Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/827,214

TWO-PIECE, FLAT-PACKING, QUICK-DEPLOYING POINT-OF-PURCHASE DISPLAY

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Sep 06, 2024
Examiner
LEWIS, JUSTIN V
Art Unit
3637
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Great Northern Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
749 granted / 1362 resolved
+3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1412
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.0%
+8.0% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
29.7%
-10.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1362 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 § 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 1-9 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. The claim 1 recitation of “convertible from a first, closed position and a second, open position” is unclear. Does Applicant actually intend to recite “convertible from a first, closed position to a second, open position”? Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number of pre-perforated apertures". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-9 are rejected as depending from rejected independent claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 9,743,783 to Bersamin (“Bersamin”). Regarding claim 1, Bersamin anticipates a collapsible (col. 1, line 21), pop-up (i.e. “easy to assemble”, per col. 1, lines 21-22) display (e.g. display hutch 10, as shown in fig. 1) comprising: i) an outer shell (e.g. first blank 40, as shown in fig. 2) fabricated from a first single piece of sheet material (fig. 2) having an inside surface (e.g. facing forward in fig. 2) and an outside surface (e.g. facing backward in fig. 2), the outer shell (40) comprising: a) front and rear panels (e.g. front panels 18 and rear wall 12, respectively, as shown in figs. 2 and 12), b) left and right panels (e.g. left and right instances of side walls 14, as shown in figs. 1-2, 5-7 and 12), c) at least one bottom panel (52, as shown in fig. 2), and d) at least one pre-perforated aperture (e.g. first locating notches 50, as shown in figs. 1-2, 9 and 12), convertible from (compare figs. 1-2) a first, closed position (fig. 2) and a second, open position (fig. 1), wherein in the first position (fig. 2), the aperture (50) is covered by (i.e. traversed by, as shown figs. 2 and 12) an integral, pre-perforated (figs. 2 and 12) upper shelf portion (e.g. upper halves of first locating notches 50, as shown in fig. 12) and an integral, pre-perforated (fig. 2) lower tab portion (e.g. lower halves of first locating notches 50, as shown in fig. 12); and ii) an insert (e.g. second blank 70, as shown in fig. 3) fabricated from a second single piece of sheet material (fig. 3), the insert (70) comprising: a) a front panel (e.g. middle panel 72, as shown in fig. 3), b) left and right panels (e.g. left and right instances of middle vertical panels 74, as shown in fig. 3), c) a bottom support panel (e.g. lowermost instance of middle panel 72, as shown in fig. 3); and d) at least one pre-perforated (fig. 3) shelf panel (e.g. rear shelf panels 88, as shown in fig. 3), corresponding in number to (compare figs. 1 and 3) the number of pre-perforated apertures (50) in the shell (40), wherein the pre-perforated shelf panels (88) in the insert (70) are disposed in registration with (compare figs. 1 and 5) the pre-perforated aperture(s) (50) when the insert (70) is disposed inside (compare figs. 1-3 and 5) the shell (40); iii) wherein the inside surface (facing forward in fig. 2) of the shell (40), at the pre-perforated upper shelf portion (aforementioned upper halves of first locating notches 50), is fastened to (figs. 1-3 and 5) the at least one shelf panel (88) of the insert (70). Regarding claim 2, Bersamin anticipates the collapsible, pop-up display of claim 1, wherein the shell (40) and the insert (70) are made from corrugated paper (col. 1, lines 21-23), cardboard, foam board, or chipboard. Regarding claim 3, Bersamin anticipates the collapsible, pop-up display of claim 1, wherein the shell (40) and the insert (70) are made from corrugated paper (col. 1, lines 21-23). Regarding claim 7, Bersamin anticipates the collapsible, pop-up display of claim 1, wherein the shell (40) and the insert (70) are fastened by glue (col. 5, lines 3-6). 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. Claims 4-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bersamin in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0339840 to Doyle et al. (“Doyle”). Regarding claim 4, Bersamin discloses the collapsible, pop-up display of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the shell (40) and the insert (70) are made from cardboard. Doyle teaches the concept of providing multi-panel container blanks (50, as shown in figs. 9-11) made from cardboard (para. 40). Given that Bersamin and Doyle both concern multi-panel blanks (compare Bersamin figs. 2-3 and Doyle figs. 9-11) that are ultimately folded to produce containers (compare Bersamin fig. 1 and Doyle fig. 1), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the Doyle material teachings within the Bersamin assembly as desired, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant Bersamin assembly that is optimally strong and resilient. Regarding claim 5, Bersamin discloses the collapsible, pop-up display of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the shell (40) and the insert (70) are made from foam chipboard. Doyle teaches the concept of providing multi-panel container blanks (50, as shown in figs. 9-11) made from foam chipboard (per para. 40, various chipboard materials may be employed as desired). For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4, supra, it would have been obvious to apply the Doyle material teachings within the Bersamin assembly as desired. Regarding claim 6, Bersamin discloses the collapsible, pop-up display of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the shell (40) and the insert (70) are made from chipboard. Doyle teaches the concept of providing multi-panel container blanks (50, as shown in figs. 9-11) made from chipboard (per para. 40, chipboard materials may be employed as desired). For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4, supra, it would have been obvious to apply the Doyle material teachings within the Bersamin assembly as desired. Regarding claim 8, Bersamin discloses the collapsible, pop-up display of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the shell (40) and the insert (70) are fastened by hook-and-loop-type fasteners. Doyle teaches the concept of providing multi-panel container blanks (50, as shown in figs. 9-11) fastened by hook-and-loop-type fasteners (para. 40). For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4, supra, it would have been obvious to apply the Doyle material teachings within the Bersamin assembly as desired. Regarding claim 9, Bersamin discloses the collapsible, pop-up display of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the shell (40) and the insert (70) are fastened by snaps. Doyle teaches the concept of providing multi-panel container blanks (50, as shown in figs. 9-11) fastened by snaps (para. 40). For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4, supra, it would have been obvious to apply the Doyle material teachings within the Bersamin assembly as desired. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN V LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM. 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, Daniel J. Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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. /JUSTIN V LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 06, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600161
Micro-Optic Device for Producing a Magnified Image
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589610
A SEALING MARK, A PACKAGE AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584024
FLOWABLE LUMINESCENT COATING COMPOSITION AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582247
MAGNETIC PICTURE FRAME SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584254
NEEDLEPOINT FINISHING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
55%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+17.4%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1362 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