Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/856,784

CONTAINER FOR CONSUMER GOODS HAVING HOUSING AND OUTER WRAPPER

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 14, 2024
Examiner
GEHMAN, BRYON P
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Philip Morris Products, S.A.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
1435 granted / 1949 resolved
+3.6% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
1995
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
51.0%
+11.0% vs TC avg
§102
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
§112
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1949 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 45 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “depend” should be –depends--, as “each” is the modified noun. . Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 29 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 29, line 2, “the third portion” and in line 3, “the second end…” each lack antecedent basis from parent claim 24. In claim 35, line 4, “the second polymeric layer” is absolutely defined, while previously such is defined as an option alternative with a metallized layer. Accordingly, this recitation renders the alternative indefinite. In claim 36, line 6, “a copolymer of vinyl acetate” is indefinite as a final one of the options, or a modification of the previous option. Should an “and” be inserted before the last option? 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 24-32 and 34-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2022/012961. Disclosed is a container for consumer goods, the container comprising a housing (10) configured for consumer goods, an outer wrapper (101) having an inner surface and an outer surface, the outer wrapper comprising a cellulose-based layer (see page 27, lines 1-0), wherein the outer wrapper is wrapped around the housing such that a first portion of the outer wrapper overlies a second portion of the outer wrapper at a first end of the housing (see lower left end of Figures 11-13) to cover the first end of the housing, wherein the first portion of the outer wrapper forms a rectangular fold (at the planar left end of 101 in Figures 11-13), wherein the outer wrapper further comprises a heat-sealable polymeric layer (see page 27, lines 1-20) provided at least on the inner surface of the first portion of the outer wrapper, and wherein the heat-sealable polymeric layer is sealed onto the first end of the housing. As to claim 25, the first portion of the outer wrapper is formed by two cuts (the first weakened line and the second weakened line 45) in the outer wrapper. As to claim 26, the first portion of the outer wrapper has a shape and size that is the same as a shape and size of the first end of the housing (see Figure 13). As to claim 27, the second portion of the outer wrapper forms an envelope-like fold. As to claim 28, the outer wrapper is wrapped around the housing such that a third portion of the wrapper over lies a fourth portion of the wrapper at a second end of the housing to cover the second end and defining a rectangular fold thereat. As to claim 29, the heat-sealable polymeric layer is provided on an inner surface of the third portion. As to claim 30, the heat-sealable polymeric layer extends the entire dimension of the outer wrapper. As to claims 31 and 32, the container is a hinge lid box (see Figure 1) with a box portion and a lid portion connected along a hinge line (17) separated by a separable opening line defined by a line of weakness. As to claims 34-36, the outer wrapper includes multiple polymeric layers. As to claim 37, the first portion of the outer wrapper depends from a fold line (at 35A) of a first wall of the outer wrapper. As to claim 38, the second portion of the outer wrapper depends from a fold line (fold line between the opposite end and the lower side in Figure 13) of a second wall of the outer wrapper. As to claim 39, the second wall is opposite to the first wall. As to claims 40 and 41, the nomenclature of “front wall” and “back wall” are arbitrary to the disclosed structure. As to claim 42, the first portion of the outer wrapper fully overlies the first end of the housing. As to claim 43, the first end of the housing has the outer wrapper consisting of the first portion (foldable flaps at the upper front end of Figure 12) and the second portion (foldable flaps at the lower front end of Figure 12). As to claim 44, the first portion (foldable flaps at the upper front end of Figure 12) of the outer wrapper fully overlies the second portion (foldable flaps at the lower front end of Figure 12). As to claim 45, each of the first and second portions depend from respective fold lines. As to claims 46 and 47, the method of heat-sealing the polymeric layer is disclosed (see page 27, line 37 through page 28, line 33). 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 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/012961. Disclosed is the line of weakness being of a less than complete through nature (see page 27, lines 21-27). To provide a particular incomplete cutting in depth would have been obvious in order to not compromise the barrier properties of the material. It has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patently distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the additional references listed on the attached PTO-892, which, while not relied upon for the claim rejection, these references are deemed relevant to the claimed invention as a whole. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON P GEHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4555. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday through Thursday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm. 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 Aviles, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /BRYON P GEHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736 Bryon P. Gehman Primary Examiner Art Unit 3736 BPG
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 14, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600545
TRAYS, PALLETIZED TRAY, BLANKS AND METHOD FOR FORMING A TRAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595115
CIRCULAR SAW BLADE HOLDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594749
RECYCLABLE BAG
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595102
ARTICLE CARRIER AND BLANK THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583657
Tool Accessory Packaging and Tool Accessory Product
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
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+30.8%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1949 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