Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/294,105

ARTICLE CARRIER AND BLANK THEREFOR

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Jan 31, 2024
Examiner
COLLINS, RAVEN
Art Unit
3735
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Westrock Packaging Systems LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
591 granted / 950 resolved
-7.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
995
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
57.4%
+17.4% vs TC avg
§102
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
§112
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 950 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 action is written in response to the amendment filed 03/05/2026 Claims 1-21 are presented for examination This action is Non-Final 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 4, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watts (US 3,404,912). Claim 1. Watts discloses an article carrier for engaging at least one article, the article carrier 18 comprising an engaging panel 21/22 including two or more article retention structures 46, each of the two or more article retention structures (row 24; fig. 3) comprising an article receiving opening @46 defined in part by an aperture and in part by a plurality of engaging tabs 52 disposed about the aperture (fig. 4), wherein a first article retention structure of the two or more article retention structures comprises a first engaging tab 32 and a second article retention structure of the two or more article retention structures comprises a second engaging tab, the second article retention structure being disposed adjacent to the first article retention structure (fig. 3), the first engaging tab being connected to the engaging panel via the second engaging tab, wherein the second engaging tab is connected directly to the engaging panel by at least one connecting element (col. 9, ll. 1-10; see annotated figure below). PNG media_image1.png 315 398 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim 4. Watts discloses an article carrier according to claim 1, wherein the first engaging tab comprises a first width dimension and the second engaging tab comprises a second width dimension, the second width dimension being greater than the first width dimension (see annotated fig. below). PNG media_image2.png 180 214 media_image2.png Greyscale To modify the dimensions of the tabs into the claimed widths would entail a mere change in size of the components and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). 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 11. Watts discloses a blank 70 for forming an article carrier, the blank 70/18 comprising an engaging panel 21/22 including two or more article retention structures 46, each of the two or more article retention structures (row 24; fig. 3) comprising an article receiving opening defined in part by an aperture and in part by a plurality of engaging tabs disposed about the aperture (fig. 4), wherein a first article retention structure of the two or more article retention structures comprises a first engaging tab 32 and a second article retention structure of the two or more article retention structures comprises a second engaging tab, the second article retention structure being disposed adjacent to the first article retention structure, the first engaging tab being connected to the engaging panel via the second engaging tab, wherein the second engaging tab is connected directly to the engaging panel by at least one connecting element (col. 6, ll. 57-75; see annotated figure below). PNG media_image3.png 315 398 media_image3.png Greyscale Claim 14. Watts discloses a blank according to claim 11, wherein the first engaging tab comprises a first width dimension and the second engaging tab comprises a second width dimension, the second width dimension being greater than the first width dimension (see annotated fig. below). PNG media_image2.png 180 214 media_image2.png Greyscale To modify the dimensions of the tabs into the claimed widths would entail a mere change in size of the components and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). 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). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-13 and 15-21 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST. 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 STASHICK can be reached at 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. /RAVEN COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3735 /Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 31, 2024
Application Filed
May 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Aug 20, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Mar 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600563
HEAVY DUTY CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599515
RECYCLABLE ABSORBENT ARTICLE PACKAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600559
CONTAINER WITH FIRE-RESISTANT, EXPLOSION-WITHSTANDING, AND HEAT-INSULATING CAPABILITIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589930
Carrier For Containers
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575981
PACKAGE OF ABSORBENT ARTICLES UTILIZING A SHAPED NONWOVEN
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
62%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+10.4%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 950 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