Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/719,114

CONTAINER FOR STORING AND TRANSPORTING AGGRESSIVE MEDIA, IN PARTICULAR BROMINE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 23, 2024
Examiner
ORTIZ, RAFAEL ALFREDO
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Jl Goslar GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
689 granted / 1137 resolved
-9.4% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1184
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1137 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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 3-7, 9, 10, 15-17 and 19-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/26/2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged. 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 2021/0061553) in view of Tannenberger (DE 102012109015) and Mulligan (US 2008/0302426). PNG media_image1.png 329 510 media_image1.png Greyscale Anderson discloses a container with a raised manhole connector (14) which can be closed with a domed cover (12), wherein a fastening flange (18) is provided around a top opening of the raised manhole connector, wherein on a top side of the fastening flange around the top opening to the raised manhole connector, a sealing surface (defined by flange adapter 21 in combination with seals 30 and 32) is applied as a seal against the domed cover (1), wherein the sealing surface is aligned with the opening of the raised manhole connector (see figure above). Anderson does not disclose at least an inner wall of the container and of the raised manhole connector is provided with a lead coating. Anderson does not disclose the sealing surface is a nickel sealing surface, as required. However, Tannenberger discloses a tank container (1) comprising a lead inner layer (6) used as a barrier for corrosion protection purposes (see page 2 and figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interior of the container of Anderson to include a lead layer as taught by Tannenberger for protection against corrosion of the container. Regarding the seal being of nickel, Mulligan discloses the uses of nickel seals are known to produce a leak-free system (see [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seals of the sealing surface made from malleable nickel as taught by Mulligan to provide a leak-free system between the raised manhole connector and the dome cover. After Anderson is modified by Tennenberg and Mulligan, the lead coating will extend to the upper edge of the nickel sealing surface. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 2021/0061553), Tannenberger (DE 102012109015) and Mulligan (US 2008/0302426) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yong (CN 113134668). Regarding the limitation of the nickel sealing surface provided by welding, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e the nickel sealing surface, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. welding. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Yong discloses welded nickel gaskets/seams are well-known and common to ensure tightness of the gasket (see page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the nickel sealing surface provided by welding as taught by Yong welded nickel gaskets are known and common in the art to ensure tightness of the gaskets. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 and 18 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm. 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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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. RAFAEL A. ORTIZ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3736 /RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 23, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599690
MEDICAL OR DENTAL CASSETTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600525
STRUCTURE FOR LOCKING AND RELEASING SHEET-LIKE OBJECT AND PACKAGING STORAGE CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595094
ERGONOMIC HANDLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590478
LID OPENING/CLOSING STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589937
DETERGENT PRESENTATION PACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
61%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+36.2%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1137 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