Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/684,480

A PACKAGE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Feb 16, 2024
Examiner
RODRIGUEZ MOLINA, MARCOS JAVIER
Art Unit
3735
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Nicoventures Trading Limited
OA Round
2 (Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
64%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
75 granted / 145 resolved
-18.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
188
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
50.0%
+10.0% vs TC avg
§102
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
§112
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 145 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . This Office Action is in response to the reply filed on October 9, 2025 wherein claim(s) 1, 9 were amended , claim(s) 8, 17-19, 21 canceled, and status identifier of claim 16 changed from (Cancelled) to (Previously Presented). The Examiner notes amendments in claims are directed to overcome their rejections under 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103. Therefore, claims 1-7, 9-16, 20 are pending and will be examined. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 12-13, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horay (France Patent Application Publication FR2121465A1) hereinafter HORAY, in view of Lodge (U. S. Patent US1446014A) hereinafter LODGE. Regarding claim 1, HORAY teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 below) a package 1 for an elongate article H3-01, the package 1 having an inner container H1-01 and a lid 4, wherein the inner container H1-01 comprises a base H1-00 and side panels 3, 6 connected to the base H1-00 along respective fold lines 9, the side panels 3, 6 being foldable between an open configuration (Fig. 3), in which the side panels 3, 6 extend outwardly of the base H1-00, and a closed configuration (Fig. 1), in which the side panels 3, 6 upstand relative to the base H1-00 to form an enclosure; and wherein the lid 4 is configured to fit (Fig. 1) over the inner container H1-01 to hold the side panels 3, 6 in the closed configuration (Fig. 1). HORAY fails to teach wherein the inner container H1-01 further comprises an intermediate panel extending from an edge of each side panels 3, 6, each intermediate panel being configured to fold against an inside face of an adjacent side panels 3, 6 when the inner container H1-01 is in the closed configuration (Fig. 1). However, LODGE teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 3 below) a receptacle L2-01 wherein the container L2-02 further comprises an intermediate panel 3 extending from an edge 1a of each side panel 2, each intermediate panel 3 being configured to fold (Fig. 3) against an inside face of an adjacent side panels 2 when the container L2-02 is in the closed configuration (Fig. 2) to meet design requirements (page 2, left column, lines 9-13, “… transformed…”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified side panel 3, 6 in the package 1 of HORAY with side panels 2 as taught in the container L2-02 of LODGE to meet design requirements. PNG media_image1.png 638 702 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 820 810 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 1013 506 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 999 685 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 579 568 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 520 410 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 232 562 media_image7.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, HORAY and LODGE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HORAY further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) package 1, wherein the base H1-00 comprises a lower wall 2 and side walls 3, 6, 11 that upstand along edges H1-02 of the lower wall 2 to provide a receiving space H2-01 defined by the lower wall 2 and side walls 3, 6, 11, and wherein the side panels 3, 6 are connected to the base H1-00 along upper edges 9 of the side walls 3, 6, 11. Regarding claim 3, HORAY and LODGE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HORAY further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) package 1, wherein the side panels 3, 6 are configured to fall into the open configuration (Fig. 3) upon removal of the lid 4. Regarding claim 4, HORAY and LODGE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HORAY further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) package 1, wherein the lid 4 comprises side walls 5, wherein the side walls 5 are arranged so that an inner face of each side wall 5 is configured to abut an outer face of a respective side panel 3, 6 of the inner container H1-01 to hold the side panels 3, 6 in the closed configuration (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 5, HORAY and LODGE (as applied to claim 4 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HORAY further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) package 1, wherein the side walls 5 of the lid 4 form an open ended sleeve (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 6, HORAY and LODGE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HORAY further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) package 1, wherein the lid 4 comprises an end wall H1-04 that extends across one end of the side walls 5 of the lid 4, so that the lid 4 comprises one open end and one closed end. Regarding claim 7, HORAY and LODGE (as applied to claim 6 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HORAY further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) package 1, wherein the end wall H1-04 of the lid 4 and the lower wall 2 of the inner container H1-01 are the same shape. Regarding claim 9, HORAY and LODGE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HORAY fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) package 1, wherein the intermediate panels connect adjacent side panels 3, 6. However, LODGE teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 3 above) receptacle L2-01, wherein the intermediate panels 3 connect adjacent side panels 2 to meet design requirements (page 2, left column, lines 9-13, “… transformed…”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified side panel 3, 6 in the package 1 of HORAY and LODGE with side panels 2 as taught in the container L2-02 of LODGE to meet design requirements. Regarding claim 10, HORAY and LODGE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HORAY further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) package 1, wherein the side panels 3, 6 are connected to the package 1 only at the base H1-00 along said respective fold lines 9, so that each side panel 3, 6 is free to move independently of any other side panel 3, 6. Regarding claim 12, HORAY and LODGE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HORAY further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) package 1, further comprising an insert 13 configured to hold an elongate article H3-01 to upstand from the base H1-00 of the of the inner container H1-01. Regarding claim 13, HORAY and LODGE (as applied to claim 12 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HORAY further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) package 1, wherein the insert 13 comprises: a holding panel H3-04 having an aperture H3-02; and a spacing panel H3-03 connected to the holding panel H3-04, the spacing panel H3-03 being configured to space the holding panel H3-04 from the base H1-00 of the inner container H1-01 so that an elongate article H3-01 may be inserted through the aperture H3-02 in a direction toward the base H1-00 and be supported by sides of the aperture H3-02. HORAY fails to teach spacing panel H3-03 connected to the holding panel H3-04 along a fold line. However, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified connection of spacing panel H3-03 to the holding panel H3-04 along a fold line to meet design requirements since the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in HORAY and LODGE would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. MPEP 2144.04 / V. MAKING PORTABLE, INTEGRAL, SEPARABLE, ADJUSTABLE, OR CONTINUOUS Regarding claim 16, HORAY and LODGE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HORAY further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) package 1, wherein the elongate article H3-01 is capable to comprise an aerosol provision system. Regarding claim 20, HORAY and LODGE (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HORAY further teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) a pair of blanks (Fig. 4) for forming a package 1, wherein the pair of blanks comprises a blank (Fig. 4) for forming the inner container H1-01 and a blank (Fig. 4) for forming the lid 4. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORAY, in view of LODGE, in further view of McCullough et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20150175292A1) hereinafter MCCULLOUGH. Regarding claim 11, HORAY and LODGE (as applied to claim 10 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HORAY fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) package 1, wherein each intermediate panel comprises a pair of intermediate panels and wherein each pair of intermediate panels is configured to fold together in a concertina fashion when the inner container H1-01 is in the closed configuration (Fig. 1). However, MCCULLOUGH teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 4A - FIG. 4B below) package 100, wherein each intermediate panel 126A, 126B comprises a pair of intermediate panels 126A, 126B and wherein each pair of intermediate panels 126A, 126B is configured to fold together in a concertina fashion when the inner container M1-01 is in the closed configuration (FIG. 4B) to meet design requirements (page 8, para. [0008], line 11, “… flat container…”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified side panel 3, 6 in the package 1 of HORAY and LODGE with side panel 114 as taught in the package 100 of MCCULLOUGH to meet design requirements. PNG media_image8.png 671 667 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 761 927 media_image9.png Greyscale PNG media_image10.png 805 799 media_image10.png Greyscale PNG media_image11.png 717 807 media_image11.png Greyscale PNG media_image12.png 740 685 media_image12.png Greyscale Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORAY, in view of LODGE, in further view of SOCIÉTÉ INDUSTRIELLE DES CARTONNERIES DE LUMBRES (France Patent FR1492965A) hereinafter SOCIÉTÉ. Regarding claim 14, HORAY and LODGE (as applied to claim 13 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HORAY fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) package 1, wherein the insert 13 further comprises a shelf panel disposed between the base H1-00 and the holding panel H3-04. However, SOCIÉTÉ teaches (see Fig. 1. - Fig. 5 below) package S5-01, wherein the insert S5-02 further comprises a shelf panel 8 disposed between the base S5-03 and the holding panel 4 for protection purposes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified insert 13 in the package 1 of HORAY and LODGE with insert S5-02 as taught in the package S5-01 of SOCIÉTÉ for protection purposes. PNG media_image13.png 1037 510 media_image13.png Greyscale Regarding claim 15, HORAY, LODGE, and SOCIÉTÉ (as applied to claim 14 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HORAY fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 4 above) package 1, wherein the shelf panel comprises a cut out shaped to cooperate with an elongate article H3-01 received in the insert 13 to prevent rotation of the article H3-01 around its longitudinal axis. However, SOCIÉTÉ teaches (see Fig. 1. - Fig. 5 above) package S5-01, wherein the shelf panel 8 comprises a cut out 9 shaped to cooperate with an elongate article 14 received in the insert S5-02 to prevent rotation of the article 14 around its longitudinal axis for protection purposes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified insert 13 in the package 1 of HORAY, LODGE, and SOCIÉTÉ with insert S5-02 as taught in the package S5-01 of SOCIÉTÉ for protection purposes. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments / amendments regarding rejections under 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103 filed on October 9, 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections does not rely on exactly all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments. With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Conclusion 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 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chern et al. (W. I. P. O. Patent Application Publication WO2021236477A1): Teaches a “storage” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention. Kunishima et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20190047746A1): Teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention. Tsai et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20180178965A1): Teaches a “packaging” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention. Saito (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20180044054A1): Teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention. Lambert (U. S. Patent US5871102A): Teaches a “bin” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM. 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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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. /M.J.R.M./ /Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 16, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 09, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 30, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 13, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595098
FLUID SAMPLE CONTAINER CAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576313
Device to Releasably Secure Pickleballs
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570455
PROTECTIVE BRACKET AND USING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565365
SOLVENT TUBE MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12552585
CLOSURE ASSEMBLY FOR FILLING A CONTAINER UNDER ISOLATED CONDITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
64%
With Interview (+12.7%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 145 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