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 without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 04/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sambuca, Jr. (US Pub. No.: 2012/0102893 A1) (hereinafter Sambuca).
Regarding claim 1, Sambuca anticipates a method of operating a case sealer, the method comprising: determining that a first event occurred (¶0032-¶0037); responsive to determining that the first event occurred, begin raising a top-head assembly of the case sealer (¶0037); determining that a second event occurred after the first event (¶0037 -top-head assembly is released)); responsive to determining that the second event occurred, slowing the ascent of the top-head assembly without stopping the ascent of the top-head assembly (¶0037- top-head assembly continuous to travel upward until its momentum dissipates); determining that a third event occurred after the second event; and responsive to determining that the third event occurred, enabling the top-head assembly to stop ascending (¶0038 -electrical limit switch 132 stops upward momentum abruptly).
Regarding claim 2, Sambuca anticipates herein determining that a first event occurred comprises determining that a first sensor (Fig. 10, RC 222) and a second sensor (Fig. 6, RC 120) have each detected a case (¶0043, ¶0037).
Regarding claim 3, Sambuca anticipates wherein determining that the second event occurred comprises determining that the second sensor no longer detects the case while the first sensor continues to detect the case (¶0037).
Regarding claim 10, Sambuca anticipates wherein determining that the first event occurred comprises determining that a case has reached the top-head assembly when the top-head assembly is at a lower position (¶0035-¶0037).
Regarding claim 11, Sambuca anticipates wherein determining that the third event occurred comprises determining that the top-head assembly has risen above a top surface of the case (¶0037-¶0038).
Regarding claim 12, Sambuca anticipates wherein determining that the second event occurred comprises determining that the top-head assembly has reached a position between the lower position and a position at which the top-head assembly is located upon the occurrence of the third event (¶0036-¶0038).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sambuca, Jr. (US Pub. No.: 2012/0102893 A1) (hereinafter Sambuca).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Sambuca discloses enabling the top-head assembly to begin descending after the top-head assembly stops ascending; determining that a fourth event occurred after the third event; and responsive to determining that the fourth event occurred (¶0041-¶0042 -top head assembly resting on top surface of case)-. It would have been obvious to slow the descent of the top-head assembly to assure the top head assembly does not damage or destroy the case/box seating under the top-head assembly.
Regarding claim 14, Sambuca discloses determining that the fourth event occurred comprising determining that the case is below the top-head assembly (¶0041).
Regarding claim 15, Sambuca discloses after the occurrence of the fourth event, engaging the top surface of the case with the top- head assembly; moving the case into engagement with and past a tape cartridge; and applying, by the tape cartridge, tape to an upper surface of the case as the case moves past the tape cartridge (¶0041-¶0042).
Regarding claim 16, Sambuca discloses enabling the top-head assembly to begin descending after the top-head assembly stops ascending; and after the case has been positioned below the top-head assembly: engaging the top surface of the case with the top-head assembly; moving the case into engagement with and past a tape cartridge; and applying, by the tape cartridge, tape to an upper surface of the case as the case moves past the tape cartridge (¶0041-¶0042).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 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 VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7660. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights