Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/611,547

SMART CAP DEVICE FOR CONTAINER SYSTEMS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Mar 20, 2024
Priority
Mar 21, 2023 — provisional 63/491,326
Examiner
ORTIZ, RAFAEL ALFREDO
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Readybit Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allowance Rate
717 granted / 1171 resolved
-8.8% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+35.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
1211
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
49.4%
+9.4% vs TC avg
§102
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
§112
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1171 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-11 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. Regarding claim 1, the structural feature of “non-contact distance sensor” raises a new matter issue because nowhere in the specification is disclosed that the distance sensor is a non-contact sensor. Applicants’ specification, paragraph [0047], discloses the sensor is a “time flight sensor”. The “time flight sensor” disclosed in the specification send infrared light through an opening the bottom portion of smart cap, and measure the time difference between the light’s emission, and its reflection after contacting the liquid or other material within the container. Nowhere in the specification is disclosed the type of sensor disposed in the cap is a “non-contact distance sensor”. Nowhere in the specification is disclosed what is and/or how works a “non-contact distance sensor”. Regarding claims 2-11, the claims inherit the same issue as claim 1 due to its dependency. Note: The teachings of Sostaric (US 2023/0243349) is provided as evidence that ultrasonic and microwaves sensors are the two type of “non-contact sensors” (see [0044]-[0046]). Nowhere in the specification is disclosed that the distance sensor is one of ultrasonic or microwaves sensor. 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 1-11 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. Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected for the reasons explained in the 112, first paragraph, above. It is unclear what is a “non-contact distance sensor”. It is unclear if “non-contact distance sensor” is a type of sensor or if the distance sensor has no contact with any other structure. In case the distance sensor has no contact with any other structure, then the recited limitation “non-contact distance sensor” could be considered as a negative limitation introduced for first time into the specification and therefore would raise a 112, first paragraph, issue because nowhere in the specification is disclosed that the distance sensor has no contact with any other structure. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection. 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 RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm. 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 at 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. RAFAEL A. ORTIZ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3736 /RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 1 earlier event
Aug 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Nov 07, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 25, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Feb 25, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 22, 2026
Response Filed
Aug 27, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12747829
PRESSURE VESSEL
1y 6m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12741453
CONSUMER PRODUCT
3y 1m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12741806
RE-SEALABLE CIGARETTE PACK
1y 4m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12735659
WASHING AGENT PRESENTATION FORM
3y 0m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12722867
DETERGENT SUPPLY FORM
2y 12m to grant Granted Sep 01, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+35.2%)
2y 6m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1171 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