Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/219,573

DEVICE FOR CLOSING A CONTAINER TO MAKE THE CONTAINER REUSABLE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jul 07, 2023
Examiner
DEMEREE, CHRISTOPHER R
Art Unit
3734
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
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 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. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (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) 1-2 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farris (US 2011/0192891 A1). Regarding claims 1-2 and 7, Farris discloses a reusable container closure comprising a connection mechanism (100) couplable to a container (see box of Figures 4-7B), the container comprising a bottom, a top, and sides, the top comprising a first flap (202) and a second flap (204), the first flap comprising a first hinge end (Examiner considers the hinge end to be the portion of the flap foldably attached to a box sidewall) and a first edge (i.e. distal free edge) opposite the first hinge end, the second flap comprising a second hinge end and a second edge opposite the second hinge end, the first and second hinge ends are each connected to a side of the container, the connection mechanism (100 or 100a) extending substantially along an entire length of the first edge of the first flap (see Figures 4-7B), wherein the first edge is adjacent to a second edge of the second flap when the first and second flaps are in a closed position (see Fig. 7A), and wherein the connection mechanism comprises a tab (104; Examiner considers portion 104 to extend as a tab) couplable along the first edge of the first flap (see Par. 0038-0039); and a channel (1000a; see Fig. 10A; Examiner considers element 1000a to present a “channel”) opposite the tab configured to enclose a portion of the second flap along a substantial portion of the second edge (see Figures 9A-10B), wherein when the first and second flaps are in an open position the tab remains coupled to the first flap (see Fig. 9A), and wherein when the first and second flaps are in the closed position the channel maintains the second edge in the channel while the tab remains coupled to the first flap (see Fig. 10B). Examiner considers Farris’s connection material to be rigid. Regarding claims 6 and 8, Farris discloses a reusable container closure wherein the channel is a first channel and the tab is a first tab and further comprising a second tab, the first tab and the second tab forming a second channel therebetween, the second channel configured to couple to the first flap by a friction fit (see Fig. 9A-10B). 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) 9-12 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris in view of Bartone, Sr. (US 7854372 B1; hereinafter Bartone). Regarding claims 9-12 and 14-18, Farris lacks a detachable strap wrapped around the box. Bartone teaches a box closure clip further comprising a strap (dual straps 221a/222a; see Fig. 9), detachably coupled to opposite sides of the box, such that the strap maintains one of a bottom in a closed position or first and second top flaps in the closed position (Col 3 lines 60-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Farris’s box to include binder straps to ensure that the closure clips remain in place during transit, as taught by Bartone. Examiner notes that Farris discloses a box that is a generic regular slotted container which employs a standard four top closure flaps and four bottom closure flaps. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-5, 13, and 19 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. 9. Claim 20 is allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 11-14, filed 03/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6-8 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Dismukes have been fully considered and are persuasive. Dismukes fails to teach a connection mechanism that span along substantially an entire length of a closure 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)--Farris. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. 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

Jul 07, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 12, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 01, 2026
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

3-4
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 for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month