Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/400,475

SHELL CONTAINER SUITABLE FOR HOUSING A DISCRETE REFILL CONTAINER

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 29, 2023
Examiner
ELOSHWAY, NIKI MARINA
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
CONOPCO, INC.
OA Round
2 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
1002 granted / 1576 resolved
-6.4% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
76 currently pending
Career history
1652
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
51.9%
+11.9% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1576 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia et al. (U.S. 5,873,491) in view of Stoody (U.S. 5,642,838). Garcia et al. teaches a refill container 10, shown in figure 1, comprising a thin walled bottle 10 having a bottle neck at 130 and a discrete fitment 20 at one end thereof and secured to the bottle neck, the fitment 20 being structured to stably support the bottle when it rests on the fitment in an inverted position so that the bottle can be displayed on the shelf or stored in the consumer’s home in an inverted position (capable of supporting bottle when bottle in inverted due to the flat top wall of 20). Garcia et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the destructive cover. Stoody teaches that it is known to provide a bottle with a destructive cover (see element 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to provide the container of Garcia et al. with the destructive cover, as taught by Stoody, in order to preserve the contents and provide tamper indication. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia et al. (U.S. 5,873,491) in view of Yoshiro et al. (JP 2011111186A). Regarding claim 10, Garcia et al. teaches a thin walled bottle 10 comprising a neck at 130 and a discrete fitment 20 having a support ledge (top wall of 20) secured to the neck and at least partly surrounding, directly or indirectly (figure 3), the neck, the ledge supporting the fitment 20 and the bottle when the bottle rests on the fitment in an inverted position so that the bottle can be displayed on the shelf or stored in the consumer’s home in an inverted position (capable of supporting bottle when bottle in inverted due to the flat top wall of 20). Garcia et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the thin walled bottle having a wall thickness from 0.01 mm to 0.32 mm. Yoshiro et al. teaches that it is known to form a thin walled bottle with a wall thickness from 0.01 mm to 0.32 mm (“The thickness of each film piece can be a general thickness of 10 to 150 μm”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Garcia et al. with the thin walled bottle having a wall thickness of from 0.01 mm to 0.32 mm, as taught by Yoshiro et al., in order to provide the least amount of material while meeting the strength requirements. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the primary reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new primary reference of Garcia et al. is applied in the rejection for the teaching of providing a container with a fitment 20 capable of supporting the container in the inverted position. The fitment 20 of Garcia et al. is capable of supported the container in the inverted position because of the flat top wall of 20. 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 NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.. 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. Aviles can be reached on 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. /NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736 /ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 29, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 29, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 26, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600560
HEATING UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589917
CLOSURES WITH TAMPER EVIDENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12564280
WIRELESS DRINK CONTAINER FOR MONITORING HYDRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12553661
TRIM BREAKER WITH LIGHT-DIFFUSING OPTICAL FIBER FOR VACUUM INSULATED STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546319
Can, And A Method For Producing Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
64%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+24.0%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1576 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