Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/037,180

PUSHING MECHANISM AND BOX PACKAGING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 25, 2025
Examiner
LEEDS, DANIEL JEREMY
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ishida Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
203 granted / 298 resolved
-1.9% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
351
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
42.0%
+2.0% vs TC avg
§102
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§112
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 298 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the bag” in the last line should read “a bag of the plurality of bags”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida, JP 6534820. Regarding claim 1, Ishida discloses: A pushing mechanism that pushes a plurality of bags (Figs. 1-7a, article WP) formed by sealing both end portions of a film formed in a tubular shape into a laterally open box in an erected posture, the pushing mechanism comprising: a box standby unit (Figs. 1-7a, Box standby unit 350) for causing the box to stand by; an article placement unit (Figs. 1-7a, Article placing unit 310) having a placement surface on which the plurality of bags are temporarily placed in the erected posture; and a pushing unit (Figs. 1-7a, Pushing mechanism 300) extending in an alignment direction of the plurality of bags and pushing the plurality of bags placed on the placement surface into the box by moving toward an opening of the box from the article placement unit, wherein the pushing unit has a contact portion (Figs. 1-7a, Push-in plate 340) that comes into contact with a portion of the bag in a height direction in the erected posture such that one side of the bag is bent in a pushing direction (the use of a pushing device upon a bag or package of similar sort would necessarily bend the package upon contact). Regarding claim 4, Ishida further discloses: the contact portion is provided to be expandable and contractible in the alignment direction of the plurality of bags (see Figs. 7a-7e). Regarding claim 5, Ishida further discloses: one side of the bag bent by the contact portion corresponds to any one edge side of a pair of seal portions provided in both end portions of the bag. (see MPEP 2115, MATERIAL OR ARTICLE WORKED UPON DOES NOT LIMIT APPARATUS CLAIMS - Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)). Regarding claim 6, Ishida further discloses: the contact portion comes into contact with a central portion of the bag in the height direction in the erected posture (see Figs. 1-7. It can be seen that the contact portion of the bag is a central portion), and one side of the bag pushed into the box on an opening side of the box is made to bent so as to enter an inside of the box when viewed in the alignment direction of the plurality of bags (see MPEP 2115, MATERIAL OR ARTICLE WORKED UPON DOES NOT LIMIT APPARATUS CLAIMS - Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)). Regarding claim 7, Ishida further discloses: a transport mechanism (Figs. 1-7a, Transport mechanism 100) that sequentially transports the bags one by one; an accumulation mechanism (Figs. 1-7a, Integration mechanism 200A) that accumulates a predetermined number of the bags; and the pushing mechanism according to claim 1, which pushes the predetermined number of the bags into the box (Figs. 1-7a, Pushing mechanism 300). 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. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ishida. Regarding claim 2, Ishida further discloses: the contact portion (Figs. 1-7a, Push-in plate 340) protrudes in a pushing direction of the pushing unit pushing the bag from a pressing surface (Figs. 1-7a, first and/or second plate 341, 342) on which the pushing unit pushes the plurality of bags. Ishida does not explicitly disclose: a protruding height of the contact portion is larger than 1/10 of a length of the bag in the pushing direction, and is smaller than 1/3 of the length of the bag. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize an appropriately sized pusher element, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. It should be noted that the Ishida reference has a pusher plate that is adjustable for both height and width, which would allow it to be optimized for the size of the bag. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida in view of Schmidt, US 20210394942. Regarding claim 3, Ishida discloses the device of claim 1. Ishida does not explicitly disclose: a raising and lowering unit that raises and lowers the box standby unit, wherein the pushing unit pushes the plurality of bags into the box lowered by the raising and lowering unit again after the plurality of bags are pushed into the box. Schmidt teaches: a raising and lowering unit (Figs. 4-5, gripper 14) that raises and lowers the box standby unit, wherein the pushing unit pushes the plurality of bags into the box lowered by the raising and lowering unit again after the plurality of bags are pushed into the box (see Figs. 4-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize the ox raising and lowering device as taught by Schmidt in combination with the Ishida device, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this alteration is that it allows for multi-row packaging of smaller items, thereby allowing the user to pack more items in the box. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730. 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. /DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 25, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601235
RETRIEVABLE WASTE CAPSULES, RETRIEVAL-TOOL, SYSTEMS AND METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600022
POWER TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597666
NOSECONE TO BATTERY CONNECTION IN POWER TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583091
POWER TOOL AND A TRANSMISSION THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583069
ROTARY POWER TOOL
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
68%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+36.5%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 298 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