Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/905,757

Shaker System and Method

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 03, 2024
Examiner
PAL, PRINCE
Art Unit
3735
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Dallager Mccarthy Holdings
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
143 granted / 205 resolved
At TC average
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
244
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.0%
+1.0% vs TC avg
§102
35.6%
-4.4% vs TC avg
§112
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 205 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . 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 “wherein said outer vertical wall comprises a protrusion, and wherein said inner vertical wall has a protrusion” in claim 5 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 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. Claim 9 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 9 recites the limitation " wherein the protrusion of said inner vertical wall defines a pocket for said second void " in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 9 depends from claim 4 which does not claim any “protrusion” so it is unclear what “the protrusion” applicant is referring to. For purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein a protrusion of said inner vertical wall defines a pocket for said second void”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1-3,12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vallejo (US8672123B1). Regarding claim 1, Vallejo teaches a binding, said binding comprising (see annotated fig.2A below): a first void for receiving a lip of a top can (see annotated fig.2A below for first void that is capable of receiving a lip of a top can; it is noted that “a lip of a top can” is not positively claimed it is a capable of limitation); a second void for receiving a lip of a bottom can; wherein said first and second void surround a central void (see annotated fig.2A below for second void that is capable of receiving a lip of a top can and a central void surrounded by the first and second void; it is noted that “a lip of a top can” is not positively claimed it is a capable of limitation); wherein said first void opens from above and wherein said second void opens from below (see annotated fig.2A below for the first void that opens from above and second void is open from below; applicant has giving no reference to what above and below are refence and the voids are both open). Annotated fig.2A of Vallejo PNG media_image1.png 314 647 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Vallejo further teaches wherein said first void comprises a protrusion (see annotated fig.2A above for first void having a protrusion). Regarding claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Vallejo further teaches wherein said second void comprises a protrusion (see annotated fig.2A above for the second void having a protrusion). Regarding claim 12, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Vallejo further teaches comprising plastic (fig.2A above the binding is made from hard plastic). Regarding claim 13, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Vallejo further teaches wherein said first void and second void comprise the same diameter (annotated fig.2A above shows the two voids are the same diameter). Regarding claim 15, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Vallejo further teaches wherein said first void couples to the lip of the top can via friction (see annotated fig.2A above where the first void capable of coupling to the lip of the top can which will create friction since two parts are coming in contact with each other). Claim(s) 1-4, 7,10-11 and 13-15is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayes (U9629782B2). Regarding claim 1, Hayes teaches a binding, said binding comprising (see annotated fig.10B below): a first void for receiving a lip of a top can (see annotated fig.10B below for first void that is capable of receiving a lip of a top can; it is noted that “a lip of a top can” is not positively claimed it is a capable of limitation); a second void for receiving a lip of a bottom can; wherein said first and second void surround a central void (see annotated fig.10B below for second void that is capable of receiving a lip of a top can and a central void surrounded by the first and second void; it is noted that “a lip of a top can” is not positively claimed it is a capable of limitation); wherein said first void opens from above and wherein said second void opens from below (see annotated fig.10B below for the first void that opens from above and second void is open from below). Annotated fig.10B of Hayes PNG media_image2.png 634 776 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Hayes further teaches wherein said first void comprises a protrusion (see annotated fig.10B above for first void having a protrusion). Regarding claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Hayes further teaches wherein said second void comprises a protrusion (see annotated fig.10B above for the second void having a protrusion 176B). Regarding claim 4, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Hayes further teaches wherein said first void comprises an outer vertical wall, an inner vertical wall, coupled with a void base (see annotated fig.10B above for the outer and inner vertical wall connected to base). Regarding claim 7, the references as applied to claim 4 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Hayes further teaches wherein said outer vertical wall, said inner wall vertical wall, and said void base create a pocket in said first void (see annotated fig.10B above that shows the two wall and the base create a pocket in the void). Regarding claim 10, the references as applied to claim 7 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Hayes further teaches wherein said lip of said top can is received by said pocket (see annotated fig.10B that shows the pocked created and lip of top can be received by the pocket). Regarding claim 11, the references as applied to claim 10 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Hayes further teaches wherein said lip of said bottom can is received by a pocket in said second void (see annotated fig.10B above where a lip of the bottom can is capable of being received by a pocket in the second void). Regarding claim 13, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Vallejo further teaches wherein said first void and second void comprise the same diameter (annotated fig.10B above shows the two voids outer diameter are the same diameter). Regarding claim 14, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Hayes further teaches wherein said first void and said second void comprise a different diameter (annotated fig.10B above shows the two voids inner diameters different diameters). Regarding claim 15, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Hayes further teaches wherein said first void couples to the lip of the top can via friction (see annotated fig.10B above where the first void capable of coupling to the lip of the top can which will create friction since two parts are coming in contact with each other). Claim(s) 1,4-6 and 8-9is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bouteloup (US11925601B2). Regarding claim 1, Bouteloup teaches a binding, said binding comprising (see annotated fig.10B below): a first void for receiving a lip of a top can (see annotated fig.3 below for first void that is capable of receiving a lip of a top can; it is noted that “a lip of a top can” is not positively claimed it is a capable of limitation); a second void for receiving a lip of a bottom can; wherein said first and second void surround a central void (see annotated fig.3 below for second void that is capable of receiving a lip of a top can and a central void surrounded by the first and second void; it is noted that “a lip of a top can” is not positively claimed it is a capable of limitation); wherein said first void opens from above and wherein said second void opens from below (see annotated fig.3 below for the first void that opens from above and second void is open from below). Annotated fig.3 of Bouteloup PNG media_image3.png 519 716 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches wherein said first void comprises an outer vertical wall, an inner vertical wall, coupled with a void base (see annotated fig.3 above for the outer and inner vertical wall connected to base). Regarding claim 5, the references as applied to claim 4 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches wherein said outer vertical wall comprises a protrusion, and wherein said inner vertical wall has a protrusion (see annotated fig.3 above for the outer wall having a protrusion and inner wall). Regarding claim 6, the references as applied to claim 5 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches wherein the protrusion of said inner vertical wall is located below said void base (see annotated fig.3 above). Regarding claim 8, the references as applied to claim 4 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches a shelf which extends inwardly from said inner vertical wall (see annotated fig.3 above). Regarding claim 9, as best understood based on 112 issue identified above, the references as applied to claim 4 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Bouteloup further teaches wherein a protrusion of said inner vertical wall defines a pocket for said second void (see annotated fig.3 above where the protrusion of the inner wall defines a pocket for the second void as it protrudes inwards). 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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes (U9629782B2) and further in view of Pinyot (US20040163986A1) Regarding claim 16, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Hayes does not teach a top can and a bottom can, wherein said top can comprises a top lid, and wherein said bottom can comprises a top lid, and wherein the top lid of the top can is stored adjacent to the top lid of the bottom can in said binding. Pinyot does teach a top can and a bottom can, wherein said top can comprises a top lid, and wherein said bottom can comprises a top lid, and wherein the top lid of the top can is stored adjacent to the top lid of the bottom can in said binding (fig.1 shows the can 10 and another can 10 can be stacked on top of it and both have a lid 14 on both can and they can be stored adjacent to either other in with a binder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the binder disclosed by Hayes by adding the teaching of beverage can as disclosed by Pinyot in order to bind two cans together rather than bottles as the binder of Hayes is much stronger than binder of Pinyot and adding teaching of two cans would provide bigger volume and better shelf-life as cans can be sealed. Conclusion See PTO-892 for the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (EST). 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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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. /PRINCE PAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3735 /STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 03, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595100
CLOSURE DEVICE WITH SUPPORT RING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583656
CONTAINER SYSTEM AND METHOD OF ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577021
SEALING MEMBER FOR PACKAGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570446
AEROSOL CAPS AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570434
Carton With Locking Features
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
70%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+17.7%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 205 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