Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/501,527

PRODUCTS AND METHODS INCORPORATING EXTENSIBLE PAPER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 03, 2023
Examiner
HELVEY, PETER N.
Art Unit
3734
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Domtar Paper Company LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
754 granted / 1386 resolved
-15.6% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
1447
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
54.3%
+14.3% vs TC avg
§102
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
§112
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1386 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 5, Figures 7-8 in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 3-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/23/2025. 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. Claim(s) 1-2 and 17-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vierengel (US 1649760) in view of Nordling et al. (US 2021/0102340, hereinafter ‘Nordling’). Vierengel discloses a package comprising: one or more sheets of paper (156+158) defining an interior volume; except does not expressly disclose the extensibility properties of the paper material as claimed. However, Nordling teaches manufacturing paper wherein the paper has a machine direction (MD) extensibility of 10% or greater (para 0016), and a cross-direction (CD) extensibility of 6% or greater (para 00136) as claimed. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the paper material taught by Nordling to manufacture the envelope taught by Vierengel, in order to provide stretchability without compromising printability as taught by Nordling (para 0003). Vierengel as modified above further results in a device wherein the one or more sheets of paper define a bag (Vierengel Figs. 20-24); the one or more sheets of paper define a body having opposing first and second sides (156, 158) and one or more peripheral edges (Vierengel Figs. 20-24); the body defines an opening at one of the one or more peripheral edges, and where the body is configured to be joined to itself to close the opening (Vierengel Figs. 20-24); the body defines a flap (129) configured to cover the opening; the opening is disposed at one of the one or more edges peripheral edges (Vierengel Fig. 22); the one or more sheets of paper comprises a single sheet of paper folded (@151) and joined itself to define the interior volume. Regarding claims 22 and 24, Vierengel as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the MD or CD extensibility being oriented towards the opening as claimed. However it is noted that selecting the direction of the paper in forming the device taught by the combination above is a relatively basic selection process that would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention by applicant as there are only two realistic choices…MD or CD being oriented towards the opening as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the Vierengel as modified above device with either the MD or CD of the paper being oriented towards the opening, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Vierengel as modified above further results in a device wherein the single sheet of paper is joined to itself along two seams oriented toward the opening (Vierengel 109, 110). Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vierengel (US 1649760) in view of Nordling et al. (US 2021/0102340, hereinafter ‘Nordling’) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2003/0220036, hereinafter ‘Lee’). Vierengel as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the additives as claimed. However, Lee teaches coating paperstock material with an additive which imparts one or more desired properties such as water resistance (para 0176) as claimed. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the coated laminate paper taught by Lee to construct the envelope taught by Vierengel as modified above, in order to provide specific desired properties such as water resistance as taught by Lee (para 0176). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm 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, Nathan 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. /PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 March 31, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 03, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602012
WATCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593903
CONTAINMENT MAT THAT CONVERTS TO LUGGAGE WITH SECURE SEAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588747
Holder for Container
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583395
RAIL TOP CARGO MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12559290
REUSEABLE GIFT WRAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
54%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+18.6%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1386 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