Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/665,873

ONE-PIECE-SINGLE-UNIT DEVICE OF COMBINED VERTICAL SCOOP-FUNNEL-DISPOSABLE CUP CONTAINER MATE COMPONENT

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
May 16, 2024
Examiner
GRUBY, RANDALL A
Art Unit
3754
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
289 granted / 463 resolved
-7.6% vs TC avg
Strong +44% interview lift
Without
With
+44.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
492
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
39.0%
-1.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
§112
36.3%
-3.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 463 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Status of the Application Claims 1-3 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. No Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed with this application. Election/Restrictions Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/15/25. The remarks filed 12/15/25 have been fully considered and are found persuasive. The election requirement is withdrawn. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s): a linear device including a prism funnel section and a scoop section having a semi-elliptical scoop edge. No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 1-3 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 per claims 1-3, the claims are indefinite for the following reasons: term "substantially" renders the claim limitation indefinite. One having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of "substantially" in the contexts in which the term appears. the term “standard” is ambiguous. The term “standard” is a relative term for which the specification lacks some standard for measuring the degree intended. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). As per claims 1 and 2, the following limitation is ambiguous: “a scoop section connected to the tube top opening, said scoop section […] defines the tube top opening”. It is unclear how the scoop section can both define the top opening and also be connected to the top opening (i.e. connected to itself). A correct may include: “a scoop section […] defines the tube top opening”. As per claim 3, the following limitation is ambiguous: “a v-scoop section connected to the triangular top opening, said v-scoop section […] defines the triangular top opening”. It is unclear how the v-scoop section can both define the top opening and also be connected to the top opening (i.e. connected to itself). A correct may include: “a v-scoop section […] defines the tube top opening”. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-3 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to claims 1-3 the closest prior arts of record (US 329467 and US 4230238 and US 2277140) fail to disclose, either alone or in any combination, an invention according to each of claims 1-3. Specifically, with regard to claim 1 the prior art of record does not disclose, either alone or in any combination, a device for pouring liquid material comprising inter alia: a container section having a top edge defining a top opening, and a funnel section connected to the top edge and having a first inclined edge and a second inclined edge and a narrow opening, a tube section connected to the narrow opening, and a scoop section having an edge defining a top opening of the tube section wherein the edge is semi-elliptical, and a flat section connected to the scoop edge. Specifically, with regard to claim 2 the prior art of record does not disclose, either alone or in any combination, a device for pouring liquid material comprising inter alia: a container section having a top edge defining a top opening, and a funnel section connected to the top edge and having a first inclined edge and a second inclined edge and a narrow opening, a prism funnel section comprising a rectangular prism funnel connected to the narrow opening, and a scoop section having an edge defining a top opening of the prism funnel section wherein the edge is semi-elliptical, and a flat section connected to the scoop edge. Specifically, with regard to claim 3 the prior art of record does not disclose, either alone or in any combination, a device for pouring liquid material comprising inter alia: a container section having a top edge defining a top opening, and a funnel section connected to the top edge and having a first inclined edge and a second inclined edge and a narrow opening, a triangular prism funnel section comprising a triangular prism tube connected to the narrow opening, and a v-scoop section having an edge defining a top opening of the triangular prism tube, and a flat section connected to the scoop edge. Conclusion The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754 /PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 February 9, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 16, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 15, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600529
PILFERPROOF CAP ASSEMBLY FOR A CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595105
A BEVERAGE CONTAINER, AND A METHOD OF ASSEMBLING A BEVERAGE CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583648
Portable Fluid Tank System with Mounting Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575587
Secure, Easily Manipulated, Manually Operatable Pressure Relief Valve for Use With a Pressurized Food Dispensing System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576423
DISPENSER
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
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+44.0%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 463 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month