Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/644,899

Container Cover and Assembly Thereof

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 24, 2024
Examiner
DEMEREE, CHRISTOPHER R
Art Unit
3734
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Detectamet Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
1097 granted / 1594 resolved
-1.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
82 currently pending
Career history
1676
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.4%
+1.4% vs TC avg
§102
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
§112
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1594 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I: Figures 1-2b and 4a-6c (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 08/11/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species of invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/11/2025. 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 7 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. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the depth" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 6-7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Justice (US 9073664 B2). Regarding claims 1, 6-7, and 11, Justice discloses a container with a cover comprising a flexible sheet material (see Fig. 5) and including first and second folded portions (12a-d) respectively located adjacent to opposing edges of, and co-planar with, a remainder of the said cover apparatus (14a-b), and each said folded portion capable of being at least partially unfolded to be moved (see Figures 1-2), when the cover apparatus is located over the opening of the container, to a position to contact with an adjacent side wall (18a; see Fig. 2) of the container such that the opening of the container is substantially covered by the remainder of the cover apparatus; and wherein the said folded portions of the cover apparatus are retained so as to be substantially co-planar with the remainder of the cover apparatus and, when the said respective folded portions are at least partially unfolded, to form a chamber or pouch (22), by the provision of first and second seals located at opposing ends of each respective folded portion (Col 6 lines 5-15). Examiner notes that, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim reads on a box with a foldable lid; said lid having end seals. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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) 2-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justice in view of Smith (US 2021/0221584 A1). Regarding claims 2-3, Justice discloses the claimed invention except for detectable materials being included within the flexible sheet. Smith teaches an apparatus wherein a flexible sheet of material includes one or more detectable materials as an integral part thereof that render the sheet of material detectable by X-ray and/or metal detection apparatus when in range thereof so as to allow the presence of the apparatus, or a fragment of the apparatus greater than a predetermined size, to be detectable (see Par. 0020-0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Justice’s container material to include the presence of detectable materials detectable by X-rays in order to provide the container with a safety hazard detection means (Smith; see Par. 0006-0007). Regarding claims 4-5, Justice, as modified above, teaches a container wherein the detectable material includes any or any combination of barium, magnetite and/or iodine to render the cover apparatus capable of detection by X-ray detection apparatus (Smith; Par. 0010). Regarding claim 9, Justice, as modified above, teaches a container wherein the flexible sheet material is provided in a colour associated with a particular indication, such as the origin or destination locations for a container with which the cover apparatus is located, the contents of a container with which the cover apparatus is located or the time in which the cover apparatus was located with a container (Smith; Par. 0021 and 0038). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8 and 10 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, 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, NATHAN J 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. /CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 24, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595093
PACKING BOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595091
METHOD OF COLLAPSING A COLLAPSIBLE BOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589908
TAKEOUT FOOD BOX WITH EXTRA FOOD POCKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582987
CARRIER DEVICE FOR A DISPENSING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577031
BIODEGRADABLE COOLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
69%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+13.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1594 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