Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/216,671

Pop Top Dot

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 30, 2021
Examiner
KMET, LAUREN ELIZABETH
Art Unit
3735
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
59%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
111 granted / 229 resolved
-21.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
259
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
32.6%
-7.4% vs TC avg
§102
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§112
39.8%
-0.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 229 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the a sphere must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently, as best understood by the examiner as no reference numbers are used to describe the parts in the drawings, the Pop-Top-Dots are at best hemispherical in nature as they are attached to the bottom of a tab. No new matter should be entered. 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. Specification The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use. Content of Specification (a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters. (b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq. (c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310. (d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g). (e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05 (f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77. (g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts: (1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.” (2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.” (h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention. (i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74. (j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter. (k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p). (l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e). (m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01. 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. Claim 1 is rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. Claim 1 recites “The Pop-Top-Dot is attached to the underside of the stay-tab lever, directly where the fingertip makes contact with the lever… and also act as a small brace…allowing access without a pinch”, this is unclear. Allows access to what? Allows the user to access the Pop-Top-Dot, or allows the user access to the underside of the Pop-Top-Dot in order to lift the stay-tab lever? If the user places a fingertip directly where the Pop-Top-Dot is located, this is the pinch point as it is the location where the Dot meets the top of a can. Thus, how can both of these limitation be met at the same time? The user is required to make contact at the location where the Dot is making contact with the top of the can and would need to get the fingertip between the Dot and the top of the can in order to force the tab upward to open the can. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the stay-tab lever" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "The Pop-Top-Dot" in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the can" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer rim" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “roughly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “roughly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the tolerance above or below 3/16th of an inch would fit the limitation “roughly”. Claim 1 recites “also acts as a small brace, elevating the stay-tab lever…above the surface of the can”, this is unclear. If the Pop-Top-Dot acts as a brace that means it is touching the surface of the can, thus how is it also elevated? Is just the top/uppermost surface of the stay-tab level elevated above the surface of the can? Wouldn’t that be inherent of a top surface? Is the applicant trying to claim that a specific portion of the stay-tab lever away from the Pop-Top-Dot does not make contact with the surface of the can? The term “well below” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “well below” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 recites the slightly elevated tab is well below the outer rim of the can, it is unclear what the scale of this measurement is, or if the outer rim is at a different height to the top of the container. Is the applicant referring to a soda pop type can? If so the height difference between the top wall of the can and the top of an outer lip is a very small distance, what height would be well below? Is the measured before the can is opened? Does the applicant mean that the stay-tab lever is between the top of the surface of a can but below an elevated outer ring? As the claim is written in narrative form and recites conflicting limitations, as discussed above, the examiner is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of this claim and therefore what structure is required to meet the claimed limitations Conclusion The following patents are examples to illustrate the proper format for an application including the specification and claim language: US 3,672,535 McGuire and US 2010/0193518 A1 Forrest el al. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren Kmet whose telephone number is (313)446-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm. 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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. /L KMET/Examiner, Art Unit 3735 /Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 30, 2021
Application Filed
Dec 14, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 15, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 23, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 06, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 23, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 23, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12473121
Can Wiper
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Patent 12465551
CLOSURE SYSTEM AND KIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Patent 12466607
APPARATUS TO HOUSE BOTANICALS DURING TRANSPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Patent 12448185
PLASTIC METER LID AND FRAME ASSEMBLY FOR AN IN-GROUND METER BOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 21, 2025
Patent 12421007
DEFORMABLE HYBRID RIGID STRUCTURE VESSELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
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
48%
Grant Probability
59%
With Interview (+10.8%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 229 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month