Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/776,208

MEMORABILIA DIPSLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 17, 2024
Examiner
HOGE, GARY CHAPMAN
Art Unit
3631
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Bracha Partners LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
773 granted / 1217 resolved
+11.5% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1241
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
§112
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1217 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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the fastening mechanism (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 2, it appears that “a upper” should be “an upper.” On line 12, it appears that “the cutout have” should be “the one or more cutouts have”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (2005/0160651) in view of Grange (2010/0050491) and Schwartz et al. (2023/0084781). Davis discloses a card display device, comprising: a panel (3A, Fig. 1) having an upper surface and an underside surface; one or more cutouts (7, Fig. 1) on the panel; a backing panel (2A, Fig. 1) having one or more recessed areas (7A, fig. 1) substantially sized and shaped to receive a baseball card the size of image 5 (Fig. 1), the recessed areas comprising substantially parallel vertical retaining surfaces (Fig. 1A) and substantially parallel horizontal retaining surfaces (7A, Fig. 1A), and a floor surface (6A, Fig. 1A), whereby recessed areas are configured to receive a card such that a rear surface of a card contacts the floor of the recessed area and horizontal retaining surfaces contact respective side surfaces of a card and horizontal retaining surfaces contact the top and bottom surfaces of a card; whereby the cutouts have a perimeter that is incrementally smaller than a perimeter of recessed areas (Fig. 1A, paragraph 00263); and a fastening mechanism to attach the panel to the backing panel such the one or more cutouts are substantially aligned with the one or more recessed areas (paragraph 0024). However, Davis does not disclose an image reverse printed on the underside surface of the panel. Grange teaches printing an image on a front mat panel (20, Fig. 7) in order to allow an individual to personalize the picture display by associating it with a particular theme, in the case of Fig. 7, baseball. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to print an image in the front mat panel (3A, Fig. 1) disclosed by Davis, as taught by Grange, in order to enable an individual to personalize the picture display by associating it with a particular theme. Further, it is not known whether the image disclosed by Grange is printed on the upper surface, or reverse printed on the underside surface. Schwartz teaches printing an image in reverse on an underside of a surface (paragraph 0013). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to print the image disclosed by Grange in reverse on the underside surface of the panel, as taught by Schwartz, in order that the image be protected by the panel itself. Regarding claim 2, the panel disclosed by Schwartz is transparent (paragraph 0012). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (2005/0160651) in view of Grange (2010/0050491) and Schwartz et al. (2023/0084781), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of McCorkle (2007/0234621). Davis discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, it is not known what material the backing panel is made of (although it appears to be illustrated as foam). Because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art as a matter of design choice, and because McCorkle teaches that a foam material would be suitable for the fabrication of a backing panel (paragraph 0017), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the backing panel disclosed by Davis from a foam material. See MPEP § 2144.07. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of each reference is explained below, unless the relevance is deemed to be readily apparent. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C HOGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6645. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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. /GARY C HOGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 17, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597372
NOVELTY DISPLAY PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586488
PHOTOLUMINESCENT SIGNAGE FOR LOW LIGHT AMBIENT ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586487
LIT BADGE WITH ROLL STAMP SELECTIVE CHROMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576779
Segmented Display With Photon Recycling Cavity
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573321
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
64%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+23.3%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1217 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