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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification/Claims
The disclosure and claims 12 to 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The Specification and claims 12 to 15 use the same terms, namely first upright and second upright, for indicating components of the holding devices 11 (first upright 12 and second upright 13) and for components of the creasing device 22 (first upright 23 and second upright 24), this causes confusion for understanding the invention and claims. One set of them should be renamed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
On Claim 1:
cutting blades are configured to make cuts in a vertical direction on vertical corners of a box
said plurality of creasing devices are configured to create creases in the horizontal direction on said box
said holding devices are configured to contact and restrain respective portions of said box.
On Claim 2:
said plurality of creasing devices is configured to move along said respective creasing direction.
On Claim 3:
said plurality of cutting blades is configured to operate cuts in a vertical direction.
On Claim 7:
first spacer device connected to said first pair of sliding guides and configured to move said sliding guides of said first pair of sliding guides away from and towards each other.
On Claim 9:
second spacer device connected to said second pair of sliding guides and configured to move said sliding guides of said second pair of sliding guides away from and towards each other
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 to 15 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.
Regarding Claims 1 to 3, 7 and 9
Claim limitations:
On Claim 1:
cutting blades are configured to make cuts in a vertical direction on vertical corners of a box
said plurality of creasing devices are configured to create creases in the horizontal direction on said box
said holding devices are configured to contact and restrain respective portions of said box.
On Claim 2:
said plurality of creasing devices is configured to move along said respective creasing direction.
On Claim 3:
said plurality of cutting blades is configured to operate cuts in a vertical direction.
On Claim 7:
first spacer device connected to said first pair of sliding guides and configured to move said sliding guides of said first pair of sliding guides away from and towards each other.
On Claim 9:
second spacer device connected to said second pair of sliding guides and configured to move said sliding guides of said second pair of sliding guides away from and towards each other.
have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the Examiner is not sure if the Applicant wants the Claims interpreted in such way. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding Claim 10:
The Claim reads:
said first spacer device is further connected to a first holding device and a second holding device and to a third holding device and a fourth holding device to mutually move said first holding device and second holding device away from and towards said third holding device and fourth holding device in a manner integral with said first pair of sliding guides.
This limitation is unclear because it merely states a function “to mutually move said first holding device and second holding device…” without providing any indication about how the function is performed beyond the spacer being “further connected”. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, being part of the same apparatus, it can be considered that all parts are connected in one way or another, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure to perform the claimed function or is simply a result of operating the apparatus on a certain way.
Regarding Claim 11:
The Claim reads:
said first spacer device is further connected to a first holding device and a second holding device and to a third holding device and a fourth holding device to mutually move said first holding device and second holding device away from and towards said third holding device and fourth holding device in a manner integral with said first pair of sliding guides, and
wherein said second spacer device is further connected to said first holding device and third holding device and to said second holding device and fourth holding device to mutually move said first holding device and third holding device away from and closer to said second holding device and fourth holding device in a manner integral with said second pair of sliding guides.
This limitations are unclear because they merely states a function “to mutually move said first holding device and second holding device…” and to “to mutually move said first holding device and third holding device…” without providing any indication about how the functions are performed beyond the spacer devices being “further connected”. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, being part of the same apparatus, it can be considered that all parts are connected in one way or another, so it is unclear whether the functions require some other structure to perform the claimed function or is simply a result of operating the apparatus on a certain way.
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, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alalempi (FI 20225268) in view of Sasaki (EP 4711284).
Regarding Claims 1 and 3:
Alalempi discloses an apparatus for height dimensioning of boxes, Abstract, not numbered, the apparatus comprising: a support base configured to receive and support a box (Abstract, means for moving a prefabricated packing box containing a stuffing to a work station, the workstation supporting box 1 will be considered the support base);
a plurality of cutting blades, wherein said plurality of cutting blades and said support base are placed in an approaching and moving-away relationship, and wherein said cutting blades are configured to make cuts in a vertical direction on vertical corners of a box (Figures 4, 5a and 5b, members 9 open corners 5 of box 1);
a plurality of creasing devices switchable between a rest condition and a creasing condition, wherein in the creasing condition said plurality of creasing devices are configured to create creases in the horizontal direction on said box (Figures 3 and 8, creasing tools 8);
wherein when said plurality of creasing devices are in the creasing condition, said holding devices are in the restraining condition (The opening of the corners 5 is advantageously done when the pulling tools 8 squeeze all four vertical sides 6 of the packaging box 1).
and said plurality of creasing devices are movable along respective creasing directions relative to said holding devices (Figure 3 shows the creasing devices moving on a direction 17, relative to the holding devices).
Alalempi discloses a plurality of holding devices movable and wherein each holding device of said plurality of holding devices comprises at least one respective cutting blade of said plurality of cutting blades (Figures 4, 5a and 5b, opening means 7 will be considered the holding devices with blades 9); but Alalempi does not disclose the plurality of holding devices movable between an open condition and a closed condition, wherein in the closed condition said holding devices are configured to contact and restrain respective portions of said box or wherein each cutting blade of said plurality of cutting blades is configured to operate cuts in a vertical direction on vertical corners of a box when the respective holding device is in the open condition.
Sasaki teaches a similar apparatus for height dimensioning of boxes comprising plurality of holding devices movable between an open condition and a closed condition, wherein in the closed condition said holding devices are configured to contact and restrain respective portions of said box or wherein each cutting blade of said plurality of cutting blades is configured to operate cuts in a vertical direction on vertical corners of a box when the respective holding device is in the open condition (Figures 6 and 9 show the four separation arms 61, that will be considered the holding devices for blades 63 in what will be considered the closed position, with blade 63 still spaced from the corners of the box and eight guide rollers 64 contacting and restraining portions of the box an providing guide and support for straight operation of the blades; the open position will be considered when the blades 63 are further down cutting the corners in a vertical direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Alalempi the teachings of Sasaki and use a holding device including guide rollers that would provide contact and restrain respective portions of said box in the closed position and guidance for the blades to operate vertically cutting the corners in the open position.
Regarding Claim 4:
As already discussed for Claim 1, for the modified invention of Alalempi, the teachings of Sasaki were used for the teachings of the holding devices for blades 63 in what will be considered the closed position, with blade 63 still spaced from the corners of the box and eight guide rollers 64 contacting and restraining portions of the box and providing guide and support for straight operation of the blades, the rollers 64 will be considered “gripping devices” short of any additional limitation. Note that Figure 9 shows rollers 64 on the “closed condition” and are placed above the crease line L3, made by the creasing devices at what will be considered a “second distance”.
Short of any additional limitation the creasing tools of Alalempi will be considered “creasing heads” and are placed at a distance from the bottom of the box that will be considered a “first distance”, the first distance being smaller than the second distance as measured in the vertical direction.
The modified invention of Alalempi does not disclose the second distance being between 0.5 and 1.5 times said first distance.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to obtain the claimed distance range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 2, 6 to 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alalempi (FI 20255268) in view of Sasaki (EP 4711284) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Rea (WO 2024154162).
Regarding Claims 2 and 14:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Alalempi discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Alalempi does not disclose wherein each creasing device of said plurality of creasing devices is configured to move along said respective creasing direction away from a holding device of said plurality of holding devices and closer to a further holding device of said plurality of holding devices to create a respective crease in the horizontal direction, and wherein each creasing device of said plurality of creasing devices comprises a respective first upright perpendicular to said support base and configured to be placed inside said box and a respective second upright configured to be placed outside said box..
Rea teaches creasing devices comprising rolls to be used on a similar apparatus for height dimensioning of boxes, but also adaptable for boxes of different horizontal dimensions, the device comprise creasing rollers that to move along a respective creasing direction away from a from one corner of the box to a to a further corner of the box (Figure 4, creasing rollers 53, 54 and Figures 8 and 9 creasing elements 34 operating against second groove 51 of contrast element 50, creasing rollers 53 and 54 are mounted on not numbered vertical shafts that will be considered first and second uprights, the first upright placed inside the box and the second outside the box).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Alalempi the teachings of Rea and, for an apparatus for height dimensioning of boxes, but also adaptable for boxes of different horizontal dimensions replace the creasing tools for creasing rollers mounted on first and second uprights, the first upright placed inside the box and the second outside the box, the creasing rollers moving in the creasing direction, away from a from one vertical corner of the box to a to a further vertical corner of the box, and since the holding elements are located in the corners of the box, the movement would be in a creasing direction away from a holding device of said plurality of holding devices and closer to a further holding device of said plurality of holding devices to create a respective crease in the horizontal direction, since the creasing tool of Alalempi only works on boxes of similar horizontal dimensions.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Alalempi discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Alalempi does not disclose a first pair of sliding guides parallel to each other, wherein each sliding guide of said first pair of sliding guides is slidably associated with at least one respective creasing device of said plurality of creasing devices to move along a respective creasing direction or the use of a first spacer device.
Rea teaches creasing devices comprising rolls to be used on a similar apparatus for height dimensioning of boxes, but also adaptable for boxes of different horizontal dimensions, the device comprise creasing rollers that to move along a respective creasing direction away from a from one corner of the box to a to a further corner of the box (Figure 4, creasing rollers 53, 54 and Figures 8 and 9 creasing elements 34); in particular creasing elements 34 move along a guide protrusion 45, that can be considered a sliding guide and driven by drive members 24a and 24b that will be considered spacer devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Alalempi the teachings of Rea and use a sliding guide to guide the movement direction of the creasing devices and use a driver to power the movement of the creasing devices, since the use of guides and drivers to direct the movements of parts is a common practice in the art.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Alalempi discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Alalempi does not disclose a second pair of sliding guides or a second spacer driver; even though Rea teaches creasing rollers 53, 54 it does not explicitly teach how it is driven; but since the first set of creasing devices 34 are driven by a first pair of sliding guides and a first spacer, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the same solution to provide movement to the second set of creasing devices and use a second pair of sliding guides and a second spacer device as a well known way to drive the creasing devices.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alalempi (FI 20255268) in view of Sasaki (EP 4711284) and Rea (WO 2024154162) as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of Opitz (US 2023/0159207).
Regarding Claim 15:
As discussed for Claim 14 above, the modified invention of Alalempi discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Alalempi, that includes the teachings of Rea, does not disclose second upright of the creasing device is movable relative to said first upright of the creasing device between an approaching condition to said first upright of the creasing device and a moving-away condition from said first upright of the creasing device; wherein when said second upright of the creasing device is in the moving-away condition said creasing device is in the rest condition and wherein when said second upright of the creasing device is in the approaching condition said creasing device is in the creasing condition.
Opitz teaches a similar apparatus for height dimensioning of boxes including also a creasing device comprising a first upright positioned inside the box and a second upright positioned outside the box (Figure 3, creasing tool 10 with creasing roller 12 considered the first upright and counter-pressure roller 14 considered the first upright) the distance between the rollers can be adjusted between an approaching condition to said first upright of the creasing device and a moving-away condition from said first upright of the creasing device; wherein when said second upright of the creasing device is in the moving-away condition said creasing device is in the rest condition and wherein when said second upright of the creasing device is in the approaching condition said creasing device is in the creasing condition (Paragraph 0046, the creasing tool 10 is positioned by means of a robot arm or a rail system on a side wall 22 of the folded box 20 so that the creasing roller 12 on one side of the side wall 22 and the counter-pressure roller 14 on the other side of the side wall 22, that would be considered the approaching condition and the creasing tool in a rest condition. By reducing the distance between the two rollers 12, 14, the side wall 22 is clamped in between the creasing roller 12 and the counter-pressure roller 14 on what will be considered that the creasing device is in the approaching condition said creasing device is in the creasing condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Alalempi the teachings of Opitz and have the second upright of the creasing device movable relative to said first upright of the creasing device between a moving-away condition, where the first and second upright are separated, and an approaching condition, where the first and second upright are close to each other clamping the wall of the box to allow for positioning of the creasing device in position.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alalempi (FI 20255268) in view of Rea (WO 2024154162).
Regarding Claims 1 and 12:
Alalempi discloses an apparatus for height dimensioning of boxes, Abstract, not numbered, the apparatus comprising: a support base configured to receive and support a box (Abstract, means for moving a prefabricated packing box containing a stuffing to a work station, the workstation supporting box 1 will be considered the support base);
a plurality of cutting blades, wherein said plurality of cutting blades and said support base are placed in an approaching and moving-away relationship, and wherein said cutting blades are configured to make cuts in a vertical direction on vertical corners of a box (Figures 4, 5a and 5b, members 9 open corners 5 of box 1);
a plurality of creasing devices switchable between a rest condition and a creasing condition, wherein in the creasing condition said plurality of creasing devices are configured to create creases in the horizontal direction on said box (Figures 3 and 4, creasing tools 8);
wherein when said plurality of creasing devices are in the creasing condition, said holding devices are in the restraining condition (The opening of the corners 5 is advantageously done when the pulling tools 8 squeeze all four vertical sides 6 of the packaging box 1);
and said plurality of creasing devices are movable along respective creasing directions relative to said holding devices (Figure 3 shows the creasing devices moving on a direction 17, relative to the holding devices).
Alalempi discloses a plurality of holding devices movable and wherein each holding device of said plurality of holding devices comprises at least one respective cutting blade of said plurality of cutting blades (Figures 4, 5a and 5b, opening means 7 will be considered the holding devices with blades 9); but Alalempi does not disclose the plurality of holding devices movable between an open condition and a closed condition, wherein in the closed condition said holding devices are configured to contact and restrain respective portions of said box or wherein each cutting blade of said plurality of cutting blades is configured to operate cuts in a vertical direction on vertical corners of a box when the respective holding device is in the open condition or that each holding device of said plurality of holding devices comprises a respective first upright configured to be placed inside said box and a respective second upright configured to be placed outside said box.
Rea teaches a similar apparatus for height dimensioning of boxes with each one of the cutting blades is placed on a holding device movable between an open condition and a closed condition (Figures 1, and 5 to 7, cutting and creasing device 30a-30d will be considered the holding device, made of first mobile support part 36, on which the cutting member 32 is mounted, that will be considered a first upright to be placed inside said box, and a second support part 37 fixed with respect to the first support part 36 that will be considered a second upright configured to be placed outside said box, Figure 7 shows what will be considered the open condition and Fig 1 the closed condition), wherein in the closed condition said holding devices are configured to contact and restrain respective portions of said box (Figures 5 to 7, contrast member 31 tangentially contacts a corresponding external part of the box 100 and serves also as an abutment for the cutting blade 32) each cutting blade of said plurality of cutting blades is configured to operate cuts in a vertical direction on vertical corners of a box when the respective holding device is in the open condition (Figure 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Alalempi the teachings of Rea and have each of the cutting blades on holding devices comprising a first upright configured to be placed inside the box and a respective second upright configured to be placed outside the box, movable between an open condition and a closed condition, wherein in the closed condition said holding devices are configured to contact and restrain respective portions of said box, restraining the wall of the box in place in the closed position and serving as abutment for the cutting blade when making the vertical cut on vertical corners of a box when the respective holding device is in the open condition since that is a well-known practice in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In reference to Claims 10 and 11, not rejected under art, it is unclear if after amendment, the structure disclosed to perform the claimed functions could be rejected or not.
Regarding Claim 5:
No reference on the record disclose “the gripping elements comprise creasing inserts configured to make horizontal creases, additional to the horizontal creases that can be performed by said creasing devices”. Relevant references would be Sasaki (EP 4711284) and Rea (WO 2024154162), that teach holding devices that include gripping elements, but if any they would be forming vertical creases, not horizontal ones”.
Regarding Claim 13:
No reference on the record disclose “wherein said second upright of the holding device is movable relative to said first upright of the holding device between an approaching condition to said first upright of the holding device and a moving-away condition from said first upright of the holding device; wherein when said second upright of the holding device is in the moving-away condition, said holding device is in the open condition, and wherein when said second upright of the holding device is in the approaching condition, said holding device is in the closed condition”. Note that the claim reads “in the moving-away condition, said holding device is in the open condition”, and the open condition is when the cutting is effected, as can be seen on Figure 8. In general, the references on the record, such as Rea (WO 2024154162), teach the first upright, placed inside the box and having the cutting blade being movable between an approaching condition, when the cutting happens and a moving-away condition when the blade separates. Other references such as Benterman (US 2015/0119216) teach having the blade on the second upright, but still the cutting happens on the approaching condition.
The combination as set forth in the claims are not discussed, taught or suggested in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular Rea (WO 2024154162) could have been used in combination for a proper rejection of Claim 1, Benterman (US 2015/0119216) and Klarner (US 2020/0283175) teach very relevant holding devices and cutting blade and Ceyssens (US 2014/0013709) a relevant set of creasing devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO R FERRERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-7:00.
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.
/EDUARDO R FERRERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights