Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/751,104

ADJUSTABLE DEVICE AND AN ADJUSTABLE STORAGE BOX

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 23, 2022
Examiner
NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA
Art Unit
3735
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Dly Technologies Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
30%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 7m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 30% of cases
30%
Career Allow Rate
169 granted / 569 resolved
-40.3% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+40.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 7m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
609
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
54.2%
+14.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
§112
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 569 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/22/25 has been entered. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunod (US 2008/0273959) in view of Seymour (US 2,768,680) further in view of Yang (US 8,161,602). Regarding claims 1-2, Bunod (figs. 1-2) discloses an adjustable storage device 1 for wafers 8, comprising: A plurality of plates 9, including at least one pair of a first plate and a second plate adjacent of the first plate; and at least two spring members or adjustable modules 7a connecting the plates 9, wherein the at least two adjustable modules 7a are stretchable to change a distance between a first plate and a second plate. Bunod fails to disclose each of the at least two adjustable modules 7a discussed above comprising: a first sidewall, comprising a right part, a left part, and a connecting part connecting the right part and the left part, the right part comprising a right part upper pivot hole, a right part lower pivot hole, and a right part restriction trail adjacent to the right part lower pivot hole, the left part comprising a left part upper pivot hole, a left part lower pivot hole, and a left part restriction trail adjacent to the left part lower pivot hole; two second sidewalls, each comprising an upper pivot hole, a lower pivot hole, a right restriction pin and a left restriction pin provided adjacent to the upper pivot hole and located on two sides of the second sidewall respectively; and wherein the lower pivot hole of one of the two second sidewalls, the right part upper pivot hole and the left part upper pivot hole of the first sidewall being fixed to the first plate by a hinge, the right restriction pin and the left restriction pin of the other of the two second sidewalls extend into the right restriction trail and the left restriction trail of the first sidewall respectively, thus that when the at least two adjustable modules being in a compression state, two second sidewalls come close to each other; wherein the right part restriction trail and the left part restriction trail have a caved design; and wherein the upper pivot hole of the other of the two second sidewalls, the right part lower pivot hole and the left part pivot hole of the first sidewall being connected by another hinge. However, Seymour teaches an adjustable module or a hinge means comprising: a first sidewall 52, comprising a right part, a left part, and a connection part connecting the right part and the left part, the right part comprising a right part upper pivot hole, a right part lower pivot hole, the left part comprising a left part upper pivot hole, a left part lower pivot hole; two second sidewalls 54, each comprising an upper pivot hole, a lower pivot hole; and wherein the lower pivot hole of one of the two second sidewalls 54, the right part upper pivot hole and the left part upper pivot hole of the first sidewall 52 being fixed to a first plate 22 by a hinge; and when the at least two adjustable modules are in a compression state, two second sidewalls 54 coming close to each other; wherein the upper pivot hole of the other of the two second sidewalls, the right part lower pivot hole and the left part pivot hole of the first sidewall being connected by another hinge (figs. 2-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the adjustable modules of Bunod, a hinge means as taught by Seymour, to provide improved mechanical strength. Also, it has been held that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)). Regarding the restriction trails and the restriction pins, Yang teaches two parts 17, 123 of a hinge having a left and right restriction pins 1711 and corresponding left and right restriction trails 1232 defined by limiting portion 1233; wherein the restriction trials have caved design (fig.1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the adjustable modules of the modified Bunod, pins and corresponding restriction trails, to limit the maximum opening angle as taught by Yang in col. 2, lines 32-37. Regarding claim 5, Seymour further teaches the connection part of the first sidewall 52 connecting a center portion between the right part upper pivot hole and the right part lower pivot hole (hole in which pin 56 goes through), and a center portion between the left part upper pivot hole and the left part lower pivot hole (hole in which pin 50 goes through (figs. 2 and 6). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE GIRMA NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00PM. 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 at 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. /BLAINE G NEWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3735 /Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 23, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 17, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 22, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12359771
PRESSURE TANK
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 15, 2025
Patent 12274669
ADMINISTRATION METHODS FOR ORAL MEDICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 15, 2025
Patent 12269673
FREIGHT CONTAINER INTENDED TO BE RECEIVED IN THE CARGO HOLD OF AN AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 08, 2025
Patent 12179963
GASKETLESS CLOSURE FOR OPEN-TOP PAILS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 31, 2024
Patent 12178359
Containers and Lids and Methods of Forming Containers and Lids
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 31, 2024
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
30%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+40.4%)
4y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 569 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month