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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s Response to Election/Restriction filed on 10 October 2025.
Claims 1 – 22 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species II, (Embodiment of Figure 4 having Axes of Rotation of Drive Motors 116 run Orthogonal/Transverse to the Longitudinal Direction L of the Folding Apparatus 100) in the reply filed on 10 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 October 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 22 are objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 11, lines 1 – 2, the limitation, “Folding apparatus for folding a carton blank not belonging to the folding apparatus”, should read, “A folding apparatus for folding a carton”.
Regarding claim 1, lines 13 – 14, the limitation, “the U-shaped frames being disposed with openings of the respective U-shaped frames facing each other”, should read, “and each U-shaped frame being disposed with an opening such that the opening of each U- shaped frame faces each other”.
Regarding claim 1, line 15, the limitation, “at least two drive motor”, should read, “at least two drive motors”.
Regarding claim 1, line 16, the limitation, “the frame”, should read, “the U-shaped frame”.
Regarding claims 2 – 10 and 12 – 22, line 1, the limitation, “Folding apparatus”, should read, “The folding apparatus”.
Regarding claim 2, line 3, the limitation, “the two frames”, should read, “the two U-shaped frames”.
Regarding claim 7, line 2, the limitation, “the frames of the folding die sub-units”, should read, “the two U-shaped frames of the two folding die sub-units”.
Regarding claim 9, line 2, the limitation, “the drive motors”, should read, “the at least two drive motors”.
Regarding claim 9, line 6, the limitation, “the U-shaped frames”, should read, “the two U-shaped frames”.
Regarding claim 11, lines 13 – 14, the limitation, “the U-shaped frames being disposed with openings of the respective U-shaped frames facing each other”, should read, “and each U-shaped frame being disposed with an opening such that the opening of each U- shaped frame faces each other”.
Regarding claim 12, line 3, the limitation, “the U-shaped frames”, should read, “the two U-shaped frames”.
Regarding claim 13, line 3, the limitation, “the frame”, should read, “the U-shaped frame”.
Regarding claim 14, line 3, the limitation, “an axis of rotation of at least one or of the at least one drive motor”, should read, “an axis of rotation of at least one drive motor”.
Regarding claim 19, line 1, the limitation, “claim 11”, should read, “claim 11,”.
Regarding claim 20, line 3, the limitation, “the drive motors”, should read, “the at least one drive motor”.
Regarding claim 21, line 3, the limitation, “the drive motors”, should read, “the at least one drive motor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 – 10, 13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 15 – 16, the limitation, “the movement”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean, “a movement”. Please note, since claims 1 – 10 and 18 depend upon claim 1, claims 1 – 10 and 18 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 1, line 21, the limitation, “the same direction”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean, “a same direction”. Please note, since claims 1 – 10 and 18 depend upon claim 1, claims 1 – 10 and 18 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 10, line 2, the limitation, “its transverse ends”, is indefinite because the term “its” is a pronoun that refers to an element previously recited and it is ambiguous as written in the claim as to the antecedent basis of the pronoun or, in other words, what element the term “its” refers. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “at each of its transverse ends”, to mean “each transverse end of the transverse beam”.
Regarding claim 13, line 2, the limitation, “the movement”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean, “a movement”. Please note, since claims 20 – 21 depend upon claim 13, claims 20 – 21 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 20, line 4, the limitation, “the same direction”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean, “a same direction”. Please note, since claim 21 depends upon claim 20, claim 21 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 22, line 2, the limitation, “its transverse ends”, is indefinite because the term “its” is a pronoun that refers to an element previously recited and it is ambiguous as written in the claim as to the antecedent basis of the pronoun or, in other words, what element the term “its” refers. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “at each of its transverse ends”, to mean “each transverse end of the transverse beam”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 – 12, 14 – 17, and 19 allowed.
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2 – 10, 13, 18, and 20 – 22 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 11: the subject matter of the folding apparatus is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Dependent claims 12, 14 – 17, and 18 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 11.
Claim 11 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 11, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 11 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“a base leg of the U-shaped frame of each folding die sub-unit being attached to a separate vertical beam so as to be movable up and down in a height direction”
The closest prior art is Becker (DE 200 19 140 U1). Becker discloses a folding apparatus having two U-shaped folding die sub-units, each having a substantially U-shaped frame. However, while Becker discloses the two U-shaped folding die sub-units movable up and down in the height direction, the disclosure and drawings do not disclose the base leg of the U-shaped frame of each folding die sub-unit being attached to a separate vertical beam. The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious the limitation. Thus, it is examiner's opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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 on 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
23 January 2026