Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/273,587

A FOOD CONTAINER OF FIBER PULP

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 21, 2023
Examiner
DEMEREE, CHRISTOPHER R
Art Unit
3734
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Brødrene Hartmann A/S
OA Round
3 (Non-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

§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 . Response to Amendment Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn. 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) 21-31, 33 and 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 2020/024806 A1) in view of Khan (US 2021/0347518 A1). Regarding claim 21, Chung discloses a fiber-based meat container comprising a bottom part defining a bottom plane, and upwardly extending side walls surrounding said bottom part (see Figures 3, 6, and 10), and having inner wall surfaces facing the interior of said container and outer wall surfaces facing the outside of said container, said upwardly extending side walls comprising, at an upper end thereof, a circumferential longitudinal rim part (302) having a planer main surface being substantially parallel to said bottom plane, said container being arranged with a junction between said side walls and said rim part, wherein a least 50% of said junction is non-parallel in relation to a longitudinal direction of said rim part (Examiner notes that the sidewalls taper outward at an angle; and Examiner considers the irregular portions of the ribs to also present a non-parallel portion to the rim part; see Figures 3, 6 and 10), for generating an increased moment of inertia of said rim part along the longitudinal direction thereof. Examiner notes that the Figure 10 embodiment especially shows a top junction where at least 50% is non-parallel to the rim. Chung lacks a barrier layer peelable from the bottom. Khan teaches a recyclable moulded pulp container wherein said container comprises a barrier (24) for making the container diffusion tight, and wherein said barrier is peelable from a bottom part and side wall surfaces (see Par. 0046 and Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Chung’s container in order protect the paperboard substrate and make disposal of the container easier after use (Khan; see Par. 0007-0009). Regarding claim 22, Chung, as modified above, discloses a container wherein said container is made from fiber pulp (Chung; see Par. 0038). Regarding claims 23-24, 27, and 29, Chung, as modified above, discloses a container wherein said junction comprises a non-straight line (Chung; see Figures 3-4). Examiner notes that the sidewalls present 3 distinct inflection points when viewed in cross-section; said inflection points are considered to present as a “wave” shape. Regarding claims 25-26, 28, and 30-31, Chung, as modified above, discloses a container wherein said upwardly extending side walls further comprise a reinforcing element (Chung; see Fig. 3 upwardly extending ribs 306) below said longitudinal rim part, said junction being arranged between said reinforcing element and said rim part. Regarding claim 33, Chung, as modified above, discloses a container comprising a barrier for making the container diffusion tight (Chung; see Par. 0047). Regarding claims 36-37, Chung, as modified above, discloses a container comprising a lower main surface of said bottom part, which, when said container is placed on a planar surface, is raised in relation to the remaining lower surface of said bottom part (Chung; 308). Examiner considers the raised, textured bottom to present a “rough” surface. Claim(s) 34 and 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Khan, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (US 2020/0277738 A1; hereinafter Chung ‘738). Regarding claims 34 and 40-41, Chung, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for a barrier having a thickness between 20 and 60 micrometers. Chung ‘738 teaches an acrylate and non-acrylate based chemical composition for selectively coating fiber-based food containers being within various thickness ranges (see Par 0040-0041 and 0061). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to further modify Chung’s food container to have a barrier layer between 20 and 60 micrometers since such a medication would have involved a mere change in the thickness of a component based on a desired result. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Khan, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Cabell et al. (WO 2009/136783 A1; hereinafter Cabell). Regarding claim 39, Chung, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for denesting feature for unstacking. Cabell teaches a food container comprising a denester (13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to further modify Chung’s food packaging to have a denesting feature in order to allow a stack of a plurality of food packages to be unstacked easily (Cabell; Page 3 lines 25-30). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-6, filed 01/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-33 and 36-38 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Chung have been fully considered and are persuasive. Chung lacks a barrier layer peelable from the bottom and side walls. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of USC 103(a)—Chung in view of Khan. 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

Jul 21, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 02, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §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
High
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