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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment, filed on 23 October 2025, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Specification and Drawings:
Amendments to the specification and drawings have not been submitted with the amendment filed on 23 October 2025.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12 June 2024.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ceyssens et al. (US 2014/0013709).
Regarding claim 1, the Ceyssens et al. reference discloses an automated container resizing system (abstract and paragraph [0001]), comprising:
a cutting tool (8); and
a controller (control unit, paragraph [0020] and claim 2) configured to direct operation of the cutting tool (8) to resize a container (1) by cutting at least a portion of walls of the container (1) to be removed along a cutline based on a principal dimension of one or more products within a volume of the container (paragraphs [0022] and [0023], and claim 2, the phrase “to be removed” is a statement of intended use and a future act which may or may not occur, the claim only requires cutting and does not require actual removing of the “at least a portion of walls of the container”), wherein:
the principal dimension is a dimension of a product within the container that has a greatest value relative to an open side of the container (paragraph [0010] and paragraph [0020]: “measured by means of a scanning device 2, like inclined scanning or distance-meter the highest height level of the goods or filling 4”), and
the cutline (as seen in fig. 5) is a straight line that is parallel to a bottom or base of the container (1) (as seen in fig. 5) or is at a different height of the container (1) for one or more of side walls of the container (1) (paragraph [0022]: “the folding of the flaps will happen successful it will be advantageous that some of the cutting lines L for example two opposite lines are lifted to higher height level, wherein the height difference is the same as thickness of the wall, wherein the folding of the flaps overlapped with each other when closing the box does not cause any disturbance”).
Regarding claim 2, the Ceyssens et al. reference discloses the automated container resizing system as recited in Claim 1, further comprising at least one dimensioning device (2) configured to obtain dimensional information corresponding to the one or more products, wherein the controller is configured to determine the principal dimension from the dimensional information (paragraphs [0010] and [0020]).
Regarding claim 3, the Ceyssens et al. reference discloses the automated container resizing system as recited in Claim 1, further comprising a moveable support (paragraph [0022]), wherein the cutting tool (8) is attached to the moveable support and the controller directs (control unit) operation of the moveable support in cooperation with the cutting tool to resize the container (paragraphs [0022] and [0023] and claims 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, the Ceyssens et al. reference discloses the automated container resizing system as recited in Claim 3, wherein the controller (control unit), by directing the moveable support, moves the cutting tool along at least two orthogonal axes to resize the container (paragraphs [0022] and [0023], claim 2 and figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 5, the Ceyssens et al. reference discloses the automated container resizing system as recited in Claim 4, wherein the moveable support is rotatable about at least one of the two orthogonal axes (paragraph [0022]: “discs are freely rotating or rotation motion is arranged for them either separately for each or common rotation motion for all, for example by means of the pulling means 15 (FIG. 6) which circulates via all discs.”).
Regarding claim 6, the Ceyssens et al. reference discloses the automated container resizing system as recited in Claim 4, wherein the controller (control unit) determines a cutting pattern and moves the cutting tool via the moveable support according to the cutting pattern to resize the container (paragraphs [0022] and [0023], and claims 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 9, the Ceyssens et al. reference discloses the automated container resizing system as recited in Claim 1, wherein the cutting tool (8) resizes containers (1) within a cutting zone (fig. 1) and the system further comprises a conveyor (3) that moves the container to the cutting zone (paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 13, the Ceyssens et al. reference discloses the automated container resizing system as recited in Claim 1, wherein the cutting tool (8) includes at least one blade (paragraph [0023]: “the cutting blade”).
Regarding claim 14, the Ceyssens et al. reference discloses the automated container resizing system as recited in Claim 13, wherein the cutting tool (8) provides structural support to the container (1) when using the at least one blade (paragraph [0023] and paragraph [0020]: “supporting device 5, 6, 7 is placed inside the box 1 for supporting the walls of the box 1 from inside, when cuttings are made in the outer surface of the box 1 (FIGS. 4 and 5)”).
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, 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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceyssens et al. (US 2014/0013709) in view of Benterman et al. (US 2015/0119216).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the Ceyssens et al. reference discloses the automated container resizing system as recited in Claim 6, but does not expressly disclose wherein the controller determines the cutting pattern based on at least two dimensions of the container and the principal dimension; and does not expressly disclose further comprising at least one additional dimensioning device that obtains the at least two dimensions from the container.
The Benterman et al. reference teaches that it is old and well known in the relevant art to provide an automated container resizing system which includes that a controller (4) determines a cutting pattern based on at least two dimensions of a container and a principal dimension (paragraph [0050]: “vision system 7 is configured to determine from the captured images the height of the contents (not shown) of the carton 8 as well as the width, length and height of the carton 8” and paragraph [0051]: “the vision system 7 and the aforementioned parameters are sent to the controller 4, which then calculates automatically the aforementioned start positions, orientations and cutting paths”); and teaches that it is old and well known in the relevant art to provide at least one additional dimensioning device (vision system 7 has first and second cameras) that obtains the at least two dimensions from the container (paragraph [0059]: “Additionally or alternatively, the measuring means need not be provided by a vision system 7. It may, for example comprise one or more sensors for measuring or determining, in use, one or more dimensions of the container or carton or its contents.”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Ceyssens et al. automated container resizing system by having incorporated wherein the controller determines the cutting pattern based on at least two dimensions of the container and the principal dimension; and does not expressly disclose further comprising at least one additional dimensioning device that obtains the at least two dimensions from the container, as suggested by Benterman et al., in order to position the cutting tool (8) in a proper starting position at which cutting will commence and which may be different from container to container when the containers are of different sizes.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ceyssens et al. (US 2014/0013709) in view of Ciuch (EP 3851259).
Attention is directed to the English language translation of the Ciuch reference attached to the Office action mailed on 25 July 2024.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the Ceyssens et al. reference discloses the automated container resizing system as recited in claim 9, but does not expressly disclose a first rail being orthogonal to a direction of the conveyor in the cutting zone and being selectively operable to stop the container in the cutting zone; and does not expressly disclose a second rail being parallel to the direction of the conveyor and being selectively operable to move the container on the conveyor against a third rail, the third rail being fixed and parallel to the second rail.
The Ciuch reference discloses in a similar type of automated container resizing system that it is old and well known in the relevant art to provide (as seen in figs. 1, 2, 3A, 3B) a first rail (front stop 51a) being orthogonal to a direction of a conveyor (conveyor 50) in the cutting zone and being selectively operable to stop a container (box 2) in the cutting zone; and a second rail (lateral stop 52a) being parallel to the direction of the conveyor and being selectively operable to move the container (2) on the conveyor (50) against a third rail (side stop 53), the third rail (53) being fixed and parallel to the second rail (52a) (see highlighted text in translation of paragraphs [0076]-[0082] under heading “Means 5 for automatically wedging a box 2 in the cutting position”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Ceyssens et al. automated container resizing system by having incorporated a first rail being orthogonal to a direction of the conveyor in the cutting zone and being selectively operable to stop the container in the cutting zone; and a second rail being parallel to the direction of the conveyor and being selectively operable to move the container on the conveyor against a third rail, the third rail being fixed and parallel to the second rail, as suggested by Ciuch, in order to stop, hold and clamp a container in position at the time of cutting of the container for its resizing. In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the combination of Ceyssens et al. with the teachings of Ciuch involves no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Regarding claim 12, the Ceyssens et al. reference discloses the automated container resizing system as recited in Claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the moveable support includes a robotic arm and the cutting tool is connected to the robotic arm.
The Ciuch reference discloses that it is old and well known in the relevant art to provide a movable support which includes a robotic arm (30) and a cutting tool (31) is connected to the robotic arm (30).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Ceyssens automated container resizing system by having incorporated that the moveable support includes a robotic arm and the cutting tool is connected to the robotic arm, as suggested by Ciuch, in order to provide the cutting tool with a larger number of degrees of freedom in X, Y and Z axes of translation and rotation around the X, Y and Z axes, as such allows greater variations in the location and shape of the produced cutting line. In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the combination of Ceyssens et al. with the teachings of Ciuch involves no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceyssens et al. (US 2014/0013709) in view of Klarner et al. (US 20200283175).
Regarding claim 15, the Ceyssens et al. reference discloses the automated container resizing system as recited in claim 13, but does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to oscillate the at least one blade in a direction perpendicular to a side wall of the container to resize the container.
The Klarner et al. reference discloses that it is old and well to provide a cutting blade (blade 114) which is oscillated (fig. 11 and paragraphs [0096]-[0098]) (paragraph [0097: “cutting blade 114 has a cutting edge 136, and is coupled to the cutting motor 134 for axially advancing the blade 114 in a forward direction generally parallel to the cutting edge 136 prior to the cutting operation, and retracting the cutting blade 114 in a reverse direction opposite the forward direction as the cutting blade 114 moves vertically downward with the support plate 104 during the cutting operation”), and a controller (controller 32) is configured to oscillate the at least one blade in a direction perpendicular to a side wall of the container to resize the container (paragraph [0082]: “controller 90 is in communication with each of the stations 62, 64, and 66 of the system 40,” and paragraph [0087]: “the flap-forming station 62 with the sensor 70, generally includes a flap-cutting assembly 94 that vertically cuts the side walls 46 and 48 of the container 20”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Ceyssens et al. automated container resizing system by having incorporated wherein the controller is configured to oscillate the at least one blade in a direction perpendicular to a side wall of the container to resize the container, as suggested by Klarner et al., in order to provide a cutting operation which is in the form of a slicing action, which slicing action produces minimal dust and makes use of a greater extent along a length of the cutting edge as set forth in Klarner et al. at paragraph [0099]. In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the combination of Ceyssens et al. with the teachings of Klarner et al. involves no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 October 2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Ceyssens does not disclose a controller configured to direct operation of a cutting tool to resize a container by cutting at least a portion of walls of the container to be removed since, as established above, Ceyssens does not remove walls of its container, it folds them.”
However, as pointed out above in the rejection of claim 1, the phrase “to be removed” as recited in claim 1 is a statement of intended use and a future act which may or may not occur, the claim only requires cutting and does not require actual removing of the “at least a portion of walls of the container”.
In response to applicant's argument that the Ceyssens reference fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., removing walls of its container) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is deemed proper.
It is noted that applicant has provided no specific arguments pointing out any errors with respect to the rejections of the dependent claims 2-15 (other than that they depend from claim 1), and thus the rejections of the dependent claims are deemed proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN F. GERRITY whose telephone number is (571)272-4460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:00 - 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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/STEPHEN F. GERRITY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731 26 November 2025
Prosecution Insights