Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/851,861

FOLDABLE DISPLAY CARTON WITH AT LEAST ONE DIVIDER

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 28, 2022
Examiner
DEMEREE, CHRISTOPHER R
Art Unit
3734
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Westrock Packaging Systems LLC
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
1097 granted / 1594 resolved
-1.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
82 currently pending
Career history
1676
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.4%
+1.4% vs TC avg
§102
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
§112
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1594 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Claim Objections Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 depends upon a canceled Claim 2. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 depends upon a canceled Claim 9. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Montealegre (US 4318470 A). Regarding claim 1, Montealegre discloses a carton with cell and the blank for making comprising a front panel (14), a back panel (18), a first side panel (12), and a second side panel (16) foldably connected together (see Fig. 2); a first bottom flap (94) foldably connected to the first side panel (via 66); and at least one divider (114) foldably connected to the first bottom flap (via 118); and a locking tab (96; Examiner considers 96 to be a locking tab as it locks the bottom in place through adhesive attachment 102) foldably connected to the first bottom flap (via 98); and an attachment panel (52/56) foldably connected (via 54) to the first side panel and configured to attach to the back panel; and a top panel (34) foldably connected to the back panel (via 168). Regarding claims 4-5, Montealegre discloses a carton and blank further comprising a second bottom flap (104) foldably connected to the second side panel (via 70); and at least one divider (116) and locking tab (106) foldably connected to the second bottom flap (via 108). 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. Claim(s) 8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montealegre in view of Sumpmann et al. (US 8910856 B2; hereinafter Sumpmann). Regarding claims 8 and 11-12, Montealegre discloses the claimed invention except for a removable portion defined by perforations. Sumpmann teaches a shipping and display container comprising a first side panel (7), wherein the first side panel includes a perforation (78) separating a removable portion of the first side panel from a remainder of the first side panel (see Figures 1-4); a front panel (5) foldably connected to the first side panel (see Fig. 3), wherein the front panel includes a perforation (77) separating a removable portion of the front panel from a remainder of the front panel; a second side panel (8) foldably connected to the front panel, wherein the second side panel includes a perforation (79) separating a removable portion of the second side panel from a remainder of the second side panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Montealegre’s container to include a circumferential path of perforations around the container in order to define a removable portion for transforming the container into a display configuration (Sumpmann; Col 2 lines 35-50). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3, 6-7, 10, and 13-14 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-7, filed 10/06/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 4-6 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Montealegre have been fully considered and are persuasive. Montealegre as previously applied lacks a locking tab foldably connected to the first bottom flap. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of USC 102(a)(1)—Montealegre (alternate interpretation). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. 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, NATHAN J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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. /CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 28, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 06, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595093
PACKING BOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595091
METHOD OF COLLAPSING A COLLAPSIBLE BOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589908
TAKEOUT FOOD BOX WITH EXTRA FOOD POCKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582987
CARRIER DEVICE FOR A DISPENSING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577031
BIODEGRADABLE COOLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+13.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1594 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