Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/293,578

CONTAINER TRANSPORT WITH REDUCED WEAR

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 30, 2024
Examiner
DEUBLE, MARK A
Art Unit
3651
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Krones AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
1009 granted / 1144 resolved
+36.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
1164
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
28.3%
-11.7% vs TC avg
§102
39.0%
-1.0% vs TC avg
§112
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1144 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 16-28 and 33 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. Independent claims 16, from which claims 17-28 and 33 depend requires that the base body is produced from a base material and “at least one additive material which has a surface energy with a polar fraction which differs from a polar fraction of a surface energy of at least one of the base material and the container.” This limitation renders the scope of the claim impossible to ascertain because the claims are directed to a device for supporting of guiding containers and not to a combination of the device and such containers. As, such a person may be guilty of infringing upon the above device claims based on a method of using the device, such as by using the device with containers made of a particular material, rather than on the structure of the device. 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 16-18, 20-27-30, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Steeber et al. (US 5,601,180). Steeber shows a container conveyor device that could be used for supporting, guiding, or conveying containers during transportation of the containers in a container treatment system. The device includes at least one base body 12 for supporting the containers during transportation. The at least one base body 12 has a surface 24 for contacting the containers which is textured to reduce a contact surface between the surface and the containers during transportation of the containers. The at least one base body 12 and the textured surface 24 may have a layered structure 90 with layers 98/100/102. The textured surface has may be viewed ha having repeating geometric shapes formed either by the nodules 54 or 82 shown respectively in figures 6 and 9. The nodules 82 and grooves 80 of figure 9 form polygons and lines. The device of Steeber may also include a guide rail 120 for guiding the containers. The guide rail includes least one base body 122 that has a surface 136 for contacting the containers which is textured by nodules 138 to reduce a contact surface between the surface and the containers during transportation of the containers. This base body 122 forms a bar-shaped guide railing and a wear strip of a container guide 120 for the container conveyor. The at least one base body 12 forms part of a conveyor belt 10. The at least one base body 12 forms a conveyor mat chain 10. The base body 12 for supporting or guiding the containers is produced by texturing the surface 24 of the base body to reduce a contact surface between the surface and the containers during transportation of the containers. In operation, the containers are supported on the surface 24 of the base body 12 and guided by the surface 136 of the base body 122. As stated above, the surface is textured to reduce a contact surface between the surface 24/136 and the container. As described above, Steeber shows all the structure required by claims 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, and 34 respectively in each of the above paragraphs. In regard to claims 17, 23-27, 30, and 35, it is recognized that Steeber does not show “a base body with an additive material with a surface energy which differs from a polar fraction of a surface energy of the base material or the container” or “mixing a material composition of the base body comprising a base material and at least one additive material which has a surface energy with a polar fraction which differs from a polar fraction of a surface energy of one of the base material and the containers” as recited in independent claims 16, 29, and 34. However, each of the claims are structured with the above quoted language following the phrase “at least one of” so that the limitations of these claims are met if the limitations of the other clause/clauses following the phrase “at least one of” are shown, as was described above. Furthermore, because the limitations of claims 17, 23-27, 30, and 35 all relate back to the above quoted limitations, and the above quoted limitations in the independent claims are claimed in the alternative only and are not required, these claims may also be rejected based on Steeber as they relate to optionally claimed limitations of the base claims. Claims 16-21, 23-26, 28-30, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Seger et al. (US 5,601,180). Seger shows a container conveyor device that is used for supporting, guiding, or conveying containers during transportation of the containers in a container treatment system. The device includes at least one base body 3 for guiding the containers during transportation. The at least one base body 3 has a surface 5 for contacting the containers which is textured to reduce a contact surface between the surface and the containers during transportation of the containers (see figures 10-11). The at least one base body 3 and the textured surface 24 may have a layered structure with a base body having spherical elements 40 of elevations 41 layered on top of the base body 3. The surface 5 may be microtextured and nanotextured (see paragraph 0027 discussion of the diameter of elements 40/41 being in the millimeter to less than half a millimeter range). The textured surface has may be viewed as having repeating geometric spherical shapes 40 or having roughness peaks 41. The base body forms a bar shaped guide for guiding a container (see figures 8-9). The device of Seger is part of a container conveyor that transports containers in a container treatment system. The base body 3 for supporting or guiding the containers is produced by texturing the surface 5 of the base body to reduce a contact surface between the surface and the containers during transportation of the containers. In operation, the containers are guided by the surface 5 of the base body 3. As stated above, the surface is textured to reduce a contact surface between the surface 5 and the container. As described above, Seger shows all the structure required by claims 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, and 34 respectively in each of the above paragraphs. As was discussed in the previous section in regard to claims 17, 23-27, 30, and 35, it is recognized that Seger does not show “a base body with an additive material with a surface energy which differs from a polar fraction of a surface energy of the base material or the container” or “mixing a material composition of the base body comprising a base material and at least one additive material which has a surface energy with a polar fraction which differs from a polar fraction of a surface energy of one of the base material and the containers” as recited in independent claims 16, 29, and 34. However, each of the claims are structured with the above quoted language following the phrase “at least one of” so that the limitations of these claims are met if the limitations of the other clause/clauses following the phrase “at least one of” are shown, as was described above. Furthermore, because the limitations of claims 17, 23-27, 30, and 35 all relate back to the above quoted limitations, and the above quoted limitations in the independent claims are claimed in the alternative only and are not required, these claims may also be rejected based on Seger as they relate to optionally claimed limitations of the base claims. Claims 16-20, 22-31, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jin et al. (US 5,601,180). Jin shows a container conveyor device that could be used for supporting, guiding, or conveying containers during transportation of the containers in a container treatment system. The device includes at least one base body 28 for supporting the containers during transportation. The at least one base body 28 has a surface 36 for contacting the containers which is textured to reduce a contact surface between the surface and the containers during transportation of the containers (see figure 2). The at least one base body 28 may be produced by injection molding (see paragraph 0020). The surface 36 may be microtextured and nanotextured (see paragraph 0017 discussion of nano- or micro- scale asperities). The textured surface has may be viewed as having repeating geometric pillars 48 with polygons and lines therebetween when formed as a square lattice as described in paragraph 0018). The base body 28 forms part of a conveyor belt 25. The base body 28 may also be viewed as forming part of a conveyor mat chain 25. The device of Jin could be used as part of a container conveyor that transports containers in a container treatment system. The base body 28 for supporting or guiding the containers is produced by texturing the surface 36 of the base body to reduce a contact surface between the surface and the containers during transportation of the containers. In operation, the containers are supported by the surface 36 of the base body 28. As stated above, the surface is textured to reduce a contact surface between the surface 36 and the container. As described above, Jin shows all the structure required by claims 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29, and 34 respectively in each of the above paragraphs. As was discussed in the previous section in regard to claims 17, 23-27, 30, and 35, it is recognized that Jin does not show “a base body with an additive material with a surface energy which differs from a polar fraction of a surface energy of the base material or the container” or “mixing a material composition of the base body comprising a base material and at least one additive material which has a surface energy with a polar fraction which differs from a polar fraction of a surface energy of one of the base material and the containers” as recited in independent claims 16, 29, and 34. However, each of the claims are structured with the above quoted language following the phrase “at least one of” so that the limitations of these claims are met if the limitations of the other clause/clauses following the phrase “at least one of” are shown, as was described above. Furthermore, because the limitations of claims 17, 23-27, 30, and 35 all relate back to the above quoted limitations, and the above quoted limitations in the independent claims are claimed in the alternative only and are not required, these claims may also be rejected based on Jin as they relate to optionally claimed limitations of the base claims. Claims 16-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (JP 2015-124056). Nakamura shows a device that supports containers during transportation of the containers that could be used in a container treatment system. The device has a base body 15 for supporting or guiding the containers during transportation. The base body 15 is produced from a base material such as polypropylene and at least one additive material such as glass fiber (see paragraph 0012 of the translation). The glass fiber would have a surface energy with a polar fraction which differs from a polar fraction of a surface energy the polypropylene base material. The base 15 is produced from the base material and the at least one additive material which has the surface energy with the polar fraction which differs from the polar fraction of the surface energy of the at least one of the base material and the container and further of at least one solid lubricant material such as graphite (see paragraph 0012 of the translation). The base body 15 forms a conveyor belt 11. The base body 15 may also be viewed as forming part of a conveyor mat chain 11. The device of Nakamura could be used as part of a container conveyor that transports containers in a container treatment system. The base body 15 for supporting or guiding the containers is produced by mixing a material composition of the base body comprising a base material and at least one additive material which has a surface energy with a polar fraction which differs from a polar fraction of a surface energy of one of the base material and the containers. The base body 15 is produced from the base material and the at least one additive material which has the surface energy with the polar fraction which differs from the polar fraction of the surface energy of the at least one of the base material and the container and further produced of at least one solid lubricant material such as graphite. In operation, the containers are supported on a surface of the base body 15, which as described above has a base material and at least one additive material which has a surface energy with a polar fraction which differs from a polar fraction of a surface energy of one of the base material and the containers. In this operation, the base body would be produced from the base material and the at least one additive material which has the surface energy with the polar fraction which differs from the polar fraction of the surface energy of the at least one of the base material and the container and further produced of at least one solid lubricant material such as graphite. As described above, Nakamura shows all the structure required by claims 16-17, 22, 27-30, and 34-35. In regard to claims 17 and 18, it is recognized that Jin does not show base body has a surface for contacting the containers which is textured to reduce a contact surface between the surface and the containers during transportation of the containers. However, the above quoted language following the phrase “at least one of” in claim 16 so that the limitations of claims 16-17 are met if the limitations of the other clause/clauses following the phrase “at least one of” are shown, as was described above. Furthermore, because the limitations of claims 18-20 all relate back to the above quoted limitation, and the above quoted limitations in the independent claim is claimed in the alternative only and is not required, these claims may also be rejected based on Nakamura as they relate to optionally claimed limitations of the base claims. 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 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura. Nakamura shows all the structure required by claim 16 and operates with all the steps required by claim 29. Additionally, while no particular additive manufacturing apparatus is discussed, the apparatus that is used to add the additive to the base body 15 of Nakamura would form some type of additive manufacturing apparatus. As such, the use of a computer program instructions causing such an apparatus manufacturing apparatus to perform the method of claim 29 or to create the device of claim 16 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention because the use of such computer programs for controlling apparatuses is well known to anyone of ordinary skill in the manufacturing arts. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A DEUBLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday flex schedule. 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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. /MARK A DEUBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600572
MOTOR-DRIVEN CONVEYOR-ROLLER CONTROLLER, SYSTEM COMPRISING SUCH A CONTROLLER AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A MOTOR ROLLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600602
CONNECTING GEAR MECHANISM OF A PASSENGER-TRANSPORTING SYSTEM DESIGNED AS AN ESCALATOR OR MOVING WALKWAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586934
MULTI-CONNECTION BRACKET AND METHODS OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583684
Conveyor Device With Transport Cassette
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570503
HANDRAIL AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A HANDRAIL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
88%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+8.1%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1144 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