Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/917,182

Booster Seats Storage and Organizer Device

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 16, 2024
Examiner
HAWN, PATRICK D
Art Unit
3631
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
592 granted / 904 resolved
+13.5% vs TC avg
Strong +45% interview lift
Without
With
+44.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
923
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
41.1%
+1.1% vs TC avg
§102
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 904 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Election/Restrictions Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/07/2025. 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. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (4,322,005). Regarding claim 1, Robertson (hereafter “D1”) discloses a stand capable of supporting booster seats (supporting of stacked bottled goods disclosed – col. 1, lines 40-42; col. 5, lines 2-5) comprising: a base (12) having a front raised wall (30), a first raised side wall (26), and a second raised side wall (28); a back panel (14); a first side panel (20); and a second side panel (22); wherein said base is horizontal and rectilinear (figure 2); wherein said back panel extends vertically upward from a rear edge of said base; wherein said back panel is planar and capable of providing support to a plurality of booster seats stored in the stand (col. 3, lines 37-57); wherein said front raised wall, said first raised side wall, said second raised side wall, and said back panel forming a cavity capable of supporting said plurality of booster seats; wherein said front raised wall, said first raised side wall, and said second raised side wall having the same height (figure 2); wherein said first side panel extending transversely from a first side edge of said back panel; wherein said second side panel extending transversely from a second side edge of said back panel (figure 2 ); wherein said first side panel is parallel to said second side panel; and further wherein said front raised wall, said first raised side wall, and said second raised side wall having a height for retaining products (figure 1 showing walls less than a height of a can/bottle). D1 does not state the specific height of the front wall and first and second raised side walls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to utilize a height between 3 inches to 6 inches for the front wall and first and second raised side walls as the intended purpose shown in D1 is to be more than half but less than a full height of a stored product (figure 1 showing can or bottle stack). Regarding claim 2, D1 discloses wherein said first side panel (20) extending from a top edge of said back panel to a top edge of said first raised side wall (figure 2). Regarding claim 3, D1 discloses wherein said second side panel (22) extending from a top edge of said back panel to a top edge of said second raised side wall (figure 2). Regarding claim 4, D1 discloses wherein said first side panel and said second side panel extending from said back panel (14) for providing lateral retention to supported items (figure 2). D1 does not state the specific size of the side panels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to utilize a size between 4 inches to 8 inches for side panels as the intended purpose shown in D1 is to provide side support to a side of a few of the items stored (figure 1 – proportional to the height of front wall as discussed per claim 1). Claim(s) 5-7, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (4,322,005) in view of Hautala et al. (US 2024/0000227). Regarding claim 5, D1 does not disclose wherein said first side panel having an outer surface including a plurality of openings capable of storing supplies selected from the group consisting of a seat cover, a manual, and a cleaning supply. Hautala et al. (hereafter “D2”) discloses a movable device supporting cabinet (projector cabinet 1) comprising a base and front panel, side panels, and rear panel, the side panels (5) having handle openings (17) ([0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to provide two or more handle openings in the side panels of D1 as taught by D2 for ease of transport of the device. Regarding claim 6, D1 discloses wherein said back panel (14) having a rear surface including a selectively detachable hook (tabs 42, 44 meet the limitation of a hook) capable of mounting the device to a wall (figure 2). Regarding claim 7, D1 as modified teaches wherein said stand is capable of retaining said plurality of booster seats in a stacked arrangement (D1 teaches retaining of stacked products). Regarding claim 17, D1 as discussed per claims 1-7 discloses the particulars of claim 17, but does not disclose a plurality of casters mounted on a bottom surface of said base; and further wherein said plurality of casters having 360-degree rotation for rolling said stand. D2 teaches a support stand (1) comprising a plurality of casters (3) mounted on a bottom of the base ([0035]; figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to provide casters on the underside of the base of D1 as taught by D2 for the purpose of improved transport capability. Regarding claims 18-20, see the discussion of claims 2-4 above. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (4,322,005) in view of Hautala et al. (US 2024/0000227) and Doane (US 2023/0397721). Regarding claim 8, D1 discloses wherein said stand (being only base 12) having a one-piece construction of corrugated paper/cardboard (abstract) but does not disclose a material selected from the group consisting of a plastic and a metal. Doane teaches a one piece folding display stand support member (106) comprising a material including corrugated plastic ([0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify D1 to utilize a corrugated plastic material as taught by Doane for the purpose of increased strength over corrugated paper. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See notice of references cited form PTO-892. References not applied but cited are relevant as disclosing or suggesting at least one feature in the claims or disclosure of the present application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D HAWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6. 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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. /PATRICK D HAWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 16, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 26, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 09, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583094
CONTACTLESS LOCKING OF RATCHET COLUMNS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582246
WALL MOUNTED DISPLAY DEVICE WITH PROTECTIVE COVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585313
HOLDING SEAT THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573284
RANGE AND POSITION DETERMINATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569060
MOBILE STORAGE SYSTEM WITH ELEVATED PLATFORM
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
66%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+44.8%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 904 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