Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/568,187

METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A PACKING CONTAINER HAVING AN INLAY, INSERTION DEVICE, AND PACKAGING MACHINE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 07, 2023
Examiner
WITTENSCHLAEGER, THOMAS M
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Hdg-Verpackungsmaschinen GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
384 granted / 542 resolved
+0.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
585
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.7%
+2.7% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 542 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Claim Status This Office action is in response to the Response to Election/Restriction filed 10/13/2025. Claims 1-7 and 11-17 are currently pending. The cancelation of claims 8-10 is acknowledged. Claims 11-17 have been withdrawn as a result of the restriction requirement. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 10/13/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/13/2025. Claim Objections Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality: line 4 reads “and/or” when is should read “and.” 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. 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 1-7 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. Regarding claim 1, the limitation “connecting at least the second region of the inlay to the second layer of the packaging material of the filled packaging container” in the last line is indefinite because the term “the filled packaging container” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to recite “connecting at least the second region of the inlay to the second layer of the packaging material subsequent to filling the packaging container.” Claims 2-7 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1. 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (JP 2012-184021 A). Note that for convenience, citations to the written description of Sato refer to the attached translation. Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a method for manufacturing a packaging container with inlay, comprising the steps of: arranging a first layer (the bottom 12 – Fig. 2) of packaging material and a second layer (the top 12 – Fig. 2) of packaging material to form a packaging container (pg. 2, third full paragraph under the Description of Embodiments section; compare Figs. 1a and 2); positioning an inlay (20 – Fig. 2) between the first and second layers of the packaging material (see Fig. 2 and see Fig. 1a); connecting at least a first region (22 of the side of 20 connected to the bottom 12 – Fig. 6b) of the inlay to the first layer of packaging material (see Fig. 6b where 20 is attached to the bottom 12 and not to the top 12); manufacturing a packaging container by connecting the first and second layers of packaging material such that a filling opening (the opening through which 31 is inserted, see Fig. 6c) of the packaging container is formed between a second region (22 of the side of 20 facing the top 12 – Fig. 6b) of the inlay and the second layer of packaging material (see Figs. 1b and 6b where the two 12s are connected via 11, 13, and 14); and connecting at least the second region of the inlay to the second layer of packaging material subsequent to filling the packaging container (see Figs. 6c – 6f which show filling nozzle 31 being inserted through the filling opening, filling the container with A, then attaching the top side of 20 to the top 12). Sato further discloses: Claim 2, closing the filled packaging container by connecting the first and second layers of packaging material (see Figs. 6d – 6f in view of Fig. 5 which shows the two 12s being connected at least via 20). Claim 3, the first layer of packaging material is arranged substantially opposite the second layer of packaging material (see Figs. 2 and 5 which shows the two 12s substantially opposite each other); wherein the first region of the inlay is arranged substantially opposite the second region of the inlay (see Figs. 2 and 5 where the two 22s are substantially opposite each other); wherein after connecting the second region of the inlay to the second layer of packaging material, a dispensing opening (21 – Fig. 5) for dispensing packaging container contents is formed only by the inlay (see Fig. 5, the only access to the container is through 21). Claim 4, upon connection of the first region of the inlay to the first layer of packaging material, substantially no connection of the inlay to the second layer of packaging material takes place (see Fig. 6b where 20 has been connected to the bottom 12 but not the top 12). Claim 5, deforming the packaging container such that the filling opening of the packaging material is opened (the packaging container is deformed when it goes from the collapsed state depicted in Fig. 6a to the opened state depicted in Fig. 6b); and filling the packaging container with filling material (A – Fig. 6c) through the filling opening of the packaging container (see Fig. 6c). Claim 6, supplying a plurality of interconnected inlays (see Fig. 4 which shows at least 3 20s connected together); gripping and/or holding an inlay (though not expressly disclosed, the interconnected inlays must either be grasped (gripped) by something or be resting (held) by something); separating the gripped and/or held inlay (not clear from the translation but it is clear from comparing Figs. 2 and 4 that the interconnected inlays must be separated, also Fig. 4 depicts what appears to the lines of separation at the vertical broken lines); and positioning the separated inlay between the first and second layers of packaging material (see Fig. 2). 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP 2012-184021 A) in view of Ausnit (US 2002/0062925 A1). Regarding claim 7, Sato discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1. However, Sato does not expressly disclose how the positioning takes place. Ausnit teaches a similar method wherein an inlay (40 – Fig. 1) is displaced such that the inlay is positioned and/or aligned substantially congruently and/or parallel to a direction of transport (from right to left in Fig. 1) of first (32 – Fig. 1) and second (34 – Fig. 1) layers of packaging material (as can be seen in Fig. 1, 40 travels with 32 and 34 from right to left). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have positioned the inlay of Sato using the method Ausnit since Sato is silent with regard to how the inlay is positioned and Ausnit provides a known solution. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00. 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, 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. /THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731 11/11/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 07, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594088
UNCLAMPED FIRING LOCKOUT FOR LINEAR SURGICAL STAPLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595088
Cotton Module Unwrapping Systems, Methods, and Apparatuses
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576502
POWER TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577003
CLOSING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CLOSING FOLDABLE PACKAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577009
CARTONING MACHINE FOR MULTIPLE, DIFFERENT CARTON CONFIGURATIONS AND METHOD OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
71%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+11.9%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 542 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