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 10/16/2025. Claims 1-16 are currently pending. Claims 1-16 have been amended in a preliminary amendment.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
In this case, the following limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C.112(f):
the “conveying means” of claim 9 and corresponding to conveyor 50 with guide rails 51 and carriages 52.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “return means” in claim 15 because they are described as elastic which provides structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
the “weakening sub-assembly” of claim 13 and corresponding to two pairs of U-shaped hooks 841;
the “first pair of transverse pre-folding members” of claim 14 and corresponding to U-shaped hooks 841; and
the “second pair of transverse pre-folding members” of claim 14 and corresponding to longitudinally oriented u-shaped hooks 841.
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 10-16 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 claim 10, the limitation “the shape of a downwardly oriented 7” is indefinite because it is not clear which section of 7 facing downwardly would make the shape downwardly oriented. Furthermore, the number 7 can be written in many different ways so it is not clear which shape of 7 is being claimed. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to mean the shape depicted in Fig. 14. Claims 11-12 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 10.
Regarding claims 13-16, the preamble of claim 13 indicates that the claim depends from claim 1 which is a method claim. However, claim 13 and subsequent claims do not recite any further method steps and appear to be apparatus claims. These claims are indefinite because it is not clear how the apparatus imitations should be interpreted in a method claim. In order to further prosecution, claim 13 has been interpreted to depend from claim 9.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this case, claims 13-16 do not further limit claim 1 because claim 1 is a method claim and claims 13-16 do not recite any additional method steps. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Close (US 2003/0009985 A1) in view of Jonker (US 2021/0237914 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Close discloses a method for closing a box (110 – Fig. 1) with a lid (any of the lids of 565 or 566 – Fig. 5) comprising a rectangular central panel and four side flaps (as is clear from Fig. 5, the lids have a central panels and four side flaps), the box being open at the top and comprises four vertical side walls extending from a horizontal bottom (in the embodiment where 100 functions as a lidder, para. 0046, the tray is open at the top and is clear from Fig. 1, 110 has four side walls and a horizontal bottom), said method comprising the following successive steps: transferring said box and said lid in longitudinal and transverse advancement directions, respectively, to a closing station (the portion of 500 at the conveyor – Fig. 1) where said lid is superimposed horizontally, vertically in line with said box (para. 0046); bringing said box and said lid together by sliding vertically such that the top edge of the box comes into contact with said central panel of the lid along it peripheral edge (para. 0046, it is clear from the disclosure that if the flaps are folded over the side of the box, then the top edge of the box comes into contact with the central panel of the lid along the peripheral edge); folding and pressing said four side flaps of the lid for a predetermined time against the upper portions of the side walls of the box so as to ensure the attachment of said lid to said box (para. 0046, in the embodiment where the flaps are folded exterior to the box).
Jonker teaches a similar method for closing a box (80 – Fig. 5) with a lid (72 – Fig. 5) comprising a rectangular central panel (74 – Fig. 5) and four side flaps (76 – Fig. 5), the box being a rectangular parallelepiped that is open at the top and comprises four vertical side walls (82 – Fig. 5) extending from a horizontal bottom (see Fig. 5), said method comprising the following, said method comprising the steps: spraying glue respectively onto the upper portions of the longitudinal side walls of said box and onto the lower faces of the two transverse side flaps of said lid during transfer to a box (the glue is applied to every flap and sidewall, hence it is applied to the longitudinal side walls and transverse flaps, para. 0049), wherein the two transverse side flaps of said lid are retained, during the transfer of the latter in said transverse advancement direction and toward a closing station, in a partially folded-down position (para. 0048, the embodiment where the flaps are folded during placing the lid above the box). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Jonker would have recognized that the box of Close may be implemented as a parallelepiped as taught by Jonker with no loss of functionality and furthermore the lid may be secured to the box by glueing. A parallelepiped box with a lid secured by glue provides the benefits of being easier to stack and transport with other boxes since there would be no space between them and would offer improved structural rigidity since the glue bonds directly to the walls to increase compression strength, thereby making it easier to use a box. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art, would have recognized that partially folding the lid during transfer of the lid to the box as taught by Jonker would provide the benefit of allowing the flaps to guide the lid to the box in cases where the lid and box are not fully aligned, thereby providing consistent quality.
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 Close such that the box is parallelepiped and closed by glue as taught by Jonker in order to make it easier to use the box and to have modified the step of transferring the box of Close such that the flaps are partially folded down during the transfer as taught by Jonker in order to provide consistent quality.
Close, as modified by Jonker, further teaches:
Claim 2, glue is sprayed onto the lower faces of the two transverse side flaps of said lid in a substantially horizontal direction (para. 0062, Jonker; the glue applicators 112 are at the sides of the box and lid, hence they must necessarily spray horizontally).
Claim 3, during the transfer of the lid, the two transverse side flaps each from a first predetermined angle with the central panel of between 100° and 130° (para. 0048, 120°-150°, Jonker).
Claim 4, said first predetermined angle is between 110° and 130° (para. 0048, 120°-150°, Jonker).
Claim 8, essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Close, as modified by Jonker does not expressly teach the length of the predetermined time.
In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the length of the predetermined time is a result effective variable since the time must be long enough for the glue to set to a degree sufficient to retain the flaps of the lid to the box.
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 used any time sufficient to allow the glue to set to a degree that the flaps are retained on the box since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are taught in the prior art, discovering the functional ranges of a result effective variable is a matter of routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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.
Claim 9 is allowed.
Claims 10-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter is the inclusion of pre-folding the four side flaps. Neither Close nor Jonker discloses this feature and there is no known reference that may be applied to the combination of Close and Jonker to meet this limitation.
Regarding claim 9, the primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter is the inclusion of two transverse guide rails capable of gripping the lid so as to retain its two transverse side flaps in a partially folded-down position. Neither Close nor Jonker discloses this feature. Close grips with suction cups or similar devices (para. 0042) and has side folding mechanisms while Jonker just has suction grippers. Grippers in the form of rails are known, for example Sabel (US 4674261 A) discloses a gripper (98 – Fig. 5A) that has rails (100 – Fig. 5A). However, the rails of Sabel do not maintain the flaps of a lid in a partially folded position and there is nothing to suggest using the rails to hold the flaps in a partially folded position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brackmann (US 3951049) discloses folding of flaps of a lid prior to lidding (see Fig. 1).
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
8/19/2026
Prosecution Insights