Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 18/740,956

DUAL POD WITH GUIDE MECHANISM

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jun 12, 2024
Priority
Jul 11, 2023 — provisional 63/525,991
Examiner
SPICER, JENINE MARIE
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Gudeng Precision Industrial Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
51%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 51% of resolved cases
51%
Career Allowance Rate
389 granted / 762 resolved
-19.0% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
818
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 762 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed on 8/13/2026. Claims 1-12 are pending in the application. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action. 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 1-12 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation, the engaging portion is provided at an edge “a lid of” of the inner pod. It is unclear how to interpret this limitation because it is not clear what is being claimed. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as the it will be assumed the claimed is stating, the engaging portion is provided at near an edge of the lid of the inner pod. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiu et al. US 2022/0291596 A1. PNG media_image1.png 440 578 media_image1.png Greyscale With regards to claim 1, Chiu (Figs. 8B, 9A, 9B and 11A) discloses a dual pod 100, comprising: an inner pod 101, having at least one engaging portion 114 (entire shaded area; shown above) provided on a relative outside of the inner pod, wherein the engaging portion is provided at an edge a lid of of the inner pod; and an outer pod 102, defining an accommodation space for receiving the inner pod, the outer pod having at least one guide mechanism 153/154 provided on a relative inside of the outer pod, the guide mechanism guided by and limited at the engaging portion such that the guide mechanism is deformed (elastic) and an offset movement of the inner pod within the outer pod is restricted. Chiu recites in para. 0154, the guide mechanism 153 is formed of an elastic material and later recites in para. 0155, it interacts and presses against the sidewall of 114 to limit the horizontal movement of the inner pod. With regards to claim 2, Chiu (Figs. 8B, 9A, 9B and 11A) discloses the guide mechanism 153/154 has a guiding portion and a connection portion coupled to the guiding portion, the connection portion is connected to an inside of the outer pod, and the guiding portion is away from the inside of the outer pod and abuts against the engaging portion of the inner pod. (Para. 0154-0155) With regards to claim 3, Chiu discloses the guiding portion (shown above) is flexible, and the engaging portion is a notch; the guiding portion correspondingly elastically deforms according to a force of abutting against the notch and is accordingly guided by and limited at the notch. (Para. 0154) With regards to claim 4, Chiu discloses the guiding portion (shown above) and the inside of the outer pod 102 have a gap with a stroke distance in between, and the gap serves as a tolerance for the guiding portion to flexibly abut against the engaging portion of the inner pod 101. (Para. 0159) With regards to claim 5, Chiu discloses the guiding portion (shown above) comprises a first guiding rib 153 and a second guiding rib 154 that are paired, and the first guiding rib and the second guiding rib correspondingly elastically deform as an aperture of the notch into which they are placed changes, such that the first guiding rib and the second guiding rib are engaged and limited in the notch. (Para. 0154-0155) With regards to claim 6, Chiu discloses (Fig. 9B) the notch has a notch edge width, and a width of the guiding portion (shown above) is less than the notch edge width. With regards to claim 7, Chiu discloses the inner pod 101 comprises a base 130 and the lid 110 joined with each other and defining an accommodation space for receiving a reticle; the outer pod 102 comprises a door 160 and a housing 150 joined with each other and defining the accommodation space; wherein, a vertical direction of the lid is restricted by the guide mechanism 153/154 and the base, and a horizontal direction of the lid is restricted by the guide mechanism, so as to prevent the inner pod from offsetting and deflecting with respect to an axis by an external force. (Para. 0155) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al. US 2022/0291596 A1 in view of Lin et al. US 2009/0038976 A1. PNG media_image2.png 198 503 media_image2.png Greyscale With regards to claim 8, Chiu discloses the lid has a flange on each of two opposite sides thereof, but it does not specifically disclose the engaging portion is located on an outside of the flange, and the guide mechanism corresponds in position to the flange and is guided by and limited at the engaging portion. However, Lin teaches that it was known in the art to have a dual pod have an inner pod lid 415 have a flange, an engaging portion 417 is located on an outside of the flange, and the guide mechanism 412 corresponds in position to the flange and is guided by and limited at the engaging portion. (Para. 0035-0036) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flange and engaging portion in Chiu by having it positioned on the flange of the lid as taught by Lin for the purposes of placing the guiding mechanism in an alternative location and locking the device together. With regards to claim 9, the combination of Chiu in view of Lin discloses the lid (110; Chiu) has a flange (Chiu; shown above) on each of two opposite sides thereof, the engaging portion (417; Lin) is located on an outside of the flange, the guide mechanism (412; Lin) has a sloped surface for abutting against the flange, and the sloped surface extends from a top portion of the housing toward an inner wall of the housing, such that a vertical direction and at least a horizontal direction of the flange are restricted by the sloped surface. With regards to claim 10, Chiu does not specifically disclose sloped surface and an upper surface of the lid define an included angle ranging between 0.01° and 89.9°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a sloped surface and an upper surface of the lid define an included angle ranging between 0.01° and 89.9°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. With regards to claim 11, the combination of Chiu in view of Lin inherently discloses the lid (110; Chiu) has a flange (Chiu; shown above) on each of two opposite sides thereof, the engaging portion (417; Lin) is located on an outside of the flange, the guide mechanism (412; Lin) has a sloped surface for abutting against the flange, and the sloped surface is formed to protrude upward from an inner top portion of the door, such that a vertical direction and at least a horizontal direction of the flange are restricted by the sloped surface. With regards to claim 12, the combination of Chiu in view of Lin inherently discloses the lid (110; Chiu) has a flange (Chiu; shown above) on each of two opposite sides thereof, Chiu discloses at least two guide mechanisms arranged parallel to each other, the engaging portion (417; Lin) is located on an outside of the flange, the guide mechanism (412; Lin)/(153/154; Chiu) has at least two guiding ribs arranged in parallel, and the two guiding ribs are formed to protrude upward from an inner top portion of the door, and the two guiding ribs elastically abut against an inside of the engaging portion to achieve the restriction. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the reference Chiu does not disclose "the engaging portion is provided at an edge of a lid of the inner pod", as recited in the amended claim. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, it is unclear what the amended claim language is stating, therefore for examination purposes, the Examiner considered the limitation as the engaging portion is provided near an edge of a lid of the inner pod and the reference of Chiu discloses this limitation. The Applicant also argues Chiu does not disclose "the guide mechanism guided by and limited at the engaging portion such that the guide mechanism is deformed". The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as stated above the structures are formed of elastic material and they also are deformed by changing positions when they are engaged. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bonness et al. US 2007/0187272 A1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENINE SPICER whose telephone number is (313)446-4924. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm, Monday-Thursday. 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. Avilés 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. /JENINE SPICER/Examiner, Art Unit 3736 /ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 12, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112
Dec 30, 2025
Response Filed
May 15, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112
Aug 13, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12765315
SUBSTRATE STORAGE CONTAINER AND FILTER UNIT
4y 8m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12757678
PACKAGING UNIT AND TRANSPORTATION CONTAINER
1y 11m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12752959
PACKAGING FOR AN AEROSOL DELIVERY DEVICE AND CONSUMABLE COMPONENTS
2y 0m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12709432
FOLDING BOX WITH INTEGRAL PRODUCT HOLDER
3y 1m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12691035
SUPPORT DEVICE FOR SUPPORTING A PLURALITY OF CONTAINERS FOR PHARMACEUTICAL USE TO BE HANDLED IN A PROCESSING LINE
3y 0m to grant Granted Jul 28, 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
51%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+19.1%)
3y 1m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 762 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