
+2.7% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 542 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 Status This Office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 11/20/2025. Claims 21-23, 26, 28-29, 31, and 33 are currently pending. Claims 21 and 33 have been amended. The cancelation of claims 24-25 and 32 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20, 24-25, 27, 30, and 32 have been previously canceled. The cancelation of claim 34 is acknowledged. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/20/2025 has been entered. Specification The amendment filed 10/28/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: On pg. 2, “a carton is moved by an inbound conveyor 41 over the cavity 40 and beneath the plunger and the plunger is allowed to drop” comprises new matter. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. Note that this new matter objection was first made in the Office action dated 11/12/2024 and maintained in the Office action dated 6/20/2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 21-23, 26, 28-29, 31, and 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 21 and 33, the limitation the “cam profile is generally elliptical in shape, is symmetrical along a midline, and defines at the midline a straight edge opposite a curved edge” in each claim comprises new matter not previously disclosed in the application as originally filed. Applicant appears to be relying on the drawings to support this limitation since the written description does not mention any symmetry of the cam profile or that there is a straight edge. However, it is not clear where in the drawings this symmetry is depicted. The cam profile can be seen in Figures 1, 2A-2S, and 8-9. In Figures 8-9, the entirety of the cam profile is obscured by other elements of the machine so it cannot be seen in these Figures if there is any kind of symmetry to the cam profile. In Figure 1, the cam profile can be observed in its entirety but the cam profile is clearly not symmetrical about any line may run through the center of the cam profile (in fact, it is not even clear where the center of the cam profile is located). As can be seen in Fig. 1, the region of the cam profile to the left of the approximate middle of the cam profile has a different shape than the region to the right of the approximate middle. Hence, it is not clear where there is symmetry in the cam profile depicted in Fig. 1. Figs. 2A-2S depict a cam profile having the same shape as the cam profile in Fig. 1 and thus, it is not clear where there is symmetry in those drawings either. Furthermore, while there is portion that may be identified as “a straight edge” it is not clear if that portion is actually straight or slightly curved. Note that applicant has previously claimed, for example in the claims dated 10/28/2024, that the cam profile comprises a midline and is substantially symmetrical about the midline. However, as noted in the Office action dated 11/12/2024, the term “substantially symmetrical” does not require the cam profile to be symmetrical. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the objection to the specification, applicant argues that the specification as originally filed support the added “a carton is moved by an inbound conveyor 41 over the cavity and beneath the plunger and the plunger is allowed to drop” since para. 0017 discloses “[t]he machine may further comprise an inbound conveyor, for example for taking articles from a store (e.g. a hopper) and moving them towards or to the female cavity.” Furthermore, para. 0003 recites a female cavity and a plunger that moves up and down for pushing an item through the female cavity. Hence, the plunger must be above the female cavity and the conveyor must inherently move items over the cavity and beneath the plunger. In response it is noted that what is disclosed in para. 0017 is different than the objected to new matter. The objected to new matter recites that the inbound conveyor moves a carton over the cavity and beneath the plunger. Para. 0017 does not include the conveyor moving the carton above the cavity and below the plunger. While it is acknowledged that the written description discloses a plunger above a female cavity, it is missing the key piece of information that the conveyor moves a carton over the cavity. Note that the conveyor is indicated in Fig. 3 of the drawings but element 41, the number associated with the conveyor, simply points to a piece of the machine whose structure cannot be clearly seen and it is not clear how this structure extends to the cavity. Thus, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s remaining arguments, the arguments have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office action. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00. 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, Shelley Self can be reached at 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 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. /THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731 12/11/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 12, 2020
Application Filed
Sep 10, 2021
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 14, 2022
Response Filed
Mar 21, 2022
Final Rejection — §112
Sep 21, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 04, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 08, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §112
May 07, 2023
Response Filed
May 22, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
Jul 24, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 21, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 05, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 11, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 04, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 04, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 12, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 22, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Sep 26, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 01, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 17, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 17, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 28, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 29, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 06, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
May 12, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Nov 20, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 05, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 05, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594088
UNCLAMPED FIRING LOCKOUT FOR LINEAR SURGICAL STAPLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595088
Cotton Module Unwrapping Systems, Methods, and Apparatuses
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576502
POWER TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577003
CLOSING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CLOSING FOLDABLE PACKAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577009
CARTONING MACHINE FOR MULTIPLE, DIFFERENT CARTON CONFIGURATIONS AND METHOD OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

9-10
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+11.9%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 542 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month