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 4/21/2025. Claims 1-17 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended in a preliminary amendment. Claims 4-17 are newly added in the preliminary amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the structures in the drawings are not clear. Currently, the drawings appear to be a CAD output with unclear shading. Structures in the drawings should be represented by clear and dark lines with minimal shading. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ortiz (US 9718570 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Ortiz discloses a system for robotically forming a carton, comprising: a carton assembly station (Fig. 1) comprising: a minor flap folding station (at 30 – Fig. 1) having a minor flap platform (30 – Fig. 1) upon which minor flaps of the carton can be robotically folded (col. 3, lines 46-56); a transfer shelf (the portion of 32 extending beyond 36 – Fig. 1) positioned adjacent the minor flap folding station (see Fig. 1, 32 is near 30) and configured to support the carton with the minor flaps folded (32 has a planar top surface, hence it is fully capable of supporting the carton with the minor flaps folded); a major flap folding station (at the region in which 36 extends – Fig. 1) having a major flap platform (36 – Fig. 1) upon which a major flap of the carton can be robotically folded (col. 4, lines 17-20); and a robot (10 – Fig. 1) having a processor with non-transitory memory in which is stored a program of instructions executable by the processor and which when executed cause the carton to be formed (col. 4, line 35 – col. 5, line 6).
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortiz (US 9718570 B1) in view of Robinson (US 6088995) and Langen (US 2021/0138756 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ortiz discloses a method for robotically forming a carton using a robot, wherein the method comprises the steps of: robotically picking a carton blank (20 – Fig. 2; see Fig. 1, the robot must have necessarily picked the carton blank to hold it), the carton blank comprising a carton body (the body of 20 – Fig. 2), at least two minor flaps (22a,b – Fig. 4) and at least one major flap (24a,b – Fig. 5); robotically forming the carton body from the carton blank (col. 3, lines 16-34); robotically moving the carton to a minor flap folding station (at 30 – Fig. 1; the robot must have necessarily moved the carton blank to 30); robotically folding the minor flaps of the carton with respect to the carton body (col. 3, lines 46-56); robotically moving the carton to a major flap folding station (the region of 36 and the portion of 32 from the right of 32 to the same distance of extension as 36, the portion of 32 that extends past 36 is not interpreted to be the region of the major flap folding station); and robotically folding the major flaps of the carton with respect to the carton body (col. 4, lines 17-20).
However, Ortiz does not disclose the step of verifying that the carton is formed.
Robinson teaches a method comprising the step of verifying that a carton is formed (col. 2, lines 1-5) in order to ensure only correctly formed cartons are provided for loading.
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 modified the method of Ortiz to include the step of verifying that the carton is formed as taught by Robinson in order to ensure only correctly formed cartons are provided for loading.
However, Ortiz, as modified by Robinson, does not expressly teach where the carton blanks are picked.
Langen teaches a stack of carton blanks, wherein the cartons blanks are stored in a magazine (110 – Fig. 1).
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 modified the method of Ortiz such that carton blanks are picked from a magazine as taught by Langen since Ortiz is silent with respect to where the carton blanks are stored and Langen teaches a known solution.
Regarding claim 9, Ortiz further discloses the step of robotically picking a carton blank from a magazine comprises pneumatically actuating a vacuum cup to engage the carton blank (col. 3, lines 10-13, Ortiz).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortiz (US 9718570 B1) in view of Robinson (US 6088995) and Langen (US 2021/0138756 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Oritz further teaches the program of instructions performs a method when executed, the method comprises the following steps: robotically picking a carton blank (20 – Fig. 2; see Fig. 1, the robot must have necessarily picked the carton blank to hold it), the carton blank comprising a carton body (the body of 20 – Fig. 2), at least two minor flaps (22a,b – Fig. 4) and at least one major flap (24a,b – Fig. 5); robotically forming the carton body from the carton blank (col. 3, lines 16-34); robotically moving the carton to a minor flap folding station (at 30 – Fig. 1; the robot must have necessarily moved the carton blank to 30); robotically folding the minor flaps of the carton with respect to the carton body (col. 3, lines 46-56); robotically moving the carton to a major flap folding station (the region of 36 and the portion of 32 from the right of 32 to the same distance of extension as 36, the portion of 32 that extends past 36 is not interpreted to be the region of the major flap folding station); and robotically folding the major flaps of the carton with respect to the carton body (col. 4, lines 17-20).
However, Ortiz does not disclose the step of verifying that the carton is formed.
Robinson teaches a method comprising the step of verifying that a carton is formed (col. 2, lines 1-5) in order to ensure only correctly formed cartons are provided for loading.
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 modified the method of Ortiz to include the step of verifying that the carton is formed as taught by Robinson in order to ensure only correctly formed cartons are provided for loading.
However, Ortiz, as modified by Robinson, does not expressly teach where the carton blanks are picked.
Langen teaches a stack of carton blanks, wherein the cartons blanks are stored in a magazine (110 – Fig. 1).
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 modified the method of Ortiz such that carton blanks are picked from a magazine as taught by Langen since Ortiz is silent with respect to where the carton blanks are stored and Langen teaches a known solution.
Regarding claim 4, Ortiz further discloses the step of robotically picking a carton blank from a magazine comprises pneumatically actuating a vacuum cup to engage the carton blank (col. 3, lines 10-13, Ortiz).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 10-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 5 and 10, the primary reason for allowance is the inclusion of the step of forming the carton body by extending pneumatic extension rods while the carton blank is flat so that a set of tooling will open the carton blank while a pair of gripping plates engage and hold the carton body when the carton body forms.
Ortiz uses a robot with gripping plates but the method of Ortiz differs in that a first gripping plate pivots relative to another to erect a carton body. There are no pneumatic extension rods or a set of tooling.
The reference that most closely teaches the claimed opening device is Odom (US 4133254) that teaches a pair of grippers (66 – Fig. 2) on gripping plates (65 – Fig. 1, 70 – Fig. 2) and pneumatic extension rods (125, 131 – Fig. 6) that actuate tooling (123, 136 – Fig. 6) to erect a carton blank. However, this device is mounted on and requires a large frame. It is not clear how it could be reasonably mounted on a robot arm as taught by Ortiz without substantial modification to both the robot arm of Ortiz and the device of Odom and thereby engaging in impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Langen (US 12083764) teaches erecting a carton blank then folding minor and major flaps.
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, Shelley 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
9/16/2026
