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 .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 25 June 2026.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are currently pending and being examined.
Specification
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. The current abstract recites “The present disclosure relates to”, which should be deleted.
The amendment filed 25 June 2026 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:
“downstream portion 105 includes a support surface arranged to complete tucking of the opened flap while supporting the open box as the open box moves along the downstream portion.” ¶[0008]
“The curved portion is configured to guide the open flap along the drive track so that the open flap is progressively bent from an open orientation to a partially tucked orientation.” ¶[0008]
“a support surface arranged to complete tucking of the opened flap while supporting the open box as the open box moves along the downstream portion.” ¶[0020]
“an engaging element 107 located downstream of the curved portion subsequently engages any partially tucked pair of flaps and completes tucking of the pair of flaps.” ¶[0020]
“The curved portion is configured to initiate tucking of the opened flap by guiding the opened flap along the curved portion so that the opened flap is progressively bent from an open position into a partially tucked position.” ¶[0020]
“a glue applicator disposed below the downstream portion 105 and configured to apply adhesive to the opened flap as the opened flap passes over the downstream portion 105.” ¶[0023]
“A locking mechanism may be provided downstream of the glue applicator and configured to lock the flaps of the tucked box in a closed position.” ¶[0023]
“reducing the friction between the open flap and an inner surface of the entrance portion 103 by forming an air cushion while maintaining engagement of the open flap with the entrance portion 103.” ¶[0025]
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“engaging element… configured to subsequently tuck any partially tucked pair of flaps which have been partially tucked by the gradually curved portion” in claim 1.
“a locking mechanism for locking the flaps” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 1: lines 18- 21 recite “engaging element… configured to subsequently tuck any partially tucked pair of flaps which have been partially tucked by the gradually curved portion”. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function.
Claim 6: lines 2-3 recites “a locking mechanism for locking the flaps”. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function.
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 1 and 5-8 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. The following claims limitations were not disclosed in the originally filed claims, specification, or drawings; therefore, they are new matter.
Claim 1: “the downstream portion (105) including a support surface arranged to complete tucking of the open flap while supporting the open box as the open box moves along the downstream portion (105)”. The originally filed specification has no mention of a support surface to complete the tucking.
Claim 5: “a glue applicator for applying glue to the open flap disposed below the downstream portion (105) and configured to apply adhesive to the open flap as the open box passes over the downstream portion (105).” The originally filed specification merely recited a “means for applying glue”, therefore a glue applicator is new matter. The original specification and drawings also does not disclose when the glue is applied therefore “passes over the downstream portion”, is new matter..
Claim 6: “a locking mechanism for locking the flaps of the tucked box in a closed position downstream of the glue application”. The originally filed specification only recites “[t]he device 100 further comprises a locking means for locking the flaps of the tucked box.” (¶[00023]). Therefore, the new claim amendment is new matter.
Claim 7: “a plurality of apertures for blowing compressed air into the entrance portion (103) along a surface configured to contact the open flap”. The originally filed specification merely recites “the entrance portion 103 for receiving and engaging an open flap of the box comprises a plurality of apertures for blowing 10 compressed air” (¶[00025]), which does not disclose where on the entrance portion the apertures and what the air is contacting. The drawings do not show the apertures either. Therefore, the new claim amendment is new matter.
Claim 7: “the compressed air emitted from the plurality of apertures reduces damage to the open flap of the open box by reducing friction”. The originally filed specification recites “the plurality of apertures reduce the damage to the open flaps of the box by reducing the friction.” (¶[00025]). There is no mention that the friction is reduced between the open flap and the entrance portion, just that the air reduces damage and friction of the box flap. Therefore, the new claim amendment is new matter.
Claim 8: “the device (100) is retrofitted in a conventional box packaging system by mounting the drive track (101) and the transferring assembly adjacent to an existing box conveyor without modifying an upstream box conveying path.” The originally filed specification recites “the device 100 can be retrofitted in a conventional box packaging system.” (¶[00026]). There is no mention of mounting the track and where the transferring assembly is placed in relation to the box packaging system. Therefore, the new claim amendment is new matter.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-8 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, lines 11-22 recite “an engaging element (107) positioned downstream of the gradually curved portion and configured to subsequently tuck any partially curved pair of flaps which have been partially tucked by the gradually curved portion”. The specification, claims, and figures states that the gradually curved portion is upstream of the downstream portion and then the engaging element, and that the downstream portion completes the tucking, so it is unclear how there would be any partially tucked flaps when it was already completed. Therefore, Examiner is not sure how to interpret this limitation.
Claim 1, lines 11-12 recites “tucking any partially tucked pair of flaps”, the claim only refers to the box only having one singular open flap, it is unclear how there is now two pair of flaps. Referring to the applicant’s drawings there is only one drive track, so it is unclear how a single drive track can subsequentially tuck another flap on the same box.
Claim limitation “engaging element… configured to subsequently tuck any partially tucked pair of flaps which have been partially tucked by the gradually curved portion” and “a locking mechanism for locking the flaps”, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim, and/or no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Examiner notes that this is not a conclusive list of all possible 112(b) issues, Applicant should thoroughly review the claims for additional 112(b) issues, which include antecedent basis and clarity.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carruth (US 2,270,264).
Carruth teaches:
Claim 1: A device (100) for closing an open box (Title: “Method and Apparatus for closing and sealing Paperboard boxes and Cartons”) comprising:
a drive track (101) (at least 95,96,67,99,98,100-fig.15A) having an entrance portion (103) (A-annotated fig.15A) for receiving and engaging an open flap (10,12-fig.15A) of an open box (page 5, 1st column, line 43-page 5, 2nd column line 4) and extending through a gradually curved portion (B-annotated fig.15A) to a downstream portion (105) of the drive tack (101) (C-annotated fig.15A);
PNG
media_image1.png
414
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the downstream portion (105) (C-annotated fig.15A) including a support surface arranged to complete tucking of the open flap while supporting the open box as the open box moves along the downstream portion (105) (see annotated fig.15A showing C having a support surface that is completing the tucking of a flap);
transferring assembly (at least 83,75-fig.9A) including a horizontal guide member (83-fig.9) and a stop bar member (left 84-fig.11A) disposed parallel to a plate (right 84-fig.11A) such that a distance between the horizontal guide member and the stop bar member is greater than a width of the open box (see fig.11A showing the box (2) located between the left and right 84, therefore the distance is slightly bigger than the box width), the transferring assembly configured for transferring the open box from the entrance portion (103) through said downstream portion (105) (page 4, 2nd column, line70-page 5, 1st column, line 42; see fig. 9a showing the box being transferred on belt 75 from opened to closed) while preventing unwanted movement of the open box (This limitation is intended use; therefore, the prior art merely needs to be capable of doing this action. As shown in fig. 11A the box is closely held between 84, thus preventing unwanted movement of the box) and while the open box travels over the horizontal guide member (see fig.9 showing box 2 is traveling over a lower 83); and
an engaging element (107) (98-fig.15A) positioned downstream of the gradually curved portion and configured to subsequently tucking any partially tucked pair of flaps which have been partially tucked by the gradually curved portion (see fig.15A showing flap 10 and then flap 12 being folded).
Claim 5: The device as claimed in claim 1, the device (100) further comprises a glue applicator (101-fig.9A) for applying glue to the open flap disposed below the downstream portion (105) (see annotated fig.15A and 9A showing 101 is disposed below C) and configured to apply adhesive to the open flap as the open box passes over the downstream portion (page 5 2nd column lines 5-66).
Claim 6: The device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the device (100) further comprises a locking mechanism (100-fig.5A) for locking the flaps of the tucked box in a closed position downstream of the glue applicator (page 5 2nd column lines 47-66).
Claim 8: The device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the device (100) is retrofitted in a conventional box packaging system by mounting the drive track (101) and the transferring assembly adjacent to an existing box conveyor without modifying an upstream box conveying path (at least page 3 1st column line 24-2nd column line30; figs. 1-18).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carruth (US 2,270,264) in view of Hinzmann (US 5,442,897).
Carruth teaches:
Claim 7: The device as claimed in claim 1.
Carruth does not expressly teach wherein said entrance portion for receiving and engaging an open flap of said box comprises a plurality of apertures for blowing compressed air; wherein said plurality of apertures reduce the damage to the open flaps of said box by reducing the friction.
However, Hinzmann teaches said entrance portion (left side of 18-figs.1 and 5) for receiving and engaging an open flap of a container (11-fig.1) comprises a plurality of apertures (62-fig.5) for blowing compressed air (11:40-44); wherein said plurality of apertures reduce the damage to the open flaps of said box by reducing the friction (This limitation is intended use; therefore, the prior art merely needs to be capable of doing this action. 6:8-19; 11:40-44; 13:42-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Carruth, by adding compressed air holes to the folding device, as taught by Hinzmann, “in order to reduce friction” between a folding device/mandrel and a web/container. (Hinzmann 11:43).
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes Applicant’s arguments in regard to the drawing objections, the objections are withdrawn in light that this is a PCT application.
Applicant's arguments filed 1 and 5-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
(1) “Carruth teaches conveying and closing boxes, it does not disclose the specific integrated drive track and transferring assembly configuration now recited in claim 1” (Remarks p. 19)
(2) “They do not form a single drive track that extends from a defined entrance portion, through a gradually curved portion, to a downstream portion, where the curved portion itself progressively bends an open flap while the downstream portion both supports the box and completes tucking of the flap.” (Remarks p.19)
(3) “Carruth uses discrete flap-folding knives 160 and other members located along the box path, acting on flaps as the box passes by, rather than a continuous curved track surface against which the flap is guided and progressively bent.” (Remarks p. 20)
(4) “The "transferring" in Carruth is primarily accomplished by chains and belts (e.g., chain 75, belts 110, belts 124) that engage the boxes from below or from the sides. The Office Action maps the "transferring means" to elements such as 83 and 84 (Fig. 11A). However, Carruth does not disclose a transferring assembly including "a horizontal guide member and a stop bar member disposed parallel to a plate such that a distance between the horizontal guide member and the stop bar member is greater than a width of the open box" that defines a channel configured to prevent unwanted movement of the box as it travels along a curved drive track.”
(5) “Carruth's side belts 110 and guide plates 145/147 help align and advance the box onto and along table top 123, but they do not form the specific channel-type transferring assembly recited in claim 1”. (Remarks p.20)
(6) “The engaging element 107 of claim 1 is positioned immediately downstream of the curved portion and is configured to complete tucking of a pair of flaps that have already been partially tucked by the curved portion and are supported by the downstream portion. Carruth instead relies on multiple folding stations (e.g., knives 160, pressure belts 170) located at different points along the apparatus to fold cover end flaps and press them into adhesive contact; there is no disclosure of a single engaging element arranged as claimed.” (Remarks p.20-21)
(7) “RESPONSE TO REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER CARRUTH IN VIEW OF HINZMANN (CLAIM 7)” (see Remarks p. 21-23)
Examiner’s responses:
(1) Claim 1 does not require an integrated drive track, claim 1 requires a drive track that has those portions, which could be multiple parts or one single part. However, Carruth does teach that it is an integrated drive track see figure 15A and page 5 1st column line 43-2nd column line 4. Carruth does teach a transferring assembly as clearly shown in figure 9A as the flap is being folded the box is transferred downstream.
(2) Claim 1 does not require a single drive track, claim 1 requires a drive track that has those portions, which could be multiple parts or one single part. However, Carruth does teach that it is a single drive track see figure annotated 15A and page 5 1st column line 43-2nd column line 4. Also, see figure 9A showing the drive track progressively folding the flap and the flap which is part of the box being supported by the track.
(3) Examiner does not use 160 to teach anything and folds a different flap 11, which Examiner does not use in the rejection either. Therefore, this argument is moot.
(4) Carruth does teach the claim as written under broadest reasonable interpretation, see rejection above. Applicant does not point out how the parts of Carruth recited in the rejection does not specifically teach the claim limitations. Also, nowhere in claim 1 is a channel recited.
(5) The claim as written does not require a specific channel-type transferring assembly.
(6) Claim does not require the engaging element be “immediately” downstream of the curved portion, therefore Carruth does teach the claim limitation as written wherein the engaging element is downstream of the curved portion. Examiner also notes looking at the Applicant’s figures the engaging means is not immediately downstream, but rather the downstream portion is immediately downstream of the curved portion. Carruth does teach multiple folding stations to fold multiple different flaps as pointed in the rejection the drive track of 95 teaches folding the flap 10/12, which meets the claims limitations, nothing in the claim prevents there being additional items in the prior art. Therefore, Carruth teaches the claim limitations as written.
(7) Carruth teaches the drive track and Hinzmann teaches the uses of compressed apertures to reduce friction between a forming mandrel and forming material. It would be obvious and would not require substantial redesign to put apertures on the drive track of Carruth, because as taught in Hinzmann “to reduce friction between the mandrel and the material of the web 1.” (Hinzmann 11:40-44). It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor' s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Hinzmann is in the same field of endeavor of packaging and solving the same problem of reducing friction between a forming material and a mandrel.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KATIE L GERTH whose telephone number is (303)297-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-4pm (CT).
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.
/KATIE L GERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
