Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/899,156

Protective Enclosure for a Bar of Soap

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Sep 27, 2024
Examiner
GEHMAN, BRYON P
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Brix Soap Co. LLC
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

§112 §DP
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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 6, the phrasing should be --one or more adherable securing mechanisms--. 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 1-7 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 1, line 1, “the protective enclosure” lacks antecedent basis. In lines 3 and 9, the numerals in parentheses are improper and duplicative, as only reference numerals should be so employed in claims, and the written word already provides a limitation. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-17, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,127,720. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the now claimed subject matter may be wholly derived from the previously patented claims, or merely obvious thereover. 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

Sep 27, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP (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