Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/877,689

INSTALLATION FOR PRODUCING CORRUGATED PAPERBOARD, AND METHOD FOR OPERATING SUCH AN INSTALLATION

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 20, 2024
Examiner
WITTENSCHLAEGER, THOMAS M
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
BHS Corrugated Maschinen- und Anlagenbau GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
384 granted / 542 resolved
+0.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
585
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.7%
+2.7% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 542 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 Status This Office action is in response to the filing of 12/20/2024. Claims 1-18 are currently pending. Claims 1-18 have been amended in a preliminary amendment. 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. Claim 17 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. Regarding claim 17, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if what follows the phrase is a part of the claimed invention. In order to further prosecution, the limitation following the phrase has been interpreted to not be a part of the claimed invention. 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. Claims 1, 9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark (US 2017/0087878 A1) in view of Harle (US 2011/0023323 A1). Regarding claim 1, Mark discloses a method for operating an installation (Fig. 1), the method comprising: producing corrugated paperboard (19 – Fig. 1) using a corrugator (1 – Fig. 1) of the installation (para. 0060); and printing a print on a paper ply (36 – Fig. 1) using a printing installation (the assembly of 37 – Fig. 1 and 40 and 46 – Fig. 3) of the installation (para. 0067), wherein the corrugator and the printing installation form a combination (1 and 37 are both members of the installation depicted in Fig. 1, hence they are interpreted to form a combination). However, Mark does not expressly disclose how the installation is powered. Harle teaches a method for operating an installation (Fig. 4), the method comprising: generating thermal power (in the form of 11 – Fig. 4) and electrical power (the power depicted in Fig. 4) using a thermal engine (12 – Fig. 4) of the installation (see Fig. 4), wherein two units (the combination of elements in Fig. 4 to the left of 12 and the unit not depicted which receives power from 12) form a combination and are thus jointly supplied with thermal power and with electrical power by the thermal engine (see Fig. 4 where the power is supplied in a path to the right of 12 and 11 is supplied to the left of 12). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Harle would have recognized that installation of Mark could be powered by the method of Harle since Mark uses both thermal power (para. 0076, Mark) and electrical power (not expressly disclosed but it is clear from that the system must use some form of electrical power in order to run all the elements, Mark) with the benefit that the installation may have an overall higher energetic efficiency by using the exhaust gas from the thermal engine for the thermal power (para. 0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have powered the installation of Mark using the method of Harle in order to provide an overall higher energetic efficiency. Mark, as modified by Harle further teaches: Claim 9, the installation has a steam accumulator (22 – Fig. 4, Harle) which compensates for the time-variable thermal power requirement of the combination (para. 0036, Harle). Claim 11, the electrical power is used to operate at least one IR dryer (since Mark teaches an IR dryer, para. 0073, the electrical power would be used to operate this IR dryer). Claim 12, the printing installation has at least one IR dryer (47 – Fig. 3 and para. 0073, Mark) and at least one hot air dryer (55 – Fig. 3 and para. 0076, Mark) for drying the print, wherein the IR dryer is arranged upstream of the hot air dryer with respect to a conveying direction of the paper ply (see Fig. 3 where the paper ply moves from 41 to 42, Mark). Claim 13, the printing installation has an IR dryer (47 – Fig. 3, Mark) which is operated with electrical power (this is a result of the combination of Mark and Harle, where the electrical power is used to power the electrical elements of the installation which would include the IR dryer) and a dryer (55 – Fig. 3, Mark) which is operated with thermal power (this is a combination of Mark and Harle where the dryer of Mark is analogous to the dryer 1 – Fig. 4 of Harle) for drying the print, wherein a respective power consumption of the IR dryer and of the dryer is controlled such that a thermal power requirement and an electrical power requirement of the combination are adapted to the electrical power and the thermal power of the thermal engine (para. 0036, Harle). Claim 14, the thermal engine has a gas turbine (para. 0033, Harle). Claim 15, the printing installation is a digital printing installation (para. 0067, Mark). Claim 16, the printing installation (the assembly of 37 – Fig. 1 and 40 and 46 – Fig. 3, Mark) and the corrugator (1 – Fig. 1, Mark) are operated in-line (see Fig. 1, Mark, where the units are disposed along a line). Claim 17, the printing installation (the assembly of 37 – Fig. 1 and 40 and 46 – Fig. 3, Mark) and the corrugator (1 – Fig. 1, Mark) are operated independently from one another (see Fig 1, since they are separate units, they are interpreted to be operated independently from one another). Claim 18, an installation which is designed to operate in accordance with a method according to claim 1 (the installation of Mark as modified by Harle as set forth above in claim 1). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-8 and 10 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 THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00. 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, Thanh Truong can be reached at 571-272-4472. 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. /THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731 10/14/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 20, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594088
UNCLAMPED FIRING LOCKOUT FOR LINEAR SURGICAL STAPLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595088
Cotton Module Unwrapping Systems, Methods, and Apparatuses
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576502
POWER TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577003
CLOSING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CLOSING FOLDABLE PACKAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577009
CARTONING MACHINE FOR MULTIPLE, DIFFERENT CARTON CONFIGURATIONS AND METHOD OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
71%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+11.9%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 542 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