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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Application filed June 6, 2024, in which claim(s) 1-16 is/are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are pending of which Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are presented in independent form.
All references relied up on and not cited in the current Form 892 may be found in previous 892's or IDS'.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 12, 2026 have been fully considered and are found persuasive regarding the prior art. Therefore, the art rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon review of the amended claims the following objections and 112 rejections are applicable to the pending claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "conveying by via the conveyor" should be "conveying via the conveyor". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:"along their inner faces" should be "along inner faces of the opposing front walls". 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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations: "the creased web", "the sheet", "the folding lines", "the folded sheet", "the product", "the container", and "the filled container". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the mandrel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the open and partially sealed container". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the creased web", "the folding lines", "the folded sheet", "the container", and "the filled container". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the folding lines", "the respective sheet", and "the mandrel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the receiving seats". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the receiving seats”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims are rejected for depending on rejected claims.
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 ANNA K KINSAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1926. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/ANNA K KINSAUL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights