Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/209,416

SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING BOX SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 13, 2023
Examiner
DEMEREE, CHRISTOPHER R
Art Unit
3734
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Project Sustainability Holding Co. 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

§103 §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 . 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. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the lid flap" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; therefore, the metes and bounds of the limitation are not readily. Further, Examiner notes that line 13 defines, “the lid comprises a lid flap”. It is unclear if the lid flap of lines 10 and 13 are the same element or not. Claims 3-4 fail to cure the deficiencies. 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) 2-4 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams (US 2511523 A) in view of Grajales et al. (US 9878818 B2; hereinafter Grajales). Regarding claims 2 and 11, Abrams discloses a self-locking carton comprising a storage compartment comprising a front panel (4); a lid (2) connected to the storage compartment comprising a lid flap (12) defining an underside and a tab (13-15); adhesive (20) applied to the underside of the lid flap; a slot (17/18) through the front panel of the storage compartment for removably receiving the tab for repeatedly closing the box without taping the box closed (see Figures 3-5). Abrams lacks double-sided tape as the adhesive on the underside of the lid tab. Grajales discloses a tamper resistant box comprising a storage compartment comprising a front panel (106); a lid (122/164) connected to the storage compartment comprising a lid flap (122) defining an underside and a tab (Col 4 lines 1-17); double-sided tape (105) attached to the underside of the lid flap; a slot (107) through the front panel of the storage compartment for removably receiving the tab for repeatedly closing the box without taping the box closed (see Figures 2 and 10); the double-sided tape carrying a protective film allowing the tab to be removably inserted into the slot without adhering the lid flap to the front panel of the storage compartment; and wherein the protective film is removable from the double-sided tape for taping the lid flap to the front panel of the storage compartment to tape the box closed (Col 8 lines 3-17); wherein the lid comprises a lid flap; the lid flap defines a tab; the adhesive comprises double-sided tape carried on an underside of the tab; the storage compartment comprises a front panel; and the engagement comprises a slot through the front panel for removably receiving the tab. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to use Grajales’s double-sided tape adhesive means as the adhesive needed for Abrams’s lid tab in order to provide adhesive that is selectively used and further provide tamper evident characteristics, as taught by Grajales. Examiner notes that Abrams contemplates using many different types of adhesive for the lid flap tab (Abrams; Col 4 lines 20-25). Regarding claims 3-4 and 12-13, Abrams, as modified above, discloses a box wherein the storage compartment and lid are formed from a single piece of material foldable from a flat configuration to form the storage compartment and lid (Abrams; see Fig. 1). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 4-5, filed 08/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Grajales have been fully considered and are persuasive. Grajales lacks the claimed tab and slot locking arrangement. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of USC 103(a)—Abrams in view of Grajales. 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 13, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 19, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (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