DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 6/23/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for picking the blanks form the store unit in claims 1-7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structures for means for picking the blanks form the store unit in claims 1-7 are conveyor M1, picker unit K, and dragging unit T as described in para 0027-0048.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGP# USPGP# 20220063914 of Langen (henceforth Langen) in view of USPGP# 20220204195 of Evers (henceforth Evers).
Regarding claim 1, Langen teaches
A cartoning machine (machine shown in fig. 13) comprising:
- a store unit (m1-12 in fig. 13) configured for storing a stack (¶0154) of cardboard blanks (101);
- means for picking the blanks (1203, 1217, 1231. please note means for picking blanks has been interpreted under 112f/6th para which has the corresponding structure of conveyor M1, picker unit K, and dragging unit T. Langen teaches a blank conveyor 1203, separator/picker unit 1231 and transporting/dragging unit 1217 which perform the equivalent function of moving the blanks from the store unit (m1-12) to the unfolding station (5120)) from the store unit (¶0182-0185);
-an unfolding station (5120), in which the cardboard blanks are put into shape, assuming the shape of an open parallelepiped box (¶0107-0110, see figs. 40-43);
- a conveyor (C5206, 324) that transports the blanks individually to the unfolding station (¶0173, 0184-0185), the conveyor having a conveyor exit side (side of 5206 closer to 5120 in fig. 17a);
- an exit station (5117) for the packages consisting of boxes (fig. 46);
wherein
- in the unfolding station are arranged means for unfolding the cardboard blanks comprising moveable upper unfolding members (5312) adapted to engage an upper side of the blanks (B),
- the means for unfolding the blanks further comprising a lower unfolding base (5400) that supports lower unfolding members (5408), the lower unfolding members being mounted on a moveable support (5402) which is moved parallel to the conveyor in correspondence with the conveyor exit side (see fig. 17a, figs. 28-29 and fig. 34, the movable support 5402 moves on rail 5414 which is parallel to conveyor exit side (side of 5206 closer to 5120) ), wherein the movable support (5402) is configured to move in synchronism with the moveable upper unfolding members (5312) during unfolding (see figs. 40-42), the lower unfolding members (5408) being adapted to engage a lower side of the blanks (D).
Langen does not teach
- a product feeding station (A), where products (RC) destined to be packaged in the open parallelepiped boxes (C) are fed;
- an insertion station (N), in which the products (RC) are inserted into the open parallelepiped boxes (C);
- and the product exists the exit station with products inside the boxes.
Evers teaches
A cartoning machine (100) comprising:
- a store unit (120) configured for storing a stack (see fig. 1) of cardboard blanks (C);
- means for picking the blanks (“suction gripper” in para 0119) from the store unit (para 0119, “the carton blanks C, which are preferably pre-glued, can be removed from the carton magazine 120 by means of a (suction) gripper”);
-an unfolding station (130), in which the cardboard blanks are put into shape, assuming the shape of an open parallelepiped box (“K”, para 0120, fig. 3);
-a product feeding station (110), where products (O) destined to be packaged in the open parallelepiped boxes (K) are fed; and
- an insertion station (140), in which the products are inserted into the open parallelepiped boxes (para 0109-0110);
- an exit station (180) for the packages consisting of boxes with the products inside them.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the cartooning machine of Langen with the addition of a product feed station and insertion station such that at the exit station, the boxes have products inside of them, as taught by Evers, in order to provide the predictable result of allowing packaging of products in the erecting machine. This produces the predictable result of saving space since a separate machine for inserting product is not needed (Evers: para 0004). Additionally, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the modification of Langen with the teachings of Evers, involves no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416
The combination of Langen and Evers further teaches
and wherein
- in an intermediate position between the unfolding station and the product insertion station there is a mechanism (Langen: 5130) for folding vertical flaps (Langen: F, G) of a rear side of the boxes (Langen: ¶0216) with folders (Langen: 5500, 5510) mounted on a respective folders support (Langen: 5526, 5528) oriented parallel to a direction (Langen: see annotated fig. 17a) followed by the boxes between the product insertion station and the exit station (Langen: 5526 and 5528 are mounted on rail 5512 which runs parallel to the exit station 5117 as shown in fig. 17a. Additionally, since product insertion station is in between the folding station and exit station, the folder supports 5526, 5528 will also move parallel to the product insertion station);
-the position of the movable support and the position of the folders support are both adjustable relative to the product insertion station as a function of the size of the cardboard blanks (¶0227 describes a controller 5132 adjusting various components including 5140 (which includes the movable support 5402) and 5130 (which includes folder supports 5526, 5528) as a function of the cardboard blank size/type. this adjustment is further described in ¶0343 and ¶0360).
PNG
media_image1.png
1136
1168
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Langen and Evers teaches
wherein said means for unfolding the cardboard blanks comprise two independent upper unfolding units (Langen: plurality of 5120, ¶0363) comprising the unfolding members (5312), the two independent upper unfolding units being arranged above the lower unfolding base (Langen: 5400).
Regarding claim 3, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Langen and Evers teaches
wherein the unfolding members are pneumatic suction cups (Langen: 5312 in ¶0213 and 5408 in ¶0215).
Regarding claim 4, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Langen and Evers teaches
wherein the positions of the moveable support and the folders support is are controlled by respective actuators (Langen: 5422 for support 5402 (¶0215) and 5514 and 5568 for folder support 5526, 5528 (¶0216-0217)).
Regarding claim 5, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Langen and Evers teaches
wherein said folders (Langen: 5500, 5510, fig. 36) are two in number.
Regarding claim 6, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Langen and Evers teaches
wherein the unfolding station, the product feeding station, the insertion station and the exit station are arranged along a "U" shaped (Langen: ¶0362, see fig. 13 and 17a and the path around the various stations)Langen: ¶0362, see fig. 13 and 17a, U-shaped can also be interpreted as C-shaped depending on the angle from which it is viewed).
Regarding claim 7, as shown in claim 2, the combination of Langen and Evers teaches
wherein the two independent upper unfolding units (Langen: 5312, ¶0363) each comprise a support (Langen: 5327) on which more pneumatic suction cups (Langen: 5312 are suction cups on each support 5327) are mounted and which is mounted on a vertical guide (Langen: 5169, ¶ 0363) to be moved vertically to and from the conveyor by means of a respective actuator (Langen: 5154, ¶ 0363 and 0203).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/23/2026 have been fully considered:
Amended claims have overcome all previous 112 (a) or first paragraph rejection/s.
Amended claims have overcome all previous 112 (b) or second paragraph rejection/s.
Applicant's has not made any arguments with respect to the base reference of USPGP# 20220063914 of Langen being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOBEEN AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 272-0356. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am to 5 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights