Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/748,274

CONTAINER AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 20, 2024
Examiner
DEMEREE, CHRISTOPHER R
Art Unit
3734
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
1097 granted / 1594 resolved
-1.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
82 currently pending
Career history
1676
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.4%
+1.4% vs TC avg
§102
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
§112
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1594 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 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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(s) 1 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frem et al. (US 10226909 B2; hereinafter Frem) in view of Kohler (US 8398802 B2). Regarding claims 1 and 12, Frem discloses a laminated moisture resistant poultry box and process of making comprising applying a first outer coating layer (18) to a first outer liner surface (16) and a second outer coating layer (20; see Fig. 8 lining on opposite side of the corrugated medium) to a second outer liner surface; applying at least one volume of adhesive (20) to at least one of the second outer liner surface, an inner liner surface opposite the second outer liner surface, or a sidewall flute configured to be arranged at least substantially between the second outer liner surface and the inner liner surface; and curing at least a portion of the at least one volumes of adhesive so as to secure at least a portion of the sidewall flute relative to the second outer liner surface and the inner liner surface opposite the second outer liner surface (Col 3 lines 50-60). Frem lacks applying a coating through a roller. Kohler teaches a method for moisture and temperature control in corrugating operation comprising applying a volume of coating to at least one roller (120) via at least one of a spray application (132) or drip application; and applying, using the at least one roller, a first outer coating layer to a first outer liner surface (Col 10 lines 38-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Frem’s method of making a container to use the method of applying a coating as taught by Kohler in order to better control the amount of moisture applied to the board as it is being formed (Kohler; Col 1 lines 25-40). Regarding claim 11, Frem, as modified above, discloses a box and board for making comprising applying the first outer coating layer and the second outer coating layer via at least one roller (Frem; Col 7 lines 1-15); and applying a volume of coating to the at least one roller via at least one of spray application or drip application (Frem; Col 5 line 60-Col 6 line 5). Claim(s) 2-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frem in view of Kohler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Allin et al. (US 5750237 A; hereinafter Allin). Regarding claims 2-8, Frem, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for inner coating layers. Allin teaches double-faced liner board comprising applying a first inner coating layer to an inner liner surface opposite a first outer liner surface, and a second inner coating layer to an inner liner surface opposite the first outer liner surface (5 and 20; see Fig. 1; Examiner notes that each liner board and the corrugated medium each comprise a coating on both sides). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to further modify Frem’s board to include coatings on each side of each paperboard layer in order to further ensure moisture resistance (Allin; Col 1 lines 20-35). Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frem in view of Kohler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gulliver et al. (US 5060853 A; hereinafter Gulliver). Regarding claim 9, Frem, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the use of UV light to cure the adhesive. Gulliver teaches a tamper evident consumer product package and method for making comprising curing at least a portion of at least one volume of adhesive via ultraviolet light (Col 5 line 63- Col 6 line 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to use an ultraviolet curing method as a known method for curing adhesives in the art of the foldable paperboard boxes, as taught by Gulliver. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frem in view of Kohler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 5575418 A; hereinafter Wu). Regarding claim 10, Frem, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for teaching of extruding the coating. Wu teaches a corrugated paperboard package with gas-permeable plastic membranes for modified atmosphere packaging of fresh fruits and vegetables and method of making comprising applying a first outer coating layer to a first outer liner surface and a second outer coating layer to a second outer liner surface via at least one of extrusion coating or extrusion lamination (Col 11 lines 29-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to use an extrusion method to coat Frem’s linerboards as a known method for coating paperboard linerboards in the art, as taught by Wu. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 4-6, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11-12 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Frem have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of USC 103(a)—Frem in view of Kohler. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. 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, NATHAN J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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. /CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 20, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 27, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 30, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 26, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595093
PACKING BOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595091
METHOD OF COLLAPSING A COLLAPSIBLE BOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589908
TAKEOUT FOOD BOX WITH EXTRA FOOD POCKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582987
CARRIER DEVICE FOR A DISPENSING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577031
BIODEGRADABLE COOLER
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+13.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1594 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