Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/641,618

APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR FORMING A TAPERED TRAY

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Apr 22, 2024
Examiner
TAWFIK, SAMEH
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
International Paper Company
OA Round
2 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 12m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
619 granted / 987 resolved
-7.3% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 12m
Avg Prosecution
86 currently pending
Career history
1073
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
52.0%
+12.0% vs TC avg
§102
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 987 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pierce et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 2,832,270). Regarding claim 1: Pierce discloses a n apparatus comprising: a mandrel assembly (Figs. 8 & 10; via plunger C) comprising: a first side plate (via 112); a second side plate spaced apart from the first side plate (via the other and opposite plate 112); first and second bars coupled to and extending between the first and second side plates, the second bar being spaced apart from the first bar (Figs. 8 & 10; via spaced apart bars 111 and/or 107 and/or 109); a first forming element pivotally coupled directly to the first bar and configured to rotate in a first direction by a first amount from a home position to a collapsed position (Figs. 13 & 14; via pivotally mounted levers 127 coupled directly to bar/arm 110 and/or Figs. 8-11; via pivotable member 103 directly mounted on arm 110); and a second forming element pivotally directly coupled to the second bar and configured to rotate in a second direction by a second amount from a home position to a collapsed position, wherein the second direction is opposite the first direction (Figs. 13 & 14; via the other and opposite pivotally mounted lever 127 and/or Figs. 8-11; via the shown other set of pivotable members 103 directly mounted on arm 110); and a folding station defining an opening that receives the mandrel assembly, see for example (Figs. 9-12; via folding die D). Regarding claim 2: wherein the second amount is substantially equal to the first amount, see for example (Figs. 13-14; via pivotally mounted levers 127 “substantially” pivoted in equal amounts). Regarding claim 3: wherein: the first forming element comprises a first main body and at least one first forming section that extends beyond the first main body (Figs. 13-14; via finger portion 103’ extends out of the lever body 127); and the second forming element comprises a second main body and at least one second forming section that extends beyond the second main body (via the other and opposite finger portion 103’), when the first and second forming elements are in the home position, front edges of the first and second side plates and the at least one first and second forming sections collectively define a first footprint, and the opening defined by the folding station comprises dimensions corresponding to the first footprint, see for example (Fig. 13; via 1st. position of the pivoting forming levers 127); and when the first and second forming elements are in the collapsed position, front edges of the first and second side plates and the at least one first and second forming sections collectively define a second footprint that is smaller than the first footprint (Fig. 14; via 2nd. position of the pivoting forming levers 127). Regarding claim 4: wherein: the at least one first and second forming sections extend beyond respective upper and lower edges of the first and second side plates by a first distance when the first and second forming elements are in the home position, see for example (Figs. 8 & 13; via 103 appears to be extended out and beyond plate 112 in the 1st. position); and the at least one first and second forming sections extend beyond the respective upper and lower edges of the first and second side plates by a second distance when the first and second forming elements are in the collapsed position, the second distance being less than the first distance, see for example (Figs. 8 & 14; via 103 appears to be extended out and beyond plate 112 in the 2nd. position). Regarding claim 5: wherein the at least one first forming section comprises a first substantially planar outer edge and the at least one second forming section comprises a second substantially planar outer edge, see for example (Figs. 13-14; via the shown different planar edges of forming sections 127). Regarding claim 6: wherein when the first and second outer forming elements are in the home position, the first and second substantially planar outer edges are substantially parallel with each other, see for example (Fig. 13; via when forming elements 127 in that shown home position the planar outer edges appears to be “substantially” parallel with each other). Regarding claim 7: wherein the mandrel assembly further comprises: at least one first biasing element configured to bias the first forming element toward the home position (Figs. 13-14; via spring 113’); and at least one second biasing element configured to bias the second forming element toward the home position (Figs. 13-14; via the other shown opposite spring 113’). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims referring to the forming elements to be “directly” coupled with the first and second bars are not suggested by the applied art of Pierce ‘270. The Office reminds applicant that the claims are given the broadest reasonable meaning, in this case as set forth above it is believed that such arguments and filed amendments are suggested by ‘270, see for example Figs. 8-11; via the shown set of pivotable members 103 directly mounted on arms 110. Further, the added term “directly” is kind of broad term as any given pivotable element could be considered as linked or coupled “directly” to its holding arm or bar via through a spring or cam or other means! Further, the Office believes that as long as the applied art ‘270 suggests the claimed pivotable member and a bar, having the pivotable member to be coupled “directly” to the bar would be nothing more than a design choice and/or re-arranging of parts matter. 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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle 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. /SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 22, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 23, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jan 30, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 08, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600106
CORNET CONE PACKAGE PRODUCTION MACHINE WITH VERTICAL FEEDING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594738
FORMING ASSEMBLY FOR A DUNNAGE CONVERSION MACHINE, DUNNAGE CONVERSION MACHINE AND PRE-PREPARED SHEET STOCK MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594352
PASTEURIZATION UNIT AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583199
MACHINE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING DUNNAGE HAVING AN X-SHAPED CROSS-SECTION PROFILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570423
BAG MANUFACTURING APPARATUS AND METHOD
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+30.9%)
3y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 987 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