Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/224,716

REUSABLE POD FOR STORAGE, TRANSPORT, AND MIXING OF POWDERS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 21, 2023
Examiner
SPICER, JENINE MARIE
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Stone Wolf, LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
51%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 51% of resolved cases
51%
Career Allow Rate
380 granted / 749 resolved
-19.3% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
803
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
40.1%
+0.1% vs TC avg
§102
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
§112
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 749 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered. This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed on 8/29/2025 and 12/11/2025. Claims 1-21 are pending in the application. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from consideration. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not recite or show support for the limitations “the pod is unattached with respect to the vessel and is movable in all directions and unconstrained inside the vessel”. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the pod is unattached with respect to the vessel and is movable in all directions and unconstrained”, it is unclear how to interpret this limitation. As stated above, the specification does not show support for the limitations therefore, it is unclear what directions are considered to be “all directions” and what is to be considered “unconstrained”. For examination purposes, it will be assumed “all directions” is considered able to turn around and “unconstrained” is considered to be free to move without restraints. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 PNG media_image1.png 570 401 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim(s) 1-4, 10-13 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasena et al. US 2021/0127889 A1. With regards to claim 1, Sasena (Fig. 1 and 10-11) discloses a system 4, comprising: a pod for holding a powder to be mixed with a liquid, the pod comprising: a body 50 having an opening for loading the powder into the body; and a detachable lid 64 that covers the opening, the lid comprising: one or more holes; and one or more movable hole covers 54 that, when repositioned, expose the holes, and a vessel 40 configured to contain the liquid, wherein when the pod is placed in the vessel, the pod is unattached with respect to the vessel and is movable in all directions and unconstrained inside the vessel. (Para. 0032 and 0040) With regards to claim 2, Sasena (Fig. 1 and 10-11) discloses the body 50 is cylindrical. (Para. 0032) With regards to claim 3, Sasena (Fig. 1 and 10-11) discloses the body 50 comprises a base that is flat. With regards to claim 4, Sasena (Fig. 1 and 10-11) discloses the base comprises one or more coverable base openings 53. (end of Para. 0032) With regards to claim 10, Sasena (Fig. 1 and 10-11) discloses the pod (with body 50) is storable in a storage container. With regards to claim 11, Sasena (Fig. 10-11) discloses the hole cover 54 is attached to the lid 64 at a central pivot point, such that the hole cover is rotatable about the pivot point (at 58) and can be positioned to seal or expose the holes. (Para. 0040) With regards to claim 12, Sasena (Fig. 1 and 10-11) discloses the one or more hole covers comprise one or more respective plugs that seal the holes 58/59 in the lid. (end of Para. 0041) With regards to claim 13, the system of Sasena is capable of holding powder comprising one or more of an electrolyte, a protein supplement, an energy supplement, or infant formula, depending on the powder to be held. (Para. 0052) With regards to claim 21, the system of Sasena is capable of being configured to release the powder into the liquid for mixing in the liquid upon agitation of the liquid, depending on the powder and the liquid to be held. (Para. 0032 and 0040-0041) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasena et al. US 2021/0127889 A1 in view of ROBERTS et al. US 2017/0055761 A1. With regards to claim 5, Sasena (Fig. 1 and 10-11) discloses the claimed invention as stated above but it does not specifically disclose one or more of the body, the lid, and the one or more hole covers are a food grade material that is dishwasher safe. However, ROBERTS teaches that it was known in the art to have a pod body 1800 be formed of a food grade material that is dishwasher safe. (Para. 0339) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pod body in Sasena by providing it with a food grade material that is dishwasher safe as taught by ROBERTS, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 With regards to claim 6, ROBERTS further teaches the food grade material comprises one or more of: high density polyethylene (HDP). (Para. 0182) Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasena et al. US 2021/0127889 A1 in view of Rivera US 2018/0116444 A1. With regards to claim 7, Sasena (Fig. 1 and 10-11) discloses the claimed invention as stated above but it does not specifically disclose the lid is attachable to the body at the opening of the body by a snap closure. However, Rivera teaches that it was known in the art to have a pod having a lid attachable to the body at the opening of the body by a snap closure. (Para. 0276) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid closure in Sasena by providing a snap closure as taught by Rivera for the purposes of providing an alternative type of closure to the pod. With regards to claim 8, Rivera further teaches a hinge connecting the lid 40d to the body 40’ at the opening. (Fig. 51B and Para. 0006) With regards to claim 9, Rivera further teaches the lid 32e is attachable to the body 31b by screwing the lid onto the opening. (Para. 0224, 0274 and Fig. 35-36B) Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENINE SPICER whose telephone number is (313)446-4924. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm, Monday-Thursday. 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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. /JENINE SPICER/Examiner, Art Unit 3736 /RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 21, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 14, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Mar 20, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Aug 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 11, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589918
CONTAINER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583660
SHOCK ABSORBER AND PACKAGING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12565375
SUBSTRATE LOADING STATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12540022
PROTECTIVE APPARATUS AND TRANSPORT APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12517425
RETICLE ENCLOSURE FOR LITHOGRAPHY SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 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
51%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (+18.4%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 749 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