Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/138,282

Carton With Dispenser

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 24, 2023
Examiner
OJOFEITIMI, AYODEJI T
Art Unit
3651
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Graphic Packaging International LLC
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
1y 12m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
397 granted / 528 resolved
+23.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 12m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
566
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
48.7%
+8.7% vs TC avg
§102
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 528 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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/19/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach and/or suggest the following limitation recited in claims 1, 13, and 25: “at least a dispenser that is reconfigurable between a first configuration wherein the dispenser flaps are foldably connected to the top panel and arranged to define a first opening, and a second configuration in which one or more of the dispenser flaps are removed from the top panel to define a second opening, the first opening is smaller than the second opening”. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. The Sutherland et al. and Miller references, which are very similar carton dispensers as the Morin prior art. The rejection using the Sutherland and Miller references are restated herein: Sutherland discloses such that the dispenser is reconfigurable between a first configuration (fig.3), in which the dispenser flap (78) is foldably connected to the top panel (38), and arranged to define an opening that communicates with the interior (fig.3); and a second configuration (fig.4), in which the dispenser flap is partially removed from the top panel to define an aperture that communicates with the interior. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Morin such that the dispenser is reconfigurable between a first configuration, in which the plurality of dispenser flaps are foldably connected to the top panel, and arranged to define an opening that communicates with the interior; and a second configuration, in which one or more of the dispenser flaps are partially removed from the top panel to define an aperture that communicates with the interior because it's a very well-known carton dispenser configuration in the art to implement such dispensing flaps and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation. Miller discloses the plurality of dispenser flaps connected to the top panel (20) and arranged to define a first opening (42; finger hole) that communicates with the interior; and a second configuration, in which one or more of the dispenser flaps are removed from the top panel (20) to define a second opening (figs-2-4) that communicates with the interior, wherein the first opening is smaller than the second opening (see figures). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Morin with the plurality of dispenser flaps connected to the top panel and arranged to define a first opening that communicates with the interior; and a second configuration, in which one or more of the dispenser flaps are removed from the top panel to define a second opening that communicates with the interior, wherein the first opening is smaller than the second opening because it's a very well- known carton dispenser configuration in the art to implement such dispensing flaps and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would combine the references used herein because the limitations are well-known in the art carton dispensing art and the combination is not hindsight reconstruction. Furthermore, the combination does not teach away from the claims in question. Rather, the combination of references pertains to analogous art that all teach the very well-known dispensing flaps configurations in the carton dispensing art. Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the “the plurality of dispenser flaps comprises a first dispenser flap and a second dispenser flap at least partially separably connected to the first dispenser flap” as newly recited in claims 1, 13, and 25. In response, the prior art of McDonald has been employed to teach this limitation. The Applicant is herein referred to the new obviousness rejections of the newly amended independent claims. 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. Claims 1-3,13-15,25-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (US 7,134,572) in view of McDonald (US 2004/0178210) in view of Sutherland et al. (US 7,874,477) in view of Miller (US 7,000,803). Claim 1, Morin discloses a carton for holding and dispensing at least one article, the carton comprising: a plurality of panels (fig.7) extending at least partially around an interior of the carton and comprising a top panel (1T), a bottom panel (2), a front panel (4), and at least one back panel (3); a plurality of end flaps (5,6) foldably connected to a respective panel of the plurality of panels and forming at least one closed end of the carton (see figures); and a dispenser (17,18) for accessing the interior of the carton, the dispenser comprising a plurality of dispenser flaps (16,17,18) at least partially separably connected to the top panel (fig.7). Morin does not disclose such that the dispenser is reconfigurable between a first configuration, in which the plurality of dispenser flaps are foldably connected to the top panel and arranged to define a first opening that communicates with the interior; and a second configuration, in which one or more of the dispenser flaps are removed from the top panel to define a second opening that communicates with the interior, wherein the first opening is smaller than the second opening; the plurality of dispenser flaps comprises a first dispenser flap and a second dispenser flap at least partially separably connected to the first dispenser flap. McDonald discloses the plurality of dispenser flaps (fig.3; flaps that open to allow sheets to be dispensed) comprises a first dispenser flap and a second dispenser flap at least partially separably connected to the first dispenser flap (figs.2-3 illustrates the plurality of dispenser flaps on the top panel; fig.3 depicts the panels after the perforations have been removed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Morin with the plurality of dispenser flaps comprises a first dispenser flap and a second dispenser flap at least partially separably connected to the first dispenser flap because it is just another dispenser opening that created in a carton having perforations that can be split to form an opening and such configuration is very well-known in the carton dispensing art. Thus, such configuration does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation. Sutherland discloses such that the dispenser is reconfigurable between a first configuration (fig.3), in which the dispenser flap (78) is foldably connected to the top panel (38), and arranged to define an opening that communicates with the interior (fig.3); and a second configuration (fig.4), in which the dispenser flap is partially removed from the top panel to define an aperture that communicates with the interior. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Morin such that the dispenser is reconfigurable between a first configuration, in which the plurality of dispenser flaps are foldably connected to the top panel, and arranged to define an opening that communicates with the interior; and a second configuration, in which one or more of the dispenser flaps are partially removed from the top panel to define an aperture that communicates with the interior because it's a very well-known carton dispenser configuration in the art to implement such dispensing flaps and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation. Miller discloses the plurality of dispenser flaps connected to the top panel (20) and arranged to define a first opening (42; finger hole) that communicates with the interior; and a second configuration, in which one or more of the dispenser flaps are removed from the top panel (20) to define a second opening (figs-3-4) that communicates with the interior, wherein the first opening is smaller than the second opening (see figures). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Morin with the plurality of dispenser flaps connected to the top panel and arranged to define a first opening that communicates with the interior; and a second configuration, in which one or more of the dispenser flaps are removed from the top panel to define a second opening that communicates with the interior, wherein the first opening is smaller than the second opening because it's a very well- known carton dispenser configuration in the art to implement such dispensing flaps and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation. Claim 2, Morin discloses wherein the plurality of dispenser flaps (16,17,18) comprises paperboard. Claim 3, Morin discloses wherein the carton is devoid of polymeric film (abstract). Claim 13, Morin discloses a blank for forming a carton for holding and dispensing at least one article, the blank comprising: a plurality of panels (fig.7) for extending at least partially around an interior of the carton formed from the blank and comprising a top panel (1T), a bottom panel (2), a front panel (4), and at least one back panel (3); a plurality of end flaps (5,6) foldably connected to a respective panel of the plurality of panels for forming at least one closed end of the carton formed from the blank (fig.7); and a dispenser (17,18) for accessing the interior of the carton formed from the blank, the dispenser comprising a plurality of dispenser flaps (16,17,18) at least partially separably connected to the top panel (fig.7). Morin does not disclose such that the dispenser is reconfigurable between a first configuration, in which the plurality of dispenser flaps are foldably connected to the top panel and arranged to define a first opening that communicates with the interior, and a second configuration, in which one or more of the dispenser flaps are removed from the top panel to define a second opening that communicates with the interior, wherein the first opening is smaller than the second opening; the plurality of dispenser flaps comprises a first dispenser flap and a second dispenser flap at least partially separably connected to the first dispenser flap. McDonald discloses the plurality of dispenser flaps (fig.3; flaps that open to allow sheets to be dispensed) comprises a first dispenser flap and a second dispenser flap at least partially separably connected to the first dispenser flap (figs.2-3 illustrates the plurality of dispenser flaps on the top panel; fig.3 depicts the panels after the perforations have been removed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Morin with the plurality of dispenser flaps comprises a first dispenser flap and a second dispenser flap at least partially separably connected to the first dispenser flap because it is just another dispenser opening that created in a carton having perforations that can be split to form an opening and such configuration is very well-known in the carton dispensing art. Thus, such configuration does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation. Sutherland discloses such that the dispenser is reconfigurable between a first configuration (fig.3), in which the dispenser flap (78) is foldably connected to the top panel (38), and arranged to define an opening that communicates with the interior (fig.3); and a second configuration (fig.4), in which the dispenser flap is partially removed from the top panel to define an aperture that communicates with the interior. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Morin such that the dispenser is reconfigurable between a first configuration, in which the plurality of dispenser flaps are foldably connected to the top panel, and arranged to define an opening that communicates with the interior; and a second configuration, in which one or more of the dispenser flaps are partially removed from the top panel to define an aperture that communicates with the interior because it's a very well-known carton dispenser configuration in the art to implement such dispensing flaps and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation. Miller discloses the plurality of dispenser flaps connected to the top panel (20) and arranged to define a first opening (42; finger hole) that communicates with the interior; and a second configuration, in which one or more of the dispenser flaps are removed from the top panel (20) to define a second opening (figs-3-4) that communicates with the interior, wherein the first opening is smaller than the second opening (see figures). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Morin with the plurality of dispenser flaps connected to the top panel and arranged to define a first opening that communicates with the interior; and a second configuration, in which one or more of the dispenser flaps are removed from the top panel to define a second opening that communicates with the interior, wherein the first opening is smaller than the second opening because it's a very well- known carton dispenser configuration in the art to implement such dispensing flaps and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation. Claim 14, Morin discloses wherein the plurality of dispenser flaps (16,17,18) comprises paperboard. Claim 15, Morin discloses wherein the carton is devoid of polymeric film (abstract). Claim 25, Morin discloses a method of forming a carton for holding and dispensing at least one article, the method comprising: obtaining a blank, the blank comprising a plurality of panels comprising a top panel (1T), a bottom panel (2), a front panel (4), and at least one back panel (3), the blank further comprising a plurality of end flaps (5,6) foldably connected to a respective panel of the plurality of panels, the blank further comprising a dispenser (16-18) comprising a plurality of dispenser flaps (16-18) at least partially separably connected to the top panel (fig.7); positioning the plurality of panels extending at least partially around an interior of the carton (fig.7); and overlapping the plurality of end flaps to form at least one closed end of the carton (see figures). Morin does not disclose a method such that the dispenser is reconfigurable between a first configuration, in which the plurality of dispenser flaps are foldably connected to the top panel, and arranged to define a first opening that communicates with the interior; and a second configuration, in which one or more of the dispenser flaps are removed from the top panel to define a second opening that communicates with the interior, wherein the first opening is smaller than the second opening; the plurality of dispenser flaps comprises a first dispenser flap and a second dispenser flap at least partially separably connected to the first dispenser flap. McDonald discloses the plurality of dispenser flaps (fig.3; flaps that open to allow sheets to be dispensed) comprises a first dispenser flap and a second dispenser flap at least partially separably connected to the first dispenser flap (figs.2-3 illustrates the plurality of dispenser flaps on the top panel; fig.3 depicts the panels after the perforations have been removed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Morin with the plurality of dispenser flaps comprises a first dispenser flap and a second dispenser flap at least partially separably connected to the first dispenser flap because it is just another dispenser opening that created in a carton having perforations that can be split to form an opening and such configuration is very well-known in the carton dispensing art. Thus, such configuration does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation. Sutherland discloses such that the dispenser is reconfigurable between a first configuration (fig.3), in which the dispenser flap (78) is foldably connected to the top panel (38), and arranged to define an opening that communicates with the interior (fig.3); and a second configuration (fig.4), in which the dispenser flap is partially removed from the top panel to define an aperture that communicates with the interior. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Morin such that the dispenser is reconfigurable between a first configuration, in which the plurality of dispenser flaps are foldably connected to the top panel, and arranged to define an opening that communicates with the interior; and a second configuration, in which one or more of the dispenser flaps are partially removed from the top panel to define an aperture that communicates with the interior because it's a very well-known carton dispenser configuration in the art to implement such dispensing flaps and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation. Miller discloses the plurality of dispenser flaps connected to the top panel (20) and arranged to define a first opening (42; finger hole) that communicates with the interior; and a second configuration, in which one or more of the dispenser flaps are removed from the top panel (20) to define a second opening (figs-3-4) that communicates with the interior, wherein the first opening is smaller than the second opening (see figures). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Morin with the plurality of dispenser flaps connected to the top panel and arranged to define a first opening that communicates with the interior; and a second configuration, in which one or more of the dispenser flaps are removed from the top panel to define a second opening that communicates with the interior, wherein the first opening is smaller than the second opening because it's a very well- known carton dispenser configuration in the art to implement such dispensing flaps and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation. Claim 26, Morin discloses wherein the plurality of dispenser flaps (16,17,18) comprises paperboard. Claim 27, Morin discloses wherein the carton is devoid of polymeric film (abstract). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-12,16-24,28-36 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. Claims 37-39 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: A carton for holding and dispensing at least one article including “the plurality of dispenser flaps comprises a first dispenser flap at least partially separably connected to the top panel at a curved line of weakening and a second dispenser flap at least partially separably connected to the first dispenser flap at an oblique tear line. “ in combination with the remaining claim language is not taught by the prior art. Claims 40-42 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: A blank for forming a carton for holding and dispensing at least one article including “the plurality of dispenser flaps comprises a first dispenser flap at least partially separably connected to the top panel at a curved line of weakening and a second dispenser flap at least partially separably connected to the first dispenser flap at an oblique tear line. “ in combination with the remaining claim language is not taught by the prior art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYODEJI T OJOFEITIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-6557. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, GENE CRAWFORD can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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. /AYODEJI T OJOFEITIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 24, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 28, 2025
Response Filed
May 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 12, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 12, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 19, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599272
MULTI-FUNCTION PAPER TOWEL HOLDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602964
ITEM TAKE-OUT APPARATUS AND ITEM TAKE-OUT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599271
HYGIENIC AND CONTROLLED FABRIC WEB DISPENSING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595114
CAP ASSEMBLY FOR A MEDICATION CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589952
VACUUM LIFTING TUBE ARRANGEMENT HAVING EXTENSION-LOCKABLE LIFTING TUBE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
75%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+13.5%)
1y 12m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 528 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