Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/718,587

COLLAPSIBLE CONTAINER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 11, 2024
Examiner
NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA
Art Unit
3735
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Kyocera Document Solutions Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
30%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 7m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 30% of cases
30%
Career Allow Rate
169 granted / 569 resolved
-40.3% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+40.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 7m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
609
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
54.2%
+14.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
§112
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 569 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsuya (JP09-240665) in view of Norio (JP06-078228) further in view of Juechter (US 3,768,416). Regarding claims 1-2, Tetsuya (fig. 1) discloses a collapsible container, comprising: a lower frame 1 including a rectangular bottom plate; an upper frame 2 that has a frame shape identical to that of an outer rim of the lower frame 1 and includes a pair of first lateral surfaces opposed to each other and a pair of second lateral surfaces each connecting an end of one of the pair of first lateral surfaces to an end of another of the pair of first lateral surfaces; a pair of flip-up lateral plates 4, each of which is swingably supported at an upper end to the upper frame 2 and is configured to swing between an upright state of being perpendicularly upright with respect to the bottom plate 1along a corresponding one of the pair of first lateral surfaces and a laid-down state of being laid down to be overlaid on the bottom plate; a pair of divided lateral plates 3, each of which includes: an upper lateral plate 3a swingably supported to a corresponding one of the pair of second lateral surfaces; a lower lateral plate 3b swingably supported to the bottom plate; and a hinge pivotably connecting a lower end of the upper lateral plate to an upper end of the lower lateral plate; the pair of divided lateral plates being configured to shift between a spread state where the upper lateral plate and the lower lateral plate are spread to be substantially flush with each other and a bent state where the upper lateral plate and the lower lateral plate are bent inwardly; and a pair of lid plates 5, each of which is pivotably supported to an upper part of a corresponding one of the pair of second lateral surfaces and thus enables opening and closing of an opening of the upper frame 2, the collapsible container being collapsible to flat form when the pair of flip-up lateral plates 3 is brought to the laid-down state and the pair of divided lateral plates 4 is brought to the bent state, wherein on outer lateral surfaces of the upper lateral plate 3a and the lower lateral plate 3b, a plurality of first reinforcement ribs is continuously formed to extend linearly in an up-down direction from an upper end to a lower end of each of the pair of divided lateral plates astride the hinge, each of the plurality of first reinforcement ribs includes: an upper reinforcement rib formed on the upper lateral plate; and a lower reinforcement rib formed on the lower lateral plate. Tetsuya fails to disclose a convexity being formed on one of the upper reinforcement rib and the lower reinforcement rib, and when the pair of divided lateral plates is in the bent state, the upper reinforcement rib is opposed to an upper part of the lower reinforcement rib, and the convexity contacts another of the upper reinforcement rib and the lower reinforcement rib; wherein the convexity is formed at an end of the upper reinforcement rib or the lower reinforcement rib distant from the hinge; and an installation surface provided on a lower surface of the bottom plate has a plurality of grooves that are formed therein parallel to long sides of the bottom plate so as to be continuous over an entire region of the bottom plate between short sides thereof, and into which support rails are fitted, the support rails being provided on a support surface for placing the collapsible container thereon; and the collapsible container moves along the support rails, with the plurality of grooves fitted over the support rails. However, Norio teaches a convexity or stopper 17 being provided on a pair of divided plates 7, 8 on surfaces closer to the frames and where the plates are closest to each other when the container is collapsed (fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the device of Tetsuya, a stopper, on the reinforcements and closer to the frames, to minimize the biting of the upper and lower frames as taught by Norio, to prevent damaging the frames. Further, Juechter teaches a bottom of a container having a plurality of grooves formed by guide ridges 110 that are formed therein parallel to long sides of the bottom plate so as to be continuous over an entire region of the bottom plate and into which support rails 65 are fitted, the support rails being provided on a support surface for placing the collapsible container thereon; and the container moves along the support rails, with the plurality of grooves fitted over support rails (figs. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the bottom of the container of the modified Tetsuya, grooves fitted over support rails, to facilitate passage of the container along a conveyor, as taught by Juechter, to easily move the container without having to lift it. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsuya (JP09-240665) in view of Norio (JP06-078228) and Juechter (US 3,768,416) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Richter (US 5,190,179). Regarding claim 3, the modified Tetsuya discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the lower frame including: a pair of first upright walls that is perpendicularly upright along two opposed sides of the bottom plate; and a pair of second upright walls that is perpendicularly upright along other two sides of the bottom plate, and on inner sides of the pair of first upright walls and the pair of second upright walls, a plurality of second reinforcement ribs is formed to extend in the up-down direction. However, Richter teaches a collapsible container having a lower frame with upright walls and a plurality of reinforcement ribs 47 (fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the lower frame of the modified Tetsuya, upright walls and reinforcement ribs provided on the upright walls, as taught by Richter, to give the base extra strength to prevent the frame from being damaged due to loads applied to the collapsed container. Regarding claim 4, the modified Tetsuya discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for a plurality of third reinforcement ribs extending in the up-down direction being formed on inner sides of the pair of first lateral surfaces and the pair of second lateral surfaces. However, Richter teaches it is desirable to provide the inside of a frame with reinforcement ribs 47 that extend in the up-down direction (fig. 3). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the upper frame of the modified Tetsuya, reinforcement ribs, as taught by Richter, to also give the upper frame extra strength to prevent the frame from being damaged due to loads applied to the collapsed container. Regarding claim 5, it is noted that the device of the modified Tetsuya, when the collapsible container is collapsed to flat form, upper ends of the pair of first upright walls are opposed with a prescribed gap (formed by the stopper 17 of Norio) to lower ends of the pair of first lateral surfaces, and upper ends of the pair of second upright walls are opposed with a prescribed gap (formed by the stopper 17 of Norio) to lower ends the pair of second lateral surfaces fig. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered. While Tetsuya, Norio and Richer do not teach the newly added limitation, newly applied reference Juechter teaches the limitation added by amendment. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE GIRMA NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00PM. 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 Stashick can be reached at 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. /BLAINE G NEWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3735 /Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 11, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 11, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 13, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 08, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12359771
PRESSURE TANK
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 15, 2025
Patent 12274669
ADMINISTRATION METHODS FOR ORAL MEDICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 15, 2025
Patent 12269673
FREIGHT CONTAINER INTENDED TO BE RECEIVED IN THE CARGO HOLD OF AN AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 08, 2025
Patent 12179963
GASKETLESS CLOSURE FOR OPEN-TOP PAILS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 31, 2024
Patent 12178359
Containers and Lids and Methods of Forming Containers and Lids
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 31, 2024
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
30%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+40.4%)
4y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 569 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