Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/758,824

RECYCLABLE DOSING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 14, 2022
Examiner
NIA, FATEMEH ESFANDIARI
Art Unit
2855
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
158 granted / 215 resolved
+5.5% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
265
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
14.8%
-25.2% vs TC avg
§112
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 215 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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 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. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/21/2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment / Arguments The response and amendments, filed 10/21/2025, has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12, and 16 are pending upon entry of this Amendment. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims have been fully considered but are moot, the amendments necessitated a new rejection based on SEYED, DE 20210865 U1 as presented below. 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, 5-9,12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160370218 A1, “Agarwal” in view of US 20200130317 A1,” Lee” , US 20200282158 A1, “Friel”, and SEYED , DE 20210865 U1 . Claim 1 Agarwal in figs.1-4 teaches1: A blank (140 a rectangular shape having a longish configuration¶0038) for producing a dosing device (e.g., ¶0041) by folding (bending ¶0038) , wherein the blank is made from a single piece of material (e.g., ¶0036), wherein the single piece of material is rectangular (¶0038), recyclable (¶0047 such as silicon that is inherently recyclable), and without incisions or notches (apparatus is made by bending of silicon without any disclosure of incisions or notches), wherein the blank (140) comprises: PNG media_image1.png 866 438 media_image1.png Greyscale a first folding line (SM or 110)extending from a middle M of one shorter side 104 of the rectangular single piece material in parallel 110 to a longer sides 108 of the rectangular material to a star point S located in a middle between the longer sides 106/108 of the rectangular single piece of material (¶0036), a second folding line S-122 and a third folding line S-124, each extending from the star point S to one of two corners of the rectangular single piece material 122/124 that are closest to the star point so that each corner is connected to the star point by one of the second folding line S-122 or the third folding line S-124, and a fourth folding line SA and a fifth folding line SB, each extending from the star point S in an angle to one of the two longer sides 106/108 of the rectangular single piece material so that the fourth folding line SA is extending to the longer side 106 connected to the corner of the rectangular single piece material that the second folding line S-122 is connected to, and the fifth folding line SB is extending to the longer side 108 connected to the corner of the rectangular single piece material B that the third folding line S-124 is connected to, and an angle a1 between the first folding line SM and the fourth folding line SA, is smaller than an angle a2 between the first folding line SM and the second folding line S-124, and/or an angle b1 between the first folding line SM and the fifth folding line SB is smaller than an angle b2 between the first folding line SM and the third folding line S-124, and a plurality of surfaces comprising a first surface S-M-122 located between the first folding line SM and the second folding line S-122, a second surface SMB located between the first folding line SM and the fifth folding line SB, a third surface S-B-124 located between the fifth folding line SB and the third folding line S-124, and a fourth surface S-A-122 located between the second folding line S-122 and the fourth folding line S-A, and a fifth surface S-122-124 located between the third folding line S-124 and the second folding line S-122. Agarwal does not specifically teach wherein the single piece of material has a bending stiffness in the range of 10 to 80 mNm in machine direction (MD) and 5 to 40 mNm in cross direction (CD), wherein the material is selected from the group consisting of paper, cardboard, and carton. wherein a part of the plurality of surfaces contains an attaching element configured to maintain attachment of the plurality of surfaces after the plurality of surfaces are brought into contact with one another during folding, wherein the attaching element is a clip or a glue , and wherein the attachment is configured to lead to a reversible attachment. Regarding limitation 1: In the similar field of endeavor, Lee in e.g.,fig.24 discloses a blank (1d) comprising a paper(e.g.,¶0333 paper or silicon¶0403) for making a device to keep samples (e.g.,¶0403). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lee’s paper for Agarwal‘s recyclable material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a material that is not only suitable for manufacturing process (¶0075) but also has the benefit of being disposable and recyclable(¶0051). Agarwal combined with Lee do not teach wherein the recyclable material has a bending stiffness in the range of 10 to 80 mNm in MD and 5 to 40 mNm in CD. In the similar field of endeavor, Friel teaches a paperboard has a bending stiffness in the range of 10 to 80 mNm in MD and 5 to 40 mNm in CD (e.g., ¶0017-¶0023 at most 80 mNm (MD or machine direction) and paperboard may have a bending stiffness of between 5 and 40 mNm (CD) or cross direction) for paperboard that is also recyclable material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Friel’s paperboard with bending stiffness in the range of 10 to 80 mNm in MD and 5 to 40 mNm in CD for the modified Agarwal’s blank paper for dosing device. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that bending stiffness determines the bending resistance of a material (¶0025 of Friel) and have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure the produced tool is proper to be used for the desired application. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use known paperwork on the basis of its suitability for the intended use with the claimed range of bending stiffness with reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice. One would have been motivated to choose paperwork to maintain those material that is to be dosed or measured. See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Regarding limitation 2: In the similar field of endeavor, SEYED in e.g., figs.1-2 teaches wherein a part of the plurality of surfaces (e.g., surfaces 10,2) contains an attaching element (adhesive coating 3, 8 ) configured to maintain attachment of the plurality of surfaces (10,2) after the plurality of surfaces (10,2) are brought into contact with one another during folding (e.g., fig.2) , wherein the attaching element (3,8) is a clip or a glue (adhesive coating 3,8) , and wherein the attachment is configured to lead to a reversible attachment (reversible connection 13 can be released and reestablished several times e.g., ¶0073,0024). Therefore: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use SEYED’s attachment element for the modified Agarwal’s plurality of surfaces wherein a part of the modified Agarwal’s plurality of surfaces contains an attaching element configured to maintain attachment of the modified Agarwal’s plurality of surfaces after the modified Agarwal’s plurality of surfaces are brought into contact with one another during folding, wherein the modified Agarwal’s attaching element is a clip or a glue , and wherein the modified Agarwal’s attachment is configured to lead to a reversible attachment. One of ordinary skill in the art would know attachment means such as reversible attachments and have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide increased versatility, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness across industries by enabling tools to function in two orientations (e.g., forward/backward or active/defensive) e.g., uncomplicated temporary storage of the product and perhaps also later re-filling of the product (e.g., ¶0005). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (E), courts have ruled that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (different type of attachment of surfaces), with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Claim 2 Agarwal in view of Lee, Friel and SEYED teaches blank in accordance with claim 1, and Agarwal further teaches wherein the blank is configured to be folded by bringing the first surface and second surface into contact with each other (e.g., fig.3, folding from points 308-1 and 308-2 to make a scoop with 20ml capacity with bringing surfaces right and left of 110 into close proximity to each other/ also (based on MPEP 2113: the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim has the same structure as a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1ASX985). Claim 3 Agarwal in view of Lee Friel and SEYED teaches the blank in accordance with claim 1, wherein the folding is configured to occur in a single step procedure (based on MPEP 2113: the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim has the same structure as a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1ASX985). Claim 5 Agarwal in view of Lee Friel and SEYED teaches the blank in accordance with claim 1, SEYED further teaches wherein the attaching element is glue (3) for the same reason and motivation as cited for claim 1. Claim 6 Agarwal in view of Lee Friel and SEYED teaches blank in accordance with claim 1, and Agarwal further teaches wherein after folding the dosing device comprises a container member defined by the surfaces and a handle member formed by the surfaces (fig.4/ scooped container and handle both from bending different surfaces). Claim 7 Agarwal in view of Lee Friel and SEYED teaches blank in accordance with claim 1, and Agarwal further teaches wherein the lengths of the shorter and the longer sides of the rectangular recyclable material, the length of the folding line and the angles are determined so that the volume of the resulting container member corresponds to a pre-determined amount of a composition to be dosed (markings at points where pressure can be applied to bend the flat apparatus 100 and create scoop capacities of varying amount. Pairs of markings such as 302-1 and 302-2 can be provided on two opposite sides 106/108, and there can be one pair for each group of hinges such as 302 for the first group, 304 for the second group and so on as shown in FIG. 3.). Claim 8 Agarwal in view of Lee Friel and SEYED teaches blank in accordance with claim 1, but the modified Agrawal does not specifically teach wherein the recyclable material is compostable. Lee teaches wherein the recyclable material is compostable (¶0076). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lee’s recyclable compostable material for the modified Agarwal‘s material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a material that is not only suitable for manufacturing process (¶0075) but also has the benefit of being environmentally friendly. Claim 9 Agarwal in view of Lee Friel and SEYED teaches blank in accordance with claim 1, the modified Agarwal as cited above, teaches is paper based, but the modified Agrawal does not specifically teach wherein the blank is paper based recyclable. Lee teaches the paper based recyclable material (¶0051). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lee’s paper based recyclable material for Agarwal‘s recyclable material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a material that is not only suitable for manufacturing process (¶0075) but also has the benefit of being environmentally friendly. Claim 12 Agarwal in figs.1-4 teaches2: A dosing device (fig.4) obtainable by folding (bending e.g., ¶0038) a blank (100 /140a rectangular shape having a longish configuration¶0038) made from a single piece of material (e.g., ¶0038) wherein the single piece of material is essentially rectangular (¶0038), recyclable (¶0047 such as silicon that is recyclable), and without incisions or notches ((apparatus is made by bending of silicon without any disclosure of incisions or notches), wherein the blank 140 comprises: a first folding line SM extending from the middle M of one shorter side 104 of the rectangular recyclable material in parallel 110 to the longer sides 108 of the rectangular recyclable material to a star point S located in the middle between the longer sides 106/108 of the rectangular recyclable material, a second S-122 and a third folding line S-124, each one extending from the star point S to one of two corners of the rectangular recyclable material 122/124 that are closest to the star point so that each one of the two corners is connected to the star point by one of the second folding line or the third folding line S-122, and a fourth folding line SA and a and fifth folding line SB, each one extending from the star point S in an angle to one of two longer sides 106/108 of the rectangular recyclable material so that the fourth folding line SA is extending to the longer side 106 connected to the corner of the rectangular recyclable material A that the second folding line S-122 is connected to, and the fifth folding line SB is extending to the longer side 108 connected to the corner of the rectangular recyclable material B that the third folding line S-124 is connected to, and the angle a1 between the first folding line SM and the fourth folding line SA, is smaller than the angle a2 between the first folding line SM and the second folding line S-124, and/or the angle b1 between the first folding line SM and the fifth folding line SB is smaller than the angle b2 between the first folding line SM and the third folding line S-124, and a plurality of surfaces comprising a first surface S-M-122 located between the first folding line SM and the second folding line S-122, a second surface SMB located between the first folding line SM and the fifth folding line SB, a third surface S-B-124 located between the fifth folding line SB and the third folding line S-124, and a fourth surface S-A-122 located between the second folding line S-122 and the fourth folding line S-A, and a fifth surface S-122-124 located between the third folding line S-124 and the second folding line S-122. Agarwal does not specifically teach wherein the single piece of material has a bending stiffness in the range of 10 to 80 mNm in machine direction (MD) and 5 to 40 mNm in cross direction (CD), wherein the material is selected from the group consisting of paper, cardboard, and carton. an attaching element configured to maintain attachment of the plurality of surfaces of the single piece of material after the plurality of surfaces are brought into contact with one another during folding, folding, wherein the attaching element is a clip or a glue, and wherein the attachment is configured to lead to a reversible attachment. Regarding limitation 1: In the similar field of endeavor, Lee in e.g.,fig.24 discloses a blank (1d) comprising a paper(e.g.,¶0333 paper or silicon¶0403) for making a device to keep samples (e.g.,¶0403). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lee’s paper for Agarwal‘s recyclable material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a material that is not only suitable for manufacturing process (¶0075) but also has the benefit of being disposable wherein the recyclable material (¶0051). Agarwal combined with Lee do not teach wherein the recyclable material has a bending stiffness in the range of 10 to 80 mNm in MD and 5 to 40 mNm in CD. In the similar field of endeavor, Friel teaches a paperboard has a bending stiffness in the range of 10 to 80 mNm in MD and 5 to 40 mNm in CD (e.g., ¶0017-¶0023 at most 80 mNm (MD or machine direction) and paperboard may have a bending stiffness of between 5 and 40 mNm (CD) or cross direction) for paperboard that is also recyclable material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Friel’s paperboard with bending stiffness in the range of 10 to 80 mNm in MD and 5 to 40 mNm in CD for the modified Agarwal’s blank paper for dosing device. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that bending stiffness determines the bending resistance of a material (¶0025 of Friel) and have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure the produced tool is proper to be used for the desired application. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use known paperwork on the basis of its suitability for the intended use with the claimed range of bending stiffness with reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice. One would have been motivated to choose paperwork to maintain those material that is to be dosed or measured. See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Regarding limitation 2: SEYED in e.g., figs.1-2 teaches an attaching element (3,8) configured to maintain attachment of the plurality of surfaces (e.g., 10,2), the plurality of surfaces (10,2) are brought into contact with one another during folding, folding (e.g., fig.2), wherein the attaching element is a clip or a glue (adhesive coating 3,8), and wherein the attachment is configured to lead to a reversible attachment (e.g., ¶0073,0024). Therefore: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use SEYED’s attachment element for the modified Agarwal’s plurality of surfaces configured to maintain attachment of the modified Agarwal’s plurality of surfaces of the modified Agarwal’s single piece of material after the modified Agarwal’s plurality of surfaces are brought into contact with one another during folding, folding, wherein the modified Agarwal’s attaching element is a clip or a glue, and wherein the modified Agarwal’s attachment is configured to lead to a reversible attachment. One of ordinary skill in the art would know attachment means such as reversible attachments and have been motivated to make this modification in order to uncomplicated temporary storage of the product and perhaps also later re-filling of the product (e.g., ¶0005). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (E), courts have ruled that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions ( different types of attachment of surfaces), with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Claim 16 Agarwal in view of Lee Friel and SEYED teaches blank in accordance with claim 1, wherein the folding is configured to be carried out by one hand only. (based on MPEP 2113: the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim has the same structure as a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1ASX985). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. 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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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. /FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 1 Reproduced fig. 1C by the office are used for facilitating the citations 2 Reproduced fig. 1C by the office are used for facilitating the citations
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 14, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 14, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 20, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 13, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 21, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 02, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 04, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591962
METHOD OF EXAMINING A PARTICULATE SUBSTANCE COMPRISING INORGANIC PARTICLES, COMPRISING DETERMINING AT LEAST ONE BINDER QUALITY ASSOCIATED PROPERTY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584874
GAS MEASURING DEVICE AND GAS MEASURING PROCESS FOR A TARGET GAS WITH IMPROVED COMPENSATION OF AN AMBIENT CONDITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578255
DETERMINING A VAPOR PRESSURE OF A FLUID IN A METER ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566148
HYDROGEN SULFIDE SENSOR AND ASSOCIATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560522
APPARATUS FOR MEASURING PROPERTIES OF PARTICLES IN A SOLUTION AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+22.7%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 215 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