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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species 2 without traverse of in the reply filed on 12/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7- 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/03/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 10 and 13 of U.S. Patent No 12,151,449. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the narrower claim 19 contains all claimed element of the instant claims. For example, the claims contain, vertically adjustable minor flap suppressors arranged opposite side having angled forward section and horizontal rearward section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Vinh Le US 7,278,248.
Regarding claim 1 - Le ‘248 discloses A case-handling system comprising:
a conveyor 22; a vertically movable longitudinally extending first flap-suppressor 108 (floating head 108 comprises 106/110/58/60 mounted on towers 134, figs 2, 5 &7); and a controller 178 configured to cause the first flap-suppressor to vertically move to a first position to engage and hold upper minor flaps of a case in closed positions as the conveyor 22 moves the case under the first flap-suppressor 106/110/58/60 (Figs 2, 5 & 7), wherein the first position is determined by the controller based on a height of the case (P. 36 “…When the top horizontal edge of the box hits sensor bar 110, this causes a controller to actuate another pneumatic cylinder 112 and raise floating head 108 upwardly at a speed such that top horizontal edge of the box remains in contact with entry ramp 106. As the top flap of the box is folded downwardly and the top of the box passes under sensor bar 110…”.
PNG
media_image1.png
498
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
510
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 – Le ‘248 discloses the case-handling system of claim 1, wherein the first position is also determined by the controller based on a width of the case (P. 44 “…the lateral conveyors 58 and 60 may await positioning information regarding the width of the next box…”, the first suppressor module engages and hold upper minor flaps of a case in closed positions while the lateral conveyors 58/60 adjust the operating width of the conveyors to move the box under the flap suppressor 106/10, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3 - Le ‘248 discloses the case-handling system of claim 1, which comprises a vertically movable longitudinally extending second flap-suppressor 138/140/164/166, and wherein the controller is configured to cause the second flap-suppressor to vertically move to a second position to engage and hold the upper minor flaps of the case in the closed positions as the conveyor moves the case under the second flap-suppressor, wherein the second position is determined by the controller based on the height of the case (Figs 2, 6 & 7, P. 40 “…floating head 142 is raised sufficiently to allow the box to pass under ramps 138, 140…”).
Regarding claim 4 - Le ‘248 discloses the case-handling system of claim 3, wherein the first and second positions are also determined by the controller based on a width of the case (the width of the case controls operational actuation of the lateral conveyors of the first and second flap suppressors 58/60 and 164/166, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5 - Le ‘248 discloses the case-handling system of claim 3, wherein the first and second positions are at a same vertical height and are transversely spaced apart (Fig.2 & 7).
Regarding claim 6 - Le ‘248 discloses the case-handling system of claim 1, wherein the first flap suppressor 108 is transversely movable (floating head 108 with laterally movable members 58 & 60), and wherein the controller is configured to cause the first flap suppressor to transversely move to the first position, wherein the first position is determined by the controller based on a width of the case ((P. 44 “…the lateral conveyors 58 and 60 may await positioning information regarding the width of the next box…”, the first suppressor module engages and hold upper minor flaps of a case in closed positions while the lateral conveyors 58/60 adjust the operating width of the conveyors to move the box under the flap suppressor 106/10, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16 - Le ‘248 discloses the case-handling system of claim 1, wherein the first minor-flap suppressor comprises an upwardly extending angled forward section and a flat rearward section extending downstream from the forward section (Fig. 7, angled 106 section and flat tail end).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goodman US 4,524,560 discloses minor flap folding assembly having vertical and lateral adjustment for different box sizes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Supervisory Patent Examiner KHOI H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6919. The SPE can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, Jim Trammel can be reached at (571) 272 -3600. 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.
/KHOI H TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656