Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/836,565

STRAPPING DEVICE WITH MOVABLE MOTOR

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Aug 07, 2024
Examiner
JALLOW, EYAMINDAE CHOSSAN
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Signode Industrial Group LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
546 granted / 702 resolved
+7.8% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
724
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
55.3%
+15.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§112
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 702 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Information Disclosure Statement 2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 7th 2024, October 30th 2024, December 10th 2024, May 21st 2025 and August 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the references cited therein are considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 3. Claims 6, 11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites “…wherein the wherein movement” should be replaced with “…wherein the movement…”. Claim 11 recites “…motor-assembly…” In the previous recitations, the phrase “motor assembly” used. For the purpose of consistency, one phrase should be chosen. Claim 13 recites “…motor-assembly…” In the previous recitations, the phrase “motor assembly” is used. For the purpose of consistency, one phrase should be chosen. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation 4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claims 1-16 recite the phrase “a strapping device…” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 6. 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. 7. Claim 14 is 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 14 recites “…such that the constrainer is constrained between the constrainer and the head of the motor mount.” This claim is deemed indefinite because an element cannot be constrained between itself and another element. An element can be constrained between multiple elements that are not itself. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 8. 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. 9. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 10-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scholl et al. (WO 01/92113; “Scholl”; refer to attached translation). Regarding claim 1, Scholl discloses strapping device comprising: a housing (pg. 3 para. 3); a support (13); a tensioning assembly (10) comprising a rotatable tension wheel (21), wherein the tensioning assembly (10) is at least partially housed within the housing (pg. 3 para. 3) and is mounted to and pivotable relative to the support (10; Fig. 1) between a strap-tensioning position (Fig. 3) and a strap-insertion position (Fig. 2; pg. 3 para. 9); a driven gear (40) operably connected to the tension wheel (21) to drive the tension wheel (21; pg. 3 para. 12; Fig. 4); and a motor assembly (20, 36) comprising a motor (20) and a drive gear (36) driven by the motor (20; pg. 3 para. 11), wherein the drive gear (36) is drivingly engaged to the driven gear (40; Fig. 4), wherein the motor assembly (20, 36) is at least partially housed within the housing (pg. 3 para. 3) such that, as the tensioning assembly (10) moves from the strap-tensioning position (Fig. 3) to the strap-insertion position (Fig. 2; pg. 3 para. 9), at least part of the motor (20) moves relative to the housing (pg. 3 para. 9) so the drive gear (36) maintains driving engagement with the driven gear (40). Regarding claim 2, Scholl discloses wherein the movement of the at least part of the motor (20; in the instant case, the part of the motor is the shaft connected to pulley 32. The pivoting of the shaft causes the pulley to rotate) comprises at least one of: longitudinal translation and pivoting movement (pg. 3 para. 9). Regarding claim 4, Scholl discloses wherein the motor assembly (20, 36) comprises a motor mount (19) to which the motor (20) is mounted (Fig. 4), wherein the motor mount (19) is pivotably mounted to the tensioning assembly (10; pg. 3 para. 9; in the instant case, when the tensioning assembly pivots. The motor mount still moves relative to said tensioning assembly). Regarding claim 10, Scholl discloses wherein the motor assembly (20, 36) is in a strap-tensioning configuration when the tensioning assembly (10) is in the strap-tensioning position (Fig. 3) and in a strap-insertion configuration when the tensioning assembly is in the strap-insertion position (Fig. 2). Regarding claim 11, Scholl discloses further comprising a motor-assembly biasing element (64) biasing the motor assembly (20, 36) to the strap-tensioning configuration (Fig. 3; pg. 4 para. 8). Regarding claim 12, Scholl discloses wherein the motor assembly (20, 36) comprises a motor mount (19) comprising a body (Fig. 4) to which the motor (20) is mounted (Fig. 4) and a head (28) pivotably mounted to the tensioning assembly (10; Fig. 4). Regarding claim 13, Scholl discloses wherein the motor assembly (20, 36) comprises the motor-assembly biasing element (64; Fig. 4). Regarding claim 15, Scholl discloses wherein at least one of a position and an orientation of the at least part of the motor (20) relative to the housing differs between the strap-tensioning configuration (Fig. 3) and the strap-insertion configuration (Fig. 2; pg. 3 para. 9). Regarding claim 16, Scholl discloses wherein the at least part of the motor (20) comprises an output shaft (34) fixed in rotation with the drive gear (36; Fig. 4). Allowable Subject Matter 9. Claims 3 and 5-9 allowed. Regarding claim 3, Scholl et al. (WO 01/92113; “Scholl”; refer to attached translation) is the most relevant prior art. Scholl discloses wherein the movement of the at least part of the motor (20) comprises pivoting movement (pg. 3 para. 9). Scholl fails to disclose the movement being longitudinal translation. It would not have been obvious to modify Scholl with the longitudinal translation because it would require a change in tool mechanics. The motor is designed to pivot, not translate. Regarding claim 5, Scholl et al. (WO 01/92113; “Scholl”; refer to attached translation) is the most relevant prior art. Scholl discloses wherein the tensioning assembly (10) comprises a driven shaft (39) operably connected to the tension wheel (21; Fig. 4), wherein the driven gear (40) is operably connected to the driven shaft (39) to drive the driven shaft (39). Scholl fails to disclose wherein the motor mount is pivotably mounted to the driven shaft. It would not have been obvious to modify Scholl with the aforementioned limitation because it would require a reconfiguration of the tool of Scholl. 10. Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 14, Scholl et al. (WO 01/92113; “Scholl”; refer to attached translation) is the most relevant prior art. Scholl disclose all of the claimed subject matter except for a constrainer is constrained between the constrainer and the head of the motor mount. Conclusion 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYAMINDAE JALLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1927. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am-5:00pm and alternating Fridays from 7:30am-4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHELLEY SELF, can be reached on (571)272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. 12. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /EYAMINDAE C JALLOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 07, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599978
RECIPROCATING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600021
IMPACT POWER TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600024
POWER TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594657
MULTI-HEADED POWER TOOL AND SYSTEMS FOR FASTENING HEADS THEREON
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595110
INSULATED CONTAINER AND METHOD OF FORMING AND LOADING AN INSULATED CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 702 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