Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 27, 2026
Application No. 18/648,650

Modular Jewelry Storage Device

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 29, 2024
Priority
Mar 15, 2024 — provisional 63/565,569
Examiner
BUI, LUAN KIM
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
None recorded (individual inventor: Dawn Cope)
OA Round
2 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allowance Rate
1030 granted / 1493 resolved
-1.0% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1520
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
38.5%
-1.5% vs TC avg
§102
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§112
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1493 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (2002/0117947) in view of Beyburg (8,844,756) and/or Andrews (2013/0274078). Cheng discloses a module/modular jewelry storage device (a bottom module as shown in Fig. 4) comprising a base (10; Figs. 1-2) comprised of a first top surface with a first fastener (11, 111), a drawer assembly (a second module stacked on top of the bottom module as shown in Fig. 4) comprised of a housing (10) having a second top surface with a second fastener (11, 111) and a bottom surface with a third fastener (112) and a drawer (20); and a divider (23). Cheng further disclose the first fastener is a hole fastener and the third fastener is a protrusion fastener. However, Cheng fails to show the first fastener is a hook fastener and the third fastener is a reciprocating loop fastener. Beyburg teaches a stackable shelves (700, 750; Fig. 7C) comprising a base (lower shelf 750) having a top surface (725) with a first fastener is a Velcro/hook fastener (720), and a housing (upper shelf 700) having a bottom surface with a reciprocating Velcro/loop fastener (707). Beyburg further teaches that the fastener comprised of Velcro fastener or other suitable securing means (column 10, lines 19-21). Andrews teaches a stackable blocks (1-3; Figs. 3-6) comprising a base (2) having a first top surface with an interlocking mechanism/first fastener (40) and a housing having a bottom surface with an interlocking mechanism/third fastener (40). Andrews further teaches that the interlocking mechanism comprises of protrusions, buttons, snaps, indentions, joints, Velcro-type hook and loop fasteners, magnets and others [0027]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Beyburg and/or Andrews to modify the modular jewelry storage device of Cheng so the modular jewelry storage device is constructed with the first fastener is a hook fastener instead of the hole fastener and the third fastener is a reciprocating loop fastener instead of the protrusion fastener because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitzer et al. (4,988,003; hereinafter Spitzer) in view of Beyburg (8,844,756) and/or Andrews (2013/0274078). As to claim 8, Spitzer discloses a stackable carrying units/modular jewelry storage device (Fig. 6) comprising a base (10; a lower unit as shown in Fig. 6) comprised of four legs (14; Fig. 1) and a first top surface (28) with a first fastener (34) is a post, a drawer assembly (10; an upper unit as shown in Fig. 6) comprised of a housing (10 as shown in Fig. 1) comprised of a second top surface (28) with a second fastener (34) is a post and a bottom surface (12) with a third fastener (14, 54) is a web (column 5, lines 22-25), and a drawer (80); and a divider (56; 70, 76). However, Spitzer fails to show the first and third fasteners are reciprocating magnetic fasteners. Beyburg teaches a stackable shelves (700, 750; Fig. 7C) comprising a base (lower shelf 750) having a top surface (725) with a first fastener is a Velcro/hook fastener (720), and a housing (upper shelf 700) having a bottom surface with a reciprocating Velcro/loop fastener (707). Beyburg further teaches that the fastener comprised of Velcro fastener or other suitable securing means (column 10, lines 19-21). Andrews teaches a stackable blocks (1-3; Figs. 3-6) comprising a base (2) having a first top surface with an interlocking mechanism/first fastener (40) and a housing having a bottom surface with an interlocking mechanism/third fastener (40). Andrews further teaches that the interlocking mechanism comprises of protrusions, buttons, snaps, indentions, joints, Velcro-type hook and loop fasteners, magnets and others [0027]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Beyburg and/or Andrews to modify the modular jewelry storage device of Spitzer so the modular jewelry storage device is constructed with the first and third fasteners are reciprocating magnetic fasteners instead of the post and the web of Spitzer because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. As to claim 15, Spitzer further discloses the drawer is comprised of a handle (92). Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Creed (2007/0262683). The modular jewelry storage device of Spitzer as modified further fails to show an interior top surface of the drawer is made from a felt material. Creed teaches a storage cabinet (10) comprising a drawer (20) having an interior top surface of the drawer (20) is made from a felt material (40; Fig. 3 & [0024]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Creed to modify the modular jewelry storage device of Spitzer as modified so the drawer is constructed with an interior top surface is made from a felt material for better protecting contents disposed in the drawer. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments with respect to all pending claims have been considered but are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN K BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4552. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F, 7-4. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531 or orlando.aviles-bosques@uspto.gov. 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. /LUAN K BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 29, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Mar 19, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 22, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Oct 12, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12768617
Rifle case convertible into a shooting bench
1y 8m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12766697
TOOL STORAGE DEVICE
1y 8m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12759781
REFILL PACKAGE CONTAINING A PRODUCT
2y 1m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12753000
Dispenser for Sheet Materials
2y 0m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12735238
CONTACT LENS BLISTER PACKAGE
1y 5m to grant Granted Sep 15, 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
69%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+28.4%)
2y 4m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1493 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