Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/042,304

MESH TRAY LID FOR MESH STERILIZING TRAY AND MESH STERILIZING TRAY SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 31, 2025
Examiner
ORTIZ, RAFAEL ALFREDO
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Aesculap AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
689 granted / 1137 resolved
-9.4% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1184
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1137 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 . 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 8 and 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. Regarding claim 8, “the cut-out” in line 3, lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear to what or which cut-out applicant is referring. Claim 9 inherits the same issue because the claim is dependent from claim 8. 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 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riley (5,424,048). Claim 1 Riley discloses a mesh tray lid (22) capable to be used with a mesh sterilizing tray having a substantially rectangular plate-like or grid-like basic form which defines an outer side which, when being placed onto the mesh sterilizing tray, faces away from the mesh sterilizing tray, wherein a respective detent and/or snap-in device (26), which is provided and configured for receiving a rod-shaped bar positively and/or in a force-fit manner from a direction substantially perpendicular to the outer side, is formed or arranged on two opposite edge portions on the outer side of the mesh tray lid (see figure 1 and column 3 lines 44-52 and lines 64-65). Claim 7 Riley further discloses the mesh tray lid includes, at each of the two opposite edge portions, a cut-out/groove (26a) which is formed to be substantially rectangular and extends along the respective edge portion. Riley discloses the detent/snap-in device comprises grooves (26a) extending along the length of the detent/snap-in device for receiving handles (28), therefore the cut-out/groove at each detent/snap-in device is rectangular (see figure 1 and column 3 lines 64-64-68). Claim 8 Riley further discloses the mesh tray lid comprises, in the area of each of the opposite edge portions, an indentation/groove (26a) in a direction perpendicular to the outer side, thus causing a stepping (defined by transition between the indentation and surface pointed by 26) to be formed, wherein a cut-out is formed in the indentation (see figure 1 and column 3 lines 64-64-68). Claim 9 Riley further discloses the indentation has a trapezoid/rectangular shape, wherein a transition (defined by edge area between the indentation/groove 26a and surface of 26) from the indentation to the non-indented outer side has a planar, closed surface in order to stiffen the transition (see figure 1 and 1a). 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 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley (5,424,048) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baker (US 7,905,353). Claims 2-4 Riley does not explicitly disclose the detent and/or snap-in device is formed to be at least partially, elastic in order to receive the rod-shaped bar in a force-fit manner and/or positively by clamping. However, Baker discloses a sterilizable containment tray (20) comprising a snap-fit device/brackets (37) disposed on ends of a tray portion for receiving a rod-shaped portion of a handle (39), so that multiple trays can be attached to each other, in a stack fashion (see column 6 lines 9-14). Baker further discloses the snap-fit device/brackets comprises an elastic detent portion (defined by combination of structures 66 and 67) including elastic clip/detent tabs (67) and a shelf for resiliently receiving the rod-shaped portion of the handle from a deflection permitted by the elastic clip/detent tabs (see column 6 lines 9-33). The snap-fit device/brackets (37) disclosed by Baker comprises two gripping surfaces (defined by tabs 67 and shelf 66) which faces away from each other and extend perpendicularly to the outer side, or comprises a manually greppable open handle (see figure 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riley replacing the detent/snap-in device for the snap-fit device/brackets as disclosed by Baker since both structures are equivalent snap-fit devices for holding a rod-shaped portion of a handle and would perform the function of attaching the rod-shaped portion of the handle and the lid in closed position equally well. Claim 6 Riley discloses the detent and/or snap-in device (26) disposed at both ends of the lid (see column 3 lines 44-45). After Riley is modified by Baker, the snap-fit device/brackets will be at opposite sides of the lid. Baker further discloses the snap-fit device/brackets (37) made from plastic material (see column 4 lines 14-15). It is known that plastic has some degree of elasticity. Baker discloses the permit deformation when the rod-shaped portion of the handle (39) is inserted (see column 6 lines 25-33). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm. 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 E. Aviles can be reached at 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 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. RAFAEL A. ORTIZ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3736 /RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 31, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599690
MEDICAL OR DENTAL CASSETTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600525
STRUCTURE FOR LOCKING AND RELEASING SHEET-LIKE OBJECT AND PACKAGING STORAGE CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595094
ERGONOMIC HANDLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590478
LID OPENING/CLOSING STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589937
DETERGENT PRESENTATION PACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
61%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+36.2%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1137 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