Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/629,535

Utility Access Box Lid Labeling System and Methods

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 08, 2024
Examiner
HOGE, GARY CHAPMAN
Art Unit
3631
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Jensen Enterprises Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
773 granted / 1217 resolved
+11.5% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1241
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
§112
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1217 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . 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. Claim 9 is 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. There is no antecedent basis for “the receiver plug.” It appears that claim 9 was intended to depend from claim 8. For examination purposes, it will be treated as if it depended from claim 8. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zappacosta et al. (2004/0187373). Zappacosta discloses a labeling assembly comprising: a nameplate (120, Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of cantilever arms (140, 150, Fig. 1); a lid (110, Fig. 1) comprising: a top side; an underside; and a plurality of integrated receiving slots (160, 170, Fig. 1) in the top side of the lid, wherein each of the plurality of receiving slots comprises: a first opening; the inside edge of the first opening comprises a first snap tab; and wherein each of the plurality of cantilever arms of the nameplate are configured to clip into one of the plurality of integrated receiving slots on the top side of the lid to affix the nameplate to the lid. Regarding claim 12, each of the plurality of cantilever arms further comprises: a finger (240, 250, Fig. 2) comprising: a first side; and a second side; and a hook (280, 290, Fig. 2) extending from the first side of the finger for clipping past the first snap tab in the first opening of one of the plurality of integrated receiving slots. Regarding claim 14, the nameplate disclosed by Zappacosta is affixed to the lid without the use of adhesive. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurich et al. (8,827,589). Jurich discloses a labeling assembly for a lid for a utility access box comprising: a nameplate (1500, Fig. 15A) comprising a plurality of cantilever arms (1511-1516, Fig. 15B); a receiver (1300, Fig. 13A) comprising: a top side; an underside; and a plurality of receiving slots (1311-1316, Fig. 13A) in the top side of the receiver, and wherein each of the plurality of receiving slots comprises: a first receiver opening. Although the receiver disclosed by Jurich is a separate piece and not cast into the lid for the utility access box, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the receiver one piece with the lid because it has been held that the use of a one-piece construction instead of separate elements fastened together is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B). Regarding claim 2, Jurich discloses a spine (1321-1324, Fig. 13B) and receiver arms (1301-1306, Fig. 13B) that extend from the spine. Regarding claim 4, the female connector elements (1311-1316, Fig. 13A) constitute body cavities. Regarding claim 10, the nameplate disclosed by Zappacosta is affixed to the lid without the use of adhesive. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurich et al. (8,827,589) in view of Lee et al. (2007/0222691). Jurich discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Jurich does not disclose a plurality of alignment holes for use in positioning and securing the receiver into a mold. Lee teaches providing a plurality of alignment holes for use in positioning and securing an element into a mold. See paragraph 0037. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the receiver disclosed by Jurich with a plurality of alignment holes, as taught by Lee, in order to position and secure the receiver into a mold. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurich et al. (8,827,589) in view of Zappacosta et al. (2004/0187373). Jurich discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Jurich does not disclose a hook extending from the first side of the cantilever arms. Zappacosta teaches providing a hook extending from the first side of a cantilever arm in order to secure a nameplate to a surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cantilever arms disclosed by Jurich with hooks, as taught by Zappacosta, in order to secure the nameplate to the receiver. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5, 7, 8, and 13 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. Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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: Regarding claim 5, it would not have been obvious to fill the body cavities (1311-1316, Fig. 13A) disclosed by Jurich with material forming the lid because doing so would render the body cavities incapable of performing their intended function of receiving the male connector elements (1511-1516, Fig. 15B). Regarding claims 7 and 13, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a nameplate having a border around a perimeter portion of the interior portion, a plurality of support bosses on the interior portion, and wherein the border is thicker than a portion of the interior portion. Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not disclose a receiver having a second opening that is obstructed by a receiver plug that clips into the opening. Claim 9 would be allowable based on its dependency. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of each reference is explained below, unless the relevance is deemed to be readily apparent. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C HOGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday. 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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. /GARY C HOGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 08, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Sep 29, 2025
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597372
NOVELTY DISPLAY PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586488
PHOTOLUMINESCENT SIGNAGE FOR LOW LIGHT AMBIENT ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586487
LIT BADGE WITH ROLL STAMP SELECTIVE CHROMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576779
Segmented Display With Photon Recycling Cavity
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573321
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
64%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+23.3%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1217 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