Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/953,353

AUTOMATIC PACKAGING SYSTEM FOR SQUEEZE TUBES IN A PACKAGE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 20, 2024
Examiner
RUSHING-TUCKER, CHINYERE J
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Sileane
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
363 granted / 491 resolved
+3.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
515
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.0%
+6.0% vs TC avg
§102
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 491 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. This Action is in response to the Application filed 11/20/2024. The status of the Claims is as follows: Claims 1-10 are pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the Application on 11/20/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Interpretation 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. Limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) include: First viewing system (7): camera Fig. 1 Second viewing system (8): camera Fig. 1 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 3-5 and 8 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 3 recites the limitation "the plate" in line 1 of the Claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the plate" in line 1 of the Claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the wedges" in line 1 of the Claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the plate" in line 2 of the Claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the polyarticulated systems" in line 2 of the Claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-10 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Upon examination, the art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious the claimed at least one first polyarticulated system comprising a gripper coupled with a single gripping tool provided with at least one suction cup and configured to grip, one by one, and in association with a first viewing system, tubes and depositing them flat, in association with a second viewing system, on an intermediate plate; at least one intermediate plate comprising at least one row of wedges adjusted to the shape of the tubes and laterally attached to one another to support the tubes flat side by side and in the same direction; and at least one second polyarticulated system comprising a gripper coupled with a simultaneous gripping tool provided with a row of suction cups and configured to simultaneously grip all of the tubes from the intermediate plate and package them flat in a package. Thompson et al. (US 20140260113) at least one first polyarticulated system comprising a gripper coupled with a single gripping tool configured to grip, one by one, tubes and depositing them flat on an intermediate plate (26); at least one intermediate plate (26) comprising at least one row of wedges (Fig. 36) adjusted to the shape of the tubes and laterally attached to one another to support the tubes (18) flat side by side and in the same direction; and at least one second polyarticulated system (60) configured to simultaneously grip all of the tubes (18) from the intermediate plate and package them flat in a package (Fig. 41C). The Prior Art does not teach a first and second polyarticulated system as claimed. Thus, it is Examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at Applicant's invention as claimed. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)270-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 4 pm - 11:59 pm Monday - Friday. 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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 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 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. /CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 20, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600546
PACKAGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600517
AUTOMATIC PACKAGER FOR PHARMACEUTICALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595085
BOX-PACKING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583645
MEDICATION CONTAINER INFEED LOOP SYSTEM AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582399
STAPLE CARTRIDGE AND METHODS FOR SURGICAL STAPLERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
74%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+11.4%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 491 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