Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/242,086

TOOL ACCESSORY STORAGE ASSEMBLY

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 05, 2023
Examiner
RODRIGUEZ MOLINA, MARCOS JAVIER
Art Unit
3735
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Apex Brands, Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
75 granted / 145 resolved
-18.3% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
188
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
49.9%
+9.9% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 145 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 . This Office Action is in response to the Amendment / Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection filed on November 25, 2025 wherein: claims 1, 11, 16 were amended, and claims 3-4, 13, 18-19 previously canceled. Examiner notes amendments in claims are directed to overcome rejections under 35 USC § 103. Therefore, claims 1-2, 5-12, 14-17, and 20-25 are pending and will be examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 10, 16-17, 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roesler (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20060231444A1) hereinafter ROESLER-1 and Roesler (U. S. Design Patent USD541046S1) hereinafter ROESLER-2, in view of PARK (U. S. Patent US10239662B2) hereinafter PARK. Regarding claim 1, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 below) a storage assembly 1 for a tool accessory 2, the storage assembly 1 comprising: a cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) configured to cover a first end of the tool accessory 2; a base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) configured to retain a second end of the tool accessory 2 in an orifice R1-1-01; and a retention assembly 12-16, 18-19 slidably operably coupling the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) to the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”), wherein the retention assembly 12-16, 18-19 comprises: a first protrusion 16 disposed at the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”); a guide channel 12 disposed at the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”); and a first reception slot 13 extending substantially perpendicular to the guide channel 12, wherein the guide channel 12 is substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis 20 of the storage assembly 1, wherein the first protrusion 16 interfaces with the guide channel 12 and the first reception slot 13, wherein the first protrusion 16 is retainable in the first reception slot 13 responsive to rotating the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) relative to the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”), and wherein the first reception slot 13 comprises a detent 14 at a surface R1-7-01 orthogonal to a sidewall R2-1-02 / R1-7-02 of the first reception slot 13 to retain the first protrusion 16 in the first reception slot 13 via a snap fit (page 8, para. [0020], lines 13-15, “... hurdle...”) responsive to rotating the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) relative to the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) until the first protrusion 16 moves passed the detent 14. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 fail to teach wherein the guide channel 12 comprises at least one sloped surface disposed at an end of the guide channel 12 and sloped towards the guide channel 12 to guide the first protrusion 16 into the guide channel 12 responsive to the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) sliding into the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”). ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 fail to teach first reception slot 13 comprises a detent 14 at a sidewall R2-1-02 / R1-7-02 of the first reception slot 13 proximate to an intersection of the first reception slot 13 and the guide channel 12. However, PARK teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 below) container 1 wherein the guide channel 15 comprises at least one sloped surface P5-01 disposed at an end of the guide channel 15 and sloped towards the guide channel 15 to guide the first protrusion 22 into the guide channel 15 responsive to the base portion 10 sliding into the cover member 20 for ease of assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified guide channel 12 in the storage assembly 1 of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 with guide channel 15 as taught in the container 1 of PARK for ease of assembly. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified location of detent 14 from surface R1-7-01 to sidewall R2-1-02 / R1-7-02 (i.e., proximate to an intersection of the first reception slot 13 / guide channel 12) in the storage assembly 1 of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK to meet design requirements. Moreover, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e., location of detent 14), a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) PNG media_image1.png 258 788 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 243 844 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 250 904 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 918 354 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 352 392 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 314 291 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 343 602 media_image7.png Greyscale PNG media_image8.png 817 243 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 783 212 media_image9.png Greyscale PNG media_image10.png 782 221 media_image10.png Greyscale PNG media_image11.png 801 518 media_image11.png Greyscale PNG media_image12.png 764 464 media_image12.png Greyscale PNG media_image13.png 707 506 media_image13.png Greyscale PNG media_image13.png 707 506 media_image13.png Greyscale PNG media_image14.png 531 468 media_image14.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above) storage assembly 1, wherein the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) rotates less than 90° relative to the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) to retain the first protrusion 16 in the first reception slot 13. Regarding claim 5, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above) storage assembly 1, wherein the retention assembly 12-16, 18-19 further comprises second 16 and third 16 protrusions 16 and second 13 and third 13 reception slots 13, and wherein the first 16, second 16, and third 16 protrusions 16 are disposed spaced apart from each other along a line that extends parallel to the longitudinal axis 20. Regarding claim 6, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above) storage assembly 1, wherein the retention assembly 12-16, 18-19 further comprises a second protrusion 16, a second guide channel 12 and a second reception slot 13, wherein the first 12 and second 12 guide channels 12 are disposed 180° apart on the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) relative to the longitudinal axis 20, and wherein the first 16 and second 16 protrusions 16 are disposed 180° apart on the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) relative to the longitudinal axis 20. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified retention assembly 12-16, 18-19 in the storage assembly 1 of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK with a second protrusion 16 / second guide channel 12 / second reception slot 13 (disposed at 180° apart) to improve securement. Moreover, duplication of parts (i. e., second protrusion 16 / second guide channel 12 / second reception slot 13) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Regarding claim 7, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above) storage assembly 1, wherein the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) is transparent (page 8, para. [0017], lines 1-3, “... transparent, semi-transparent, or non-transparent...”) and the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) is opaque (page 8, para. [0017], lines 1-3, “... transparent, semi-transparent, or non-transparent...”). Regarding claim 10, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above) storage assembly 1, wherein the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) comprises a display interface R-2.2-01 configured to facilitate mounting the storage assembly 1 on a merchandise display. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 fails to teach wherein the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) comprises a theft deterrent device. However, Official Notice is taken that it is old and conventional to have a theft deterrent device within any point of a packaging intended for a retail setting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made in view of the Official Notice to have a theft deterrent device in the storage assembly 1 of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK for deterrence of theft. MPEP 2144.03 Reliance on Common Knowledge in the Art or “Well Known” Prior Art [R-07.2022] Regarding claim 16, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above) a cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) configured to slidably operably couple with a base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) of a tool accessory storage assembly 1 to cover a tool accessory 2, wherein the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) comprises: a unitary molded tube 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”); a guide channel 12 extending substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis 20 of the storage assembly 1; and a first reception slot 13 extending substantially perpendicular to the guide channel 12, wherein the guide channel 12 interfaces with a first protrusion 16 of the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”), wherein the first reception slot 13 retains the first protrusion 16 responsive to rotating the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) relative to the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”), and wherein the first reception slot 13 comprises a detent 14 at a surface R1-7-01 orthogonal to a sidewall R2-1-02 / R1-7-02 of the first reception slot 13 to retain the first protrusion 16 in the first reception slot 13 via a snap fit (page 8, para. [0020], lines 13-15, “... hurdle...”) responsive to rotating the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) relative to the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) until the first protrusion 16 moves passed the detent 14. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 fail to teach wherein the guide channel 12 comprises at least one sloped surface disposed at an end of the guide channel 12 and sloped towards the guide channel 12 to guide the first protrusion 16 into the guide channel 12 responsive to the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) sliding into the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”). ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 fail to teach first reception slot 13 comprises a detent 14 at a sidewall R2-1-02 / R1-7-02 of the first reception slot 13 13 proximate to an intersection of the first reception slot 13 and the guide channel 12. However, PARK teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) container 1 wherein the guide channel 15 comprises at least one sloped surface P5-01 disposed at an end of the guide channel 15 and sloped towards the guide channel 15 to guide the first protrusion 22 into the guide channel 15 responsive to the base portion 10 sliding into the cover member 20 for ease of assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified guide channel 12 in the storage assembly 1 of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 with guide channel 15 as taught in the container 1 of PARK for ease of assembly. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified location of detent 14 from surface R1-7-01 to sidewall R2-1-02 / R1-7-02 (i.e., proximate to an intersection of the first reception slot 13 / guide channel 12) in the storage assembly 1 of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK to meet design requirements. Moreover, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e., location of detent 14), a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) Regarding claim 17, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK (as applied to claim 16 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above) cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”), wherein the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) rotates less than 90° relative to the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) so the first reception slot 13 retains the first protrusion 16. Regarding claim 20, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK (as applied to claim 16 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above) cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”), wherein the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) comprises a display interface R-2.2-01 configured to facilitate mounting the storage assembly 1 on a merchandise display. Regarding claim 21, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 fail to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above) storage assembly 1, wherein the guide channel 12 is raised relative to an exterior surface of the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified guide channel 12 in the storage assembly 1 of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK to be raised relative to an exterior surface of the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) for ease of use since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47. Regarding claim 22, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK (as applied to claim 16 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 fail to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above) cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”), wherein the guide channel 12 is raised relative to an exterior surface of the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified guide channel 12 in the storage assembly 1 of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK to be raised relative to an exterior surface of the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) for ease of use since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47. Regarding claim 23, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. The combination of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above), and PARK (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) teaches storage assembly 1, wherein the detent 14 is integral to the sidewall R2-1-02 / R1-7-02 and is a protrusion of the sidewall R2-1-02 / R1-7-02, and wherein the detent 14 is fixed in place. Regarding claim 24, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. The combination of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above), and PARK (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) teaches storage assembly 1, wherein the detent 14 makes an entrance into the first reception slot 13 narrower in width than the first reception slot 13 itself. Regarding claim 25, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. The combination of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above), and PARK (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) teaches storage assembly 1, wherein the guide channel 12 extends linearly R1-4-01 beyond the first reception slot 13 at an opposite end of the guide channel 12 from the at least one sloped surface P5-01. Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK, in view of HIRANO (Japan Patent Application Publication JP2006205305A) hereinafter HIRANO. Regarding claim 8, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above) storage assembly 1, wherein the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) comprises a first half and a second half, wherein the first half and the second half operably couple to each other via a snap fit (page 8, para. [0020], lines 13-15, “... hurdle...”) to form the orifice R1-1-01. However, HIRANO teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6 below) storage case K, wherein the base portion 20, 20 comprises a first half 20 and a second half 20, wherein the first half 20 and the second half 20 operably couple to each other via a snap fit 26, 27 to form the orifice 22, 23, 24, 25 for purposes of assembly (page 2, (Invention Claim 2), “... sandwiched...”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) in the storage assembly 1 of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and PARK with base portion 20, 20 as taught in the storage case K of HIRANO for purposes of assembly. PNG media_image15.png 548 637 media_image15.png Greyscale PNG media_image16.png 774 423 media_image16.png Greyscale PNG media_image17.png 564 837 media_image17.png Greyscale PNG media_image18.png 730 378 media_image18.png Greyscale PNG media_image19.png 314 640 media_image19.png Greyscale PNG media_image20.png 524 716 media_image20.png Greyscale Regarding claim 9, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, PARK, and HIRANO (as applied to claim 8 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above) storage assembly 1, wherein the first half of the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) and the second half of the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) are operably coupled via a living hinge disposed opposite the orifice R1-1-01. However, HIRANO teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6 above) storage case K, wherein the first half 20 of the base portion 20, 20 and the second half 20 of the base portion 20, 20 are operably coupled via a living hinge 21 disposed opposite the orifice 22, 23, 24, 25 for purposes of assembly (page 2, (Invention Claim 2), “... sandwiched...”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) in the storage assembly 1 of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, PARK, and HIRANO with base portion 20, 20 as taught in the storage case K of HIRANO for purposes of assembly. Claim(s) 11-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, in view of HIRANO, in further view of PARK. Regarding claim 11, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above) a base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) configured to slidably operably couple with a cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) of a tool accessory storage assembly 1, a first protrusion 16 disposed on the exterior of the base portion 3, 4 to interface with a guide channel 12 and a first reception slot 13 of the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”), wherein the first protrusion 16 is retainable in the first reception slot 13 responsive to rotating the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) relative to the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”), and wherein the first protrusion 16 moves passed a detent 14 at a at a surface R1-7-01 orthogonal to a sidewall R2-1-02 / R1-7-02 of the first reception slot 13 to be retained in the first reception slot 13 via a snap fit (page 8, para. [0020], lines 13-15, “... hurdle...”) responsive to rotating the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) relative to the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”). ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 fails to teach wherein the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) comprises: a first half and a second half pivotally operably coupled to each other via a living hinge. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 fails to teach an orifice R1-1-01 disposed opposite the living hinge to retain a tool accessory 2 between the first half and the second half when the first and second halves are proximate to each other. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 fails to teach a first protrusion 16 disposed on the first half or the second half. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 fails to teach wherein the first protrusion 16 is guided into the guide channel 12 by at least one sloped surface disposed at an end of the guide channel 12 and sloped towards the guide channel 12 responsive to the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) sliding into the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”). ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 fail to teach first reception slot 13 comprises a detent 14 at a sidewall R2-1-02 / R1-7-02 of the first reception slot 13 proximate to an intersection of the first reception slot 13 and the guide channel 12. However, HIRANO teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6 above) storage case K, wherein the base portion 20, 20 comprises a first half 20 and a second half 20 pivotably operably coupled to each other via a living hinge 21 for purposes of assembly (page 2, (Invention Claim 2), “... sandwiched...”). However, HIRANO teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6 above) an orifice 22, 23, 24, 25 disposed opposite the living hinge 21 to retain a tool accessory 9 between the first half 20 and the second half 20 when the first 20 and second 20 halves 20 are proximate to each other (Fig. 6) for purposes of assembly (page 2, (Invention Claim 2), “... sandwiched...”). However, HIRANO fails to teach a first protrusion disposed on the first half 20 or the second half 20. However, PARK teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) container 1 wherein the first protrusion 22 is guided into the guide channel 15 by at least one sloped surface P5-01 disposed at an end of the guide channel 15 and sloped towards the guide channel 15 responsive to the base portion 10 sliding into the cover member 20 for ease of assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) in the storage assembly 1 of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 with base portion 20, 20 as taught in the storage case K of HIRANO for purposes of assembly. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified first protrusion 16 / guide channel 12 in the storage assembly 1 of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, and HIRANO with first protrusion 22 / guide channel 15 as taught in the container 1 of PARK for ease of assembly. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified location of detent 14 from surface R1-7-01 to sidewall R2-1-02 / R1-7-02 (i.e., proximate to an intersection of the first reception slot 13 / guide channel 12) in the storage assembly 1 of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, HIRANO, and PARK to meet design requirements. Moreover, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e., location of detent 14), a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) Regarding claim 12, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, HIRANO, and PARK (as applied to claim 11 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above) storage assembly 1, wherein the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) rotates less than 90° relative to the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) to retain the first protrusion 16 in the first reception slot 13. Regarding claim 14, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, HIRANO, and PARK (as applied to claim 11 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above) storage assembly 1, wherein the first half and the second half are separated from each other by a longitudinal axis 20 of the storage assembly 1, and wherein the orifice R1-1-01 comprises a receptacle disposed therein in order to removably retain the tool accessory 2 within the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”). However, HIRANO teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6 above) storage case K, wherein the first half 20 and the second half 20 are separated from each other by a longitudinal axis of the storage case K, and wherein the orifice 22, 23, 24, 25 comprises a receptacle 1 disposed therein in order to removably retain the tool accessory 9 within the base portion 20, 20 for purposes of assembly (page 2, (Invention Claim 2), “... sandwiched...”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) in the storage assembly 1 of ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, HIRANO, and PARK and with base portion 20, 20 as taught in the storage case K of HIRANO for purposes of assembly. Regarding claim 15, ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2, HIRANO, and PARK (as applied to claim 11 above) teaches all limitations of the claim. ROESLER-1 / ROESLER-2 further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6, FIG. 1 - FIG. 3 above) base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”), wherein the base portion 3, 4 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”) further comprises second 16 and third 16 protrusions 16 configured to interface with second 13 and third 13 reception slots 13 on the cover member 4, 3 (page 8, para. [0019], lines 1-4, “... switched...”), and wherein the first 16, second 16, and third 16 protrusions 16 are disposed spaced apart from each other along a line parallel to the longitudinal axis 20. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC § 103 in the reply filed November 25, 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections (see above) does not rely on exactly all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments. With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Markino (Japan Patent Application Publication JPH11321865A): Teaches a “storage case” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention. Webb (U. K. Patent GB2472094B): Teaches a “case” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention. Hirata et al. (Japan U. S. Patent Application Publication JP2001259964A): Teaches a “case” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention. Benzinger et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20190092561A1): Teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention. Keith (U. S. Patent US5244090A): Teaches a “sheath” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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. /M.J.R.M./ /Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 05, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 02, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 28, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 31, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 25, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600537
DISPENSING CLOSURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595098
FLUID SAMPLE CONTAINER CAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576313
Device to Releasably Secure Pickleballs
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570455
PROTECTIVE BRACKET AND USING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565365
SOLVENT TUBE MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
52%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+25.5%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 145 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