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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed 21 November 2025, which has been placed of record in the file. An initialed, signed, and dated copy of each PTO-1449 or PTO-SB-08 form is attached to the Office action.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of a preliminary amendment, filed 21 November 2025, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-18 are amended.
Specification and Drawings:
Amendments to the specification have been submitted in the amendment filed 21 November 2025. Receipt is acknowledged of the marked-up copy of the substitute specification, the clean copy of the substitute specification, and the statement as to lack of new matter.
Amendments to the drawings have not been submitted in the amendment filed 21 November 2025.
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 16-18 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 16 is ambiguous at lines 19 and 21 as the phrases “before said deposit station” and “before said folding station” are unclear since “before” typically refers to time, while the deposit station and the folding station do not refer to time. The claim would be clearer if amended to recite “relative to the displacement direction of said mandrel”, as in claim 16, lines 4-6, or something similar.
Claims 17-18 depend from claim 16 and are likewise rejected.
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, 5-7, 10-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US Patent Publ. No. 2006/0037290) in view of Cassoli (US Patent No. 4,679,379).
With respect to claim 1, Smith discloses a method for packaging articles (product P) in boxes (carton blanks 86 are formed into boxes) comprising: providing at least one mandrel (mandrel 64, fig. 3) including a bottom (flat bottom wall 68) and a side wall rising from said bottom (upstanding opposed side walls 69 rising from flat bottom wall 68, fig. 6), depositing at least one article of said articles on said bottom of the mandrel (product P is deposited on a mandrel 64, fig. 3), at least partially folding a blank around said mandrel (carton blank 86 is folded around the mandrel 64, figs. 1, 5), in order to form a box containing said at least one article (fig. 5).
Smith fails to disclose before said depositing, said side wall is lowered relative to said bottom so as to define a first height of said side wall relative to said bottom, and before said folding, said side wall is raised relative to said bottom so as to define a second height of said side wall relative to said bottom, said second height being greater than said first height.
Cassoli discloses in a similar type of wrapping method that it is old and well known to before depositing, lowering the side wall of a mandrel (mandrel 40, fig. 7), and before folding, raising the side wall relative to the bottom (vertical adjustable support elements 43 move side walls relative to bottom, fig. 7). Cassoli discloses that the height of the side walls is adjusted before operation of the wrapping method, and thus is considered to disclose moving the side wall before deposit of the article and before folding.
It 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 to modify the Smith method by providing lowering and raising the side wall, suggested by Cassoli, to the Smith method, in order to allow for wrapping different size articles, especially since Smith teaches providing adjustability to the method with interchangeable mandrels and a stripper plate configured to accept different size mandrels (Smith, [0053], [0056]). In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the provision of the raising and lowering steps from the Cassoli reference to the Smith reference involves no more than the predictable use of prior art elements and manipulative steps according to their established functions, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have provided the known element and manipulative steps and the results of the provision would have been predictable.
With respect to claim 2, the Smith method, as modified by Cassoli above, fails to teach said first height of said side wall is lower than 70% of said second height.
It 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 to modify the Smith method to include that said first height of said side wall is lower than 70% of said second height, as a matter of optimization through routine experimentation, in the absence of any unexpected results of a first height lower than 70% of the second height. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the particular heights of the side wall to promote an appropriate fit of the mandrel and product, especially since both Smith and Cassoli teach adjustment of the mandrel size. MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
With respect to claim 3, the Smith method, as modified by Cassoli above, teaches said second height corresponds to a height suitable to abut said blanks when folded around said side wall (Cassoli, figs. 7, 8).
With respect to claim 5, Smith discloses said mandrel is moved along a displacement direction (mandrel 64 is moved along a displacement direction by conveyor 65, figs. 1, 6) and said side wall is substantially perpendicular to said displacement direction (side wall 69 is perpendicular to displacement direction of conveyor 65, fig. 6).
With respect to claim 6, Smith discloses said mandrel is moved along a displacement direction (mandrel 64 is moved along a displacement direction by conveyor 65, figs. 1, 6) and said side wall is positioned downstream of said bottom relative to said displacement direction (one of the side walls 69 is downstream of the bottom 68, fig. 6).
With respect to claim 7, Smith discloses said depositing is performed while said mandrel is moving (fig. 3).
With respect to claim 10, the Smith method, as modified by Cassoli above, teaches said mandrel is cyclically driven along a closed working path (Smith, closed path of conveyor 65, fig. 1), and said depositing, said folding, said lowering and said raising are provided in each working cycle in order to form a respective box containing at least one article of said articles (raising and lowering the side walls, depositing, and folding are considered a working cycle).
With respect to claim 11, Smith disclose said mandrel is cyclically driven along a closed working path (closed path of conveyor 65, fig. 1) and is formed by a plurality of separate units (mandrel 64, stripper plate 85, fig. 6), wherein said mandrel is decomposed into said separate units in a first section of said closed working path (mandrel 64 and stripper plate 85 are separate downstream of the carton blank conveyor 94 when the mandrel is pushed through the stripper plate 85, figs. 1, 6), and wherein said mandrel is composed of said separate units in a second section of said closed working path (mandrel 64 and stripper plate 85 are together upstream of the carton blank conveyor 94 when the mandrel 64 is stationary with respect to the stripper plate 85, fig. 1).
With respect to claim 12, Smith disclose said mandrel is composed before said depositing (mandrel 64 and stripper plate 85 are together upstream of the carton blank conveyor 94 when the mandrel 64 is stationary with respect to the stripper plate 85 before receiving the product P, fig. 1).
With respect to claim 14, Smith, as modified by Cassoli above, teaches said mandrel comprises two side walls rising from a pair of opposite sides of said bottom (two side walls rising from the bottom, fig. 7), and wherein said two side walls are synchronously lowered and raised relative to said bottom (Cassoli, two vertical adjustable support elements 43, fig. 7).
With respect to claim 15, Smith, as modified by Cassoli above, teaches said two side walls are moved away from each other before said depositing and are moved closer to each other before said folding (Cassoli discloses that the distance between the side walls is adjusted before operation of the wrapping method via threaded rod 48 and handle 49, and thus is considered to disclose moving the side walls before deposit of the article and before folding).
With respect to claim 16, Smith discloses a device for packaging articles (product P) into boxes (carton blanks 86 are formed into boxes), comprising a deposit station, in which at least one article of said articles is deposited on a mandrel (station at which a product P is deposited on a mandrel 64, fig. 3), and a folding station, subsequent to the deposit station relative to a displacement direction of said mandrel (fig. 1), in which a blank is folded around said mandrel in order to form one of said boxes (station at which the carton blank 86 is folded around the mandrel 64, figs. 1, 5), wherein said mandrel comprises: a bottom configured to support said at least one article when deposited inside the mandrel (flat bottom wall 68 supports product P, fig. 6) and a side wall, rising from said bottom (upstanding opposed side walls 69 rising from flat bottom wall 68, fig. 6), and configured to abut said blank when wound at least partially outside said mandrel (side wall 69 abuts carton blank 86 when carton blank 86 is wound outside the mandrel 64, fig. 5).
Smith fails to disclose an adjusting member configured to move said side wall relative to said bottom so as to define a first height and a second height, greater than said first height, of said side wall relative to said bottom, and a control unit configured to control said adjusting member so as to move said side wall relative to said bottom so as to define said first height before said deposit station, and subsequently to move said side wall relative to said bottom so as to define said second height before said folding station.
Cassoli discloses in a similar type of wrapping system that it is old and well known to have a mandrel with a bottom and side walls (mandrel 40, fig. 7), and an adjusting member configured to move said side wall relative to said bottom so as to define a first height and a second height, greater than said first height, of said side wall relative to said bottom (vertical adjustable support elements 43 that move side walls relative to bottom, fig. 7), and a control unit configured to control said adjusting member so as to move said side wall relative to said bottom so as to define said first height before said deposit station, and subsequently to move said side wall relative to said bottom so as to define said second height before said folding station (handles 45 control the adjustable support elements 43 to move the side walls relative to the bottom, fig 7). Cassoli discloses that the height of the side walls is adjusted before operation of the wrapping device, and thus is considered to disclose moving the side wall before deposit of the article and before folding.
It 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 to modify the Smith device by substituting the adjustable mandrel, suggested by Cassoli, for the mandrel of Smith, in order to allow for wrapping different size articles, especially since Smith teaches providing adjustability to the device with interchangeable mandrels and a stripper plate configured to accept different size mandrels (Smith, [0053], [0056]). In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the substitution of the adjustable mandrel from the Cassoli reference for the mandrel of the Smith reference involves no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
With respect to claim 17, the Smith system, as modified by Cassoli above, teaches the mandrel is composed of several separate units (sections 40a, 40b, 40c, 40d, fig. 7).
With respect to claim 18, the Smith system, as modified by Cassoli above, teaches each separate unit comprises a respective portion of said bottom and a respective portion of said side wall (each section 40a, 40b, 40c, 40d is L-shaped and includes a portion of a bottom and a portion of a side, fig. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8-9, and 13 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:
With respect to claim 4, the prior art fails to disclose or teach the method according to claim 1, wherein said depositing comprises: transporting, by means of a gripping member, said at least one article over said bottom of said mandrel, releasing said at least one article on said bottom by disengaging said at least one article from said gripping member, and wherein said side wall is raised, relative to said bottom, up to said second height after said transporting and before said releasing.
Claims 8-9 depend from claim 4, and would likewise be allowable.
With respect to claim 13, the prior art fails to disclose or teach the method according to claim 11, wherein said depositing comprises: transporting by means of a gripping member said at least one article over said bottom of said mandrel, releasing said at least one article on said bottom by disengaging said at least one article from said gripping member, and wherein said separate units are moved closer to each other to compose said mandrel so as to leave an opening defined at least in said side wall, and wherein said gripping member is moved from said bottom and/or towards said bottom through said opening.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peebles (US Patent Publ. No. 2022/0332451) discloses an adjustable cartoner infeed bucket.
Praestholm (US Patent Publ. No. 2011/0011035) discloses a wrapping machine including an adjustable mandrel (fig. 6).
Momich (US Patent No. 7,621,109) discloses a cartoner with an adjustable mandrel (fig. 4A).
Spatafora (EP 1,659,064) discloses decomposable mandrels in a wrapping machine.
Tisma et al. (US Patent No. 5,787,680) disclose height and width adjustable side walls in an elevator (fig. 14A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Linda J. Hodge whose telephone number is (571)272-0571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/LINDA J. HODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
