Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/618,150

CARRIER TAPE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 27, 2024
Priority
Apr 20, 2022 — JP 2022-069287 +1 more
Examiner
CHEUNG, CHUN HOI
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allowance Rate
651 granted / 1048 resolved
-7.9% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1079
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
86.6%
+46.6% vs TC avg
§102
3.8%
-36.2% vs TC avg
§112
6.2%
-33.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1048 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/26/2026 has been entered. 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 1-4, 6-17 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. As to claim 1, applicant recited “a density of the partition wall is higher than that of a portions other than the partition wall” is not clear. For example: According to applicant specification [0026], applicant recites that “In the carrier tape 1 according to the present example embodiment, the accommodating portion 10 and the partition wall 20 are formed at the same time by pressing a molding die against the front surface 1a of a material made of belt-shaped laminated paper for press-molding. At the time of press-molding, the partition wall 20 is compressed in the height direction and the thickness direction from the material state. Therefore, the degree of compression of each of the partition walls 20 is higher than that of the other portions, and the density of each of the partition walls 20 is higher than that of the other portions other than the partition walls 20. Further, since the density is high, the hardness of each of the partition walls 20 is higher than that of the other portions”. PNG media_image1.png 419 810 media_image1.png Greyscale However, with the process of making the carrier tape as explain in the specification, the compression should not cause the partition wall being the highest density of the carrier tape. The highest density would happen at the bottom portion of the accommodating portion. Furthermore, upon further review of the claim, it is not clear which structure “that of portions” applicant is referring to. The structure is lack of proper antecedent basis and not clear under 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. As to claims 2-4 and 6 17, they depended form claim 1 and are therefore rejected to accordingly under 35 USC 112(b). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-4 and 6-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN HOI CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5:30PM. 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. /CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 27, 2024
Application Filed
May 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 31, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 27, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jan 26, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12636230
MODULAR SYSTEM FOR INVENTORY AND TRANSPORT EFFICIENCY OF PACKAGING
1y 9m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12630347
NOVEL OPENING FOR A BLISTER PACKAGE
2y 0m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12612244
Collapsible Containment Vessel with Internal Baffles (CCViB)
3y 3m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12604957
DEVICE COVER ASSEMBLIES FOR PORTABLE DEVICE PROTECTION INSIDE RECEPTACLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12605017
PACKAGED CONSUMER PRODUCT WITH PRESERVATIVE GENERATION SYSTEM
2y 2m to grant Granted Apr 21, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+39.3%)
2y 7m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1048 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