Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/734,435

DEVICE FOR MARKING CONTAINERS AND ASSOCIATED OPERATING METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 05, 2024
Priority
Jun 05, 2023 — DE 10 2023 114 693.9
Examiner
SENGUPTA, SONYA MAZUMDAR
Art Unit
1745
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Krones AG
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allowance Rate
495 granted / 721 resolved
+3.7% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
738
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
50.2%
+10.2% vs TC avg
§102
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
§112
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 721 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/29/2026 has been entered. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sindermann et al. (US 7182115) in view of Sung et al. (WO 2009/002011) Sindermann et al. teach a device for marking containers for a container treatment system, the device having: a container conveyor for transporting the containers (abstract); a coupling unit (column 8, lines 47-52); a labeling module which is couplable to the coupling unit (claim 15) for applying labels to the containers transported by the container conveyor; a laser-marking module which is couplable to the coupling unit for laser-marking the containers transported by the container conveyor (column 12, lines 62-67), and wherein the labeling module and the laser-marking module are interchangeably couplable to the coupling unit. Sindermann et al. does not teach a laser-marking module comprises a plurality of marking heads for laser-marking different areas of the containers. However, Sung et al. teach providing such (abstract). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-18 and 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA M SENGUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6019. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. 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, Philip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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. /SONYA M SENGUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 05, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Feb 18, 2026
Response Filed
May 06, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jul 29, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 01, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12747968
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING LIQUID ADHESIVE FLOW
2y 3m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12742296
Laminated tufted good
1y 2m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12734784
LAMINATE, RELEASE AGENT COMPOSITION, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING PROCESSED SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12718716
RELEASE FILM AND HOLE INSPECTION METHOD USING THE SAME
1y 7m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12709045
DEVICE, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CURING A TUBE LINER
1y 4m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+20.1%)
3y 1m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 721 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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