Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/913,322

AN APPARATUS AND A METHOD FOR PRODUCING DISH-SHAPED PRODUCT PACKAGES

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 21, 2022
Examiner
JALLOW, EYAMINDAE CHOSSAN
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Jospak OY
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
546 granted / 702 resolved
+7.8% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
724
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
55.3%
+15.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§112
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 702 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. 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 2. Claims 10-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 27th 2025. 3. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on October 27th 2025 is acknowledged. Priority 4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FI 20215319, filed on March 22nd 2021. Information Disclosure Statement 5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 16th 2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the references cited therein are considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 6. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “row secondary mould” should be replaced with “secondary mould row”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation 7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 8. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim 1 recites the phrase “means for moving the secondary side-by-side moulds” in line 18. Claim 1 recites the phrase “means for moving the secondary moulds” in line 21. Claim 2 recites the phrase “gripping means” in line 26. Claim 5 recites the phrase “means of an actuator” in line 11. Claim 6 recites the phrase “means of an actuator” in line 17. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 9. 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. 10. Claims 1-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the phrase “…in connection with which station is a secondary tool…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear which station is being referred to. The use of “which” provides multiple options, whereas, only one apparatus was previously claimed. This limitation is contradictory. Claim 1 recites the phrase “…for feeding the sheet-like, fiber-based, individual blanks to be formed into product packages into the forming of the product packages…” This claim is deemed indefinite because the forming step is already recited. The redundancy makes the claim unclear. Claim 1 recites the phrase “…and in connection with which apparatus is a film track…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear which apparatus is being referred to. The use of “which” provides multiple options, whereas, only one apparatus was previously claimed. This limitation is contradictory. Claim 3 recites the phrase “…the horizontal distance between the primary moulds in a primary tool is essentially the same as the horizontal distance between the side-by-side individual blanks…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether the horizontal distance is the same or not. Claim 4 recites the phrase “…the number of primary moulds in a primary tool is essentially the same as the number of individual blanks…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether the number is the same or not. Claim 6 recites the phrase “…for assembling them to the side…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear what element’s side the claim is referring to. Allowable Subject Matter 11. Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. Regarding claim 1, the most relevant prior art is Setoguchi (JP 2012/192558; see attached translation). Setoguchi discloses an apparatus (100) for producing dish-shaped product packages (3), the apparatus (100) comprising a forming station (Fig. 2) for product packages (3), in connection with which station is a secondary tool (40) with secondary moulds (31, 41), and a primary tool (9) with primary moulds (92) for feeding the sheet-like, fiber-based, individual blanks (90) to be formed into product packages (3) into the forming of product packages (3), and which apparatus (100) comprises a control system (Fig. 1) for controlling the functions of the apparatus (100), characterized in that the primary tool (9) comprises two or more primary moulds (92) side by side (Fig. 2), and in that the apparatus (100) comprises means for moving secondary side-by-side moulds (31, 41) towards each other and away from each other after the forming of the product packages (3; 5a, 5b), in which case the means for moving the secondary moulds (31, 41) towards each other and away from each comprise one or more actuators (60) connected to the control system of the apparatus. Setoguchi fails to disclose a heating station, and in connection with which apparatus is a film track for providing a formed product package with a film functioning as an inner lining. It would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Setoguchi with a heating station because the individual blanks of Setoguchi do not require heat for molding. Applying heat to Setoguchi’s blanks could result in a lack of structural integrity. Conclusion 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYAMINDAE JALLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1927. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am-5:00pm and alternating Fridays from 7:30am-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. 13. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /EYAMINDAE C JALLOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 21, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599978
RECIPROCATING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600021
IMPACT POWER TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600024
POWER TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594657
MULTI-HEADED POWER TOOL AND SYSTEMS FOR FASTENING HEADS THEREON
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595110
INSULATED CONTAINER AND METHOD OF FORMING AND LOADING AN INSULATED CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 702 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