Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/886,881

ARTICULATING DIE AND FORMING PROCESS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Sep 16, 2024
Examiner
TAWFIK, SAMEH
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Foldstar Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 12m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
619 granted / 987 resolved
-7.3% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 12m
Avg Prosecution
86 currently pending
Career history
1073
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
52.0%
+12.0% vs TC avg
§102
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 987 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I, Species I (claims 1-2 & Fig. 1) in the reply filed on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). 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. Claims 1-2 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the crease" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the contact side" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the folding action" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the contact faces" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, lines 2-3; the claimed “a hinge axis patterning substantially similar to the crease lines” is vague and indefinite as it is not clear what “a hinge axis” is referring to; are they multiple hinge axis “similar to the crease lines” or just one hinge axis! 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paterson (U.S. Patent No. 5,947,885) in view of Gewiss (U.S. Patent No. 4,012,932). Regarding claim 1: Paterson discloses a method of folding a tessellation with an articulating die, comprising: articulating die substantially similar to the crease lines in a folded tessellation, see for example (Figs. 26, 30-34, & 48-49; via upper and lower applied forces); providing sheet material in proximity to the contact side of the die (Figs. 26, 30-34, & 48-49; via the shown sheet material positioned between upper and lower pressing means); and applying force to one or more articulating mechanisms on the die, which relay applied force to the folding action of the die, thereby applying corresponding folding action to the sheet material, see for example (Figs. 26, 30-34, & 48-49; via the shown applied upper/lower forces 38/38c). Paterson may not show a hinging die with hinge axis. However, Gewiss, discloses similar method with the use of hinging die with hinge axis, see for example (Fig. 2; via the shown hinging and rotation of upper/lower applied forces elements positioned on conveyors 18/19). 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 Paterson’s dies, by another movable and hinging once, as suggested by Gewiss, in order to positively and effectively drive and position the pressing force over the web or sheets (column 1, lines 35-40). Regarding claim 2: two articulating dies are applied, with said sheet material held between the contact faces of the two dies, see for example (Figs. 26 & 48; via the shown upper and lower applied force mechanisms); and the dies and material actuated to fold in a press (via the shown folded materials 23/24). Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 16, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600106
CORNET CONE PACKAGE PRODUCTION MACHINE WITH VERTICAL FEEDING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594738
FORMING ASSEMBLY FOR A DUNNAGE CONVERSION MACHINE, DUNNAGE CONVERSION MACHINE AND PRE-PREPARED SHEET STOCK MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594352
PASTEURIZATION UNIT AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583199
MACHINE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING DUNNAGE HAVING AN X-SHAPED CROSS-SECTION PROFILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570423
BAG MANUFACTURING APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
63%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+30.9%)
3y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 987 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