Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/442,683

PROTECTIVE CASING FOR SECURING AND DISPLAYING AN AUTOGRAPHED ITEM

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Feb 15, 2024
Examiner
LEWIS, JUSTIN V
Art Unit
3637
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
749 granted / 1362 resolved
+3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1412
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.0%
+8.0% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
29.7%
-10.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1362 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6 and 10-11 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the aforementioned claims set forth a series of physical structures/configurations that are well beyond that which is disclosed within the Lebrun reference (discussed in greater depth, infra), which is the prior art closest to Applicant’s claimed invention, and there would be no obvious reason to modify Lebrun to the extent necessary to satisfy each of Applicant’s pertinent limitations (specifically with regard to the claimed combination of material elements and operational functionalities associated therewith), as such modifications would be likely to render the Lebrun assembly incapable of continuing to operate/behave in the particular manner set forth within the reference itself (given the particularly sensitive nature of such valuable display frame assemblies), which would be strongly indicative of an application of improper hindsight reasoning. Claims 6 and 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim 1 recitation of “a base plate having a recessed portion sized to receive the article” is unclear, as it is unknown whether Applicant desires: i) the overall base plate to be sized to receive the article with said base plate also comprising a recessed portion somewhere thereon; or alternatively, ii) the recessed portion itself being sized to receive the article. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify. The phrase “standard sizes and dimensions” claim 7 is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The term “standard” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim 9 recitation of “handled portions” is unclear. Exactly what portions are to be “handled”, and by whom/what parties or machines? Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the rim". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim 11 recitation of “multi-page formatting for enclosure insertion and removal” is unclear. Does Applicant desire some particular printed wording instructing an ostensible user of the portfolio binder, or alternatively, does Applicant desire some particular physical structure within the portfolio binder designed to accept a plurality of protective enclosures? Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify. Claims 2-6, 8 and 12 are rejected as depending (directly or indirectly) from rejected independent claim 1. 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. Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0045043 to Lebrun (“Lebrun”). Regarding claim 1, Lebrun discloses a protective enclosure (e.g. frame 1, as shown in fig. 1 and discussed at para. 26) for retaining (figs. 4 and 6-7) an article (e.g. event program 16, as shown in figs. 4 and 6-7) to be autographed (para. 45) comprising: i) a base plate (e.g. interior wall 12, as shown in figs. 6A-B and discussed at para. 38) having a recessed portion (e.g. space between instances of interior wall 12, as shown in figs. 6A-B) sized to receive (figs. 6A-B) the article (16); ii) a cover plate (e.g. rear panel 5, as shown in figs. 2-6 and discussed at para. 27) configured for removable mating engagement with (compare figs. 2-6) the base plate (12), the cover plate (5) overlaying (figs. 6A-B) the recessed portion (aforementioned space between instances of interior wall 12); and ii) at least one opening (e.g. access door 6, as shown in figs. 2-6) in (figs. 2-6) the cover plate (5) sized to provide access to (compare figs. 2-6) a portion (figs. 2-6) of the retained article (16) for application of an autograph (para. 45). Lebrun does not disclose said cover plate (5) being transparent. However, Lebrun does teach the concept of providing transparent plates in general (para. 26). Given that Lebrun’s rear panel 5 covers a rear portion of the enclosed event program 16 in the same manner that the front panel 4 covers (fig. 3) a front portion of said event program 16 , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide said rear panel 5 in a transparent configuration, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant assembly in which both the front and rear sides of the event program 16 may be viewed. Regarding claim 2, Lebrun discloses the protective enclosure of claim 1, wherein the base plate (12) and cover plate (5) are connected by (at least indirectly, as shown in figs. 2-3) at least one hinge member (7) allowing the enclosure (1) to be opened (fig. 3) and closed (fig. 2). Regarding claim 3, Lebrun discloses the protective enclosure of claim 1, further comprising at least one set of cooperating snap fit connectors (e.g. locking tabs 10, as shown in figs. 2-3) on (figs. 2-3) the base plate (12) and cover plate (5) for repeatable securing (compare figs. 2-3) of the enclosure (1) in a closed position (fig. 2). Regarding claim 4, Lebrun discloses the protective enclosure of claim 1, further comprising shock-absorbing padding (e.g. thickness shim 15, as shown in figs. 6A-B) lining interior surfaces (figs. 6A-B) of the base plate recessed portion (aforementioned space between instances of interior wall 12). Regarding claim 5, Lebrun discloses the protective enclosure of claim 1, wherein the at least one opening (6) in the cover plate (5) comprises a cutout window (e.g. aperture 8, as shown in figs. 2-3) extending to edges (fig. 2) of the cover plate (5). Regarding claim 7, Lebrun discloses the protective enclosure of claim 1, sized to fully enclose (fig. 4) trading cards, photographs, or autographed memorabilia articles (16) in standard sizes and dimensions (fig. 4; also see the rejection under 35 USC 112 set forth supra). Regarding claim 8, Lebrun discloses the protective enclosure of claim 1, further comprising cushioning material (e.g. thickness shim 15, as shown in figs. 6A-B) lining interior surfaces (figs. 6A-B) of the base plate recessed portion (aforementioned space between instances of interior wall 12) for protecting (figs. 6A-B) the retained article (16). Regarding claim 9, Lebrun discloses the protective enclosure of claim 1, wherein edges along (figs. 2-5) handled portions (e.g. aperture 8, as shown in figs. 2-5) incorporate rounded or tapered shapes (figs. 2-5) as shock absorbers (note that aperture 8 absorbs shocks to fingers used to open access door 6). Regarding claim 12, Lebrun discloses the protective enclosure of claim 1, molded, formed, or machined (note that the instant claim is drawn to a protective enclosure apparatus- not a method of forming such) from materials selected from the group comprising of: plastics (para. 26), acrylics (para. 26), polycarbonates, resins, foams, composites and laminate sheets. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN V LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM. 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, Daniel J. Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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. /JUSTIN V LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 15, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600161
Micro-Optic Device for Producing a Magnified Image
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589610
A SEALING MARK, A PACKAGE AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584024
FLOWABLE LUMINESCENT COATING COMPOSITION AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582247
MAGNETIC PICTURE FRAME SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584254
NEEDLEPOINT FINISHING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+17.4%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1362 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month