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) 1-3, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guo (CN211195112).
Regarding claim 1: Guo discloses a method for wrapping a box with a wrapping sheet, the method comprising the following:
- providing a cardboard box having a base, lateral walls connected to said base and a continuous edge which is defined by said lateral walls and delimits an opening of said box, see for example (Fig. 5; via the shown box 02);
- providing a wrapping sheet having a main portion with an internal surface and an external surface opposed to each other (Fig. 5; via sheet 01);
- joining said internal surface of said main portion to said base of said box, to couple said box to said sheet (Figs. 5-6; via base portion of box 02 joined on top of sheet 01);
- placing said box coupled to said sheet on a supporting surface so that said opening of said box is opposed to said supporting surface (via support surface 1);
- positioning a closing system on said continuous edge to define a closed chamber that is comprised between said box and said closing system (Figs. 5-6; via closing system 4 & 7 on top of box’s continuous edge);
- supplying a gaseous material inside said closed chamber so that said base of said box adheres to said main portion of said sheet (via 3 and/or 5).
Regarding claim 2: wherein said supporting surface (via 1) is movable (inherently any machine’s parts are “movable”), the method further comprising operating said supporting surface to move said box coupled to said sheet in a feeding direction (inherently in those type of machines, carrier 1 is movable and could be a conveyor moving boxes through different stations).
Regarding claim 3: wherein said closing system is movable in a movement direction parallel to said feeding direction, and said moving said box coupled to said sheet is carried out at least partially while said closing system is positioned on said continuous edge and said gaseous material is supplied inside said box, (Figs. 5-6; via the movement of 3 & 5 in respect to 01).
Regarding claim 11: controlling a position of said closing system as a function of at least one quantity among a distance of said closing system from said supporting surface, a distance of said closing system from said continuous edge, a pressure applied by said closing system on said continuous edge, a difference in speed between said closing system and said supporting surface, see for example (Figs. 3 & 5-6; via controlling vertical movement of closing system 7 in respect to container 02 by means 3 and/or 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN211195112) in view of Nakamura et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0101819).
Regarding claim 4: Guo does not disclose smoothing means. However, Nakamura discloses similar method with a step of smoothing on moving layers (Fig. 3; via smooth blade 32 and/or roller 38 or 12a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Guo’s method, by having a step and/or means of smoothing means, as suggested by Nakamura, in order to provide flatter and smoother surface of a final formed products to avoid any machine jams.
Regarding claim 5: Nakamura discloses that the smoothing means comprises reciprocally moving said smoothing means and said box (Fig. 3; via spring or biasing movement of 32 and/or 38)
Regarding claim 6: Nakamura discloses that the operating by means of smoothing means comprises rotating at least one roller on said external surface of said sheet (Fig. 3; via roller 12a and/or 38).
Regarding claim 7: Nakamura discloses that the rotating at least one roller includes operating said at least one roller with a pure rolling motion on said external surface of said sheet (via 12a or 38).
Regarding claim 8: Nakamura discloses that the operating by means of smoothing means comprises supplying at least one air blade (via blade 32; could be considered as an “air blade”).
Regarding claim 9: Nakamura discloses that a distance of the smoothing means from a supporting surface is adjustable (Figs. 3-4; via spring means 12h and/or 12f).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN211195112).
Regarding claim 10: Guo does not disclose that the gaseous material comprises an odorous substance. However, the Office takes an official notice that a use of gaseous material with odorous substances is very old and well known in the use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Guo’s method, by applying an odorous substance into the gaseous material, in order to provide pleasant and desirable smell to the final formed containers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied art of Guo ‘112 does not suggest the claimed steps of positioning a closing system and supplying a gaseous material inside the closed system or chamber. Applicant pointed out that the applied art ‘112 shows first and second cylinders 3 & 5 provided above pressing platform 1 while using telescopic rods of the cylinders moving downwardly to a first and second pressing plates 4/7. Applicant argues that elements 3/5 are not supplying means of gas.
The office agrees with applicant’s explanation and argument, yet reminded that the claims are given the broadest reasonable meaning. In this case the claimed step is broadly referring to “supplying a gaseous material” without any further claimed details such as the gaseous material are freely flowing in the closed system to provide pressing force with a certain discharging rate and at certain pressing force for the purpose of shaping, rather broadly claiming “supplying a gaseous material”.
It is noted that as admitted by the applicant ‘112 uses pressing cylinders 3 & 5, which inherently are gas cylinders operated and/or down pressed using gas forces pushing the surrounding gas (atmospheric air) inside the closed system and/or inside the formed container 4 while being pressing downwardly. It is believed that applicant is reading too much of the actual invention into the claimed steps and arguing of a matter not positively cited in the claimed invention.
In respect to applicant’s argument that ‘112 even if applied gas using cylinders 3/5 that would not result on having the bottom of the box to be pressed against the sheet as claimed. The Office again believes that applicant is arguing of a matter not positively claimed. No where in the claimed steps is referring to a step of “press” of the bottom of the box against the sheet, rather claiming “so that said base of said box adheres to said main portion of said sheet”, no pressing claimed. Being that said, it is clear that by pressing and lowering cylinders 3/5 and pressing plates 4/7of ‘112 against box 4, which laying on sheet 1, inherently some source of pressing force will be applied by the base of the box 4 into sheet 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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