Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/809,148

COLLAPSIBLE VASE-TRANSPORT SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Aug 19, 2024
Examiner
DEMEREE, CHRISTOPHER R
Art Unit
3734
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
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 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-8 and 10-15 in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/18/2025. 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 1-8 and 10-15 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 lines 10-15 define a bottom sheet that is pivotably connected to both a left-side sheet and right-side sheet. However, Examiner notes that the Specification discloses a bottom sheet 110v (see Fig. 13) that is only pivotably connected (via fold 133) to the right side sheet 110x (see Fig. 13). The left side sheet 110w is not pivotably connected to the bottom. Examiner notes that Claim 10 presents a similar ambiguity. For purposes of examining the claims on the merits, Examiner considers only the right side sheet to be pivotably connected to the bottom sheet. Claims 2-8 and 11-15 fail to cure the deficiencies. 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) 1-5, 8, and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 7392904 B1) in view of Opper (US 5664726 A). Regarding claims 1-3, 8, and 10-15, Jackson discloses a holder and blank for making comprising a top sheet (11) having a front edge, a back edge, a right edge, a left edge (see Fig. 1), and configured with a vase-retaining hole (60) therein; a right-side sheet (14) having a top edge, a bottom edge, a back edge, and a front edge, wherein the right-side sheet is pivotably connected (15) to the top sheet at the top edge of the right-side sheet and the right edge of the top sheet; a left-side sheet (12) having a top edge, a bottom edge, a back edge, and a front edge, wherein the left-side sheet is pivotably connected (13) to the top sheet at the top edge of the left-side sheet and the left edge of the top sheet; a bottom sheet (17) having a front edge, a back edge, a right edge, and a left edge, wherein the bottom sheet is pivotably connected (16) to the right-side sheet at the right edge of the bottom sheet and the bottom edge of the right-side sheet, at least one side flap (52/32) pivotably connected to at least one of the group consisting of the front edge of the right-side sheet and the front edge of left-side sheet (see Fig. 1), a bottom flap (22) pivotably connected to the bottom sheet at the front edge of the bottom sheet; a top flap (42) pivotably connected to the top sheet at the front edge of the top sheet; and an adhesive connection (65) to join all the sheets into a contiguous structure (see Fig. 5). Jackson lacks side flaps with a slot for engaging with a retaining tab of top or bottom flap. Opper teaches a box construction and blank for making wherein a side flap (26) is configured with a slot (66); and a retaining slot (50/52) is positioned in at least one of a group consisting of a bottom flap and a top flap (24/44); and a retaining tab (46) attached to at least one of the group consisting of the top flap and the bottom flap and configured to coincidently fit within and engage the side flap slot and the retaining slot (see Figures 4 and 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to replace Jackson’s flap construction with the locking tab and slot flap construction taught by Opper to provide closure flaps with a better interlock (Opper; Col 1 lines 30-55). Regarding claims 4-5, Jackson, as modified above, discloses a holder wherein at least one of the top sheet, bottom sheet, right-side sheet, left-side sheet, top flap, bottom flap, and side flap is formed of cardboard (Jackson; Col 3 lines 47-59). Examiner considers any paperboard material to be a wood product. Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Opper as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pinkstone (US 11834235 B2). Regarding claims 6-7, Jackson, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for making the holder with plastic or metallic material. Pinkstone teaches a holder for containers wherein said holder could be made from any suitable paperboard, plastic, or foldable metallic foil material (Col 5 lines 30-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to further modify Jackson’s holder to alternatively be made of plastic or metallic materials, as a known substitution of materials in the art of foldable holders (Pinkstone; Col 5 lines 30-50). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. 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

Aug 19, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+13.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
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