Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/477,704

Top Loading Testing Method and Device for Blow Molded Containers

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 29, 2023
Priority
Sep 30, 2022 — NO 20221046
Examiner
DUNLAP, JONATHAN M
Art Unit
2855
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Delta Engineering Bvba
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allowance Rate
675 granted / 888 resolved
+8.0% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
918
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.1%
-35.9% vs TC avg
§103
43.0%
+3.0% vs TC avg
§102
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
§112
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 888 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Considering claim 1, the phrase “wherein the application of the force is terminated while a linear correlation between force and compression is recorded”, in lines 12-13, is supported by the specification in that the application of force is terminated within a fraction of a preset duration of a typical duration of the linear correlation between force and compression for a given material type, wall thickness and height of a container, see originally filed specification [0009] and [0011-13]. However, the claim language fails to consider the possibility that the material is so flawed that it will plastically deform prior to the preset duration, and thus, the recording will cover a portion of the non-linear region as well. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to find adequate written support for only cases where the device is configured to terminate recording during the linear correlation region. A more appropriate recitation of the claim language, that is supported by the specification, would be: “the application of the force is terminated within a preset duration of a typical duration of the linear correlation between force and compression for a given material type, wall thickness and height of the said at least one blow molded container”. Claims 2-12 are also rejected based on their dependency upon claim 1. Considering claim 13, the phrase “the device is configured to terminate the force applied onto the top of the container (1) before the recording of non-linear correlation between force and compression”, in lines 13-15, is supported by the specification in that the application of force is terminated within a fraction of a preset duration of a typical duration of the linear correlation between force and compression for a given material type, wall thickness and height of a container, see originally filed specification [0009] and [0011-13]. However, the claim language fails to consider the possibility that the material is so flawed that it will plastically deform prior to the preset duration, and thus, the recording will cover a portion of the non-linear region as well. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to find adequate written support for only cases where the device is configured to terminate recording during the linear correlation region. A more appropriate recitation of the claim language, that is supported by the specification, would be: ““the device is configured to terminate the force applied onto the top of the container (1) before a preset duration of a typical duration of the linear correlation between force and compression for a given material type, wall thickness and height of the said at least one blow molded container”. Claims 14 is also rejected based on its dependency upon claim 13. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM. 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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. /JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 November 1, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 29, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12613163
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TESTING TWO-PHASE LIQUID COOLING
2y 1m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12606299
TAIL ROTOR BEARING CONDITION MONITORING
2y 10m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12607572
SYSTEMS, METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR SAFE LAUNCH AND RECOVERY OF AN INSPECTION VEHICLE
1y 2m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12601623
CORIOLIS MASS FLOWMETER AND METHOD FOR MONITORING A CORIOLIS MASS FLOWMETER
2y 4m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596046
Method and System for Automatically Monitoring and Identifying Water Seepage of Segment Joint of Subway Shield Tunnel
2y 4m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+16.9%)
2y 5m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 888 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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