Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/065,772

RECEPTACLE DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 27, 2025
Examiner
SIPPEL, RACHEL T
Art Unit
3785
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
416 granted / 791 resolved
-17.4% vs TC avg
Strong +57% interview lift
Without
With
+57.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
834
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.1%
-35.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 791 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 . Amendment This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 1/16/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 12, 18-19 and 24 have been amended, claims 2, 4, 8 and 23 have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-22 and 24-28 are presently pending in the application. Claims 3 and 16 remain withdrawn. 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. Claims 1, 5-7, 9-14, 17-22 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Saint Rapt (2,023,267) in view of Kern et al. (2012/0091381). Regarding claim 1, in fig. 4-6 de Saint Rapt discloses a receptacle device for a mask, the receptacle device comprising: a valve (structure in fig. 4); a body portion (portion of e surrounding valve in use extending from the exterior portion of e to halfway along 3) holding the valve (Fig. 6); and an anchor portion (portion of e extending from the interior portion of e to halfway along 3); wherein at least one of the body portion and anchor portion is configured to engage the mask by mechanical fastening (the body portion engages directly with the mask by mechanical fasting of elements 2 and 3), but is silent regarding that at least one of the body portion and anchor portion is configured to engage the mask by at least one of plastic joining, adhesive bonding, welding, stitching, and magnetic elements. However, Kern teaches a valve 1 and mask body 30 in which at least one of a body portion (distal outer portion of valve body) and an anchor portion (proximal inner portion of valve body) is configured to engage the mask by at least one of plastic joining, adhesive bonding ([0043] at least indirectly depending on how much of the valve body is directly attached adhesively), welding ([0043] at least indirectly depending on how much of the valve body is directly attached by welding), stitching, and magnetic elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify de Saint Rapt’s at least one of the body portion and anchor portion’s mechanical connection with the mask with either an adhesive bonding or welding connection, as taught by Kern, for the purpose of providing an alternate connection between a valve and a mask having the predictable results of securely attaching a valve to a mask. Regarding claim 5, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that the body portion and the anchor portion are integrally formed (Fig. 5 de Saint Rapt). Regarding claim 6, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that the valve is configured to receive a drinking (tube i, see claim 1 of de Saint Rapt), feeding or inhalation instrument. Regarding claim 7, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that the valve is structurally concave, convex, or flat (Fig. 4 de Saint Rapt) in a non-deformed state, optionally said valve being flexibly suspended from the body portion. Regarding claim 9, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that the valve comprises a slit pattern (the slits d within the diaphragms form a pattern, de Saint Rapt), optionally wherein the slit pattern generates valve petals, optionally wherein the slit pattern is configured to conform to the shape of a drinking, feeding or inhalation instrument when inserted through the valve, and/or wherein the slit pattern is configured to releasably grip and hold in position a drinking, feeding or inhalation instrument when inserted through the valve. Regarding claim 10, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that the anchor portion is configured to be substantially flush with an inner surface of the mask, or wherein the anchor portion comprises a surface for a user's lips to brace against when inserting a drinking (inner portion of the anchor portion are able to come into contact with the user’s lips, de Saint Rapt), feeding or inhalation instrument through the valve. Regarding claim 11, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses a guide portion (outer portion of body portion that comes into direct contact with the outer portion of the mask, de Saint Rapt), optionally wherein the body portion comprises the guide portion, optionally wherein the guide portion comprises a base and a wall, and wherein the wall tapers towards the base, optionally wherein the guide portion comprises a linear or exponential funnel shape, optionally wherein the guide portion is detachably attachable to the body portion. Regarding claim 12, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that the mask is engaged with at least one of the body portion and anchor portion to generate a substantially hermetic seal (Fig. 8, de Saint Rapt is concerned with gas tightness Col. 2, ll. 50-53, de Saint Rapt, adhesive bonding or welding taught by Kern [0043]). Regarding claim 13, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses a cap (f, de Saint Rapt), wherein the cap is configured to engage either the body portion or the guide portion by screwing thereon (Fig. 5-6 de Saint Rapt), by clipping thereon, by a hinge connection, by a string attachment, by a push-pull connection, or by a magnetic connection. Regarding claim 14, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that the shape of at least one of the body portion, anchor portion, or valve is annular (the body portion, anchor portion and valve are all annular, fig. 1-8, de Saint Rapt), square, circular, triangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, octagonal, cylindrical, cubic, elliptical, oval, lip-shaped, or a shield. Regarding claim 17, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that at least one of the body portion, anchor portion, or valve is elastomeric (the valve is rubber, which is elastomeric Col. 1, ll. 15-18 de Saint Rapt); or wherein at least one of the body portion or anchor portion is rigid. Regarding claim 18, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that the body portion is configured to engage the mask by at least one of plastic joining, adhesive bonding ([0043] at least indirectly depending on how much of the valve body is directly attached adhesively, Kern), welding ([0043] at least indirectly depending on how much of the valve body is directly attached by welding, Kern), mechanical fastening, stitching, and magnetic elements. Regarding claim 19, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that the anchor portion is configured to engage the mask by at least one of plastic joining, adhesive bonding ([0043] at least indirectly depending on how much of the valve body is directly attached adhesively, Kern), welding ([0043] at least indirectly depending on how much of the valve body is directly attached by welding, Kern), mechanical fastening, stitching, and magnetic elements. Regarding claim 20, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that at least one of the body portion or anchor portion comprises gripping ridges or gripping notches (see threads of body portion that communication with f, de Saint Rapt). Regarding claim 21, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that the valve comprises a material selected from silicone, plastic, rubber (Col. 1, ll. 15-18 de Saint Rapt), a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE, de Saint Rapt), and combinations thereof. Regarding claim 22, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that the valve is a self-sealing valve (Col. 2, ll. 50-53 de Saint Rapt), or wherein the self-sealing valve is configured to generate a hermetic seal (Col. 2, ll. 50-53 de Saint Rapt). Regarding claim 24, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses a method of manufacturing the receptacle device for a mask of Claim 1, comprising the steps of: providing the valve (structure in fig. 4 de Saint Rapt); the body portion (portion of e surrounding valve in use extending from the exterior portion of e to halfway along 3 de Saint Rapt) holding the valve (Fig. 6 de Saint Rapt); and the anchor portion (portion of e extending from the interior portion of e to halfway along 3, de Saint Rapt); and engaging at least one of the body portion and anchor portion with the mask by at least one of plastic joining, adhesive bonding ([0043] at least indirectly depending on how much of the valve body is directly attached adhesively, Kern), welding ([0043] at least indirectly depending on how much of the valve body is directly attached by welding, Kern), stitching, and magnetic elements. Regarding claim 25, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that the valve is hemispherical (in use, see fig. 6, de Saint Rapt), optionally said valve being flexibly suspended from the body portion. Regarding claim 26, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that the receptacle device is a unitary construction (the receptacle device is unitary when assembled, see fig. 6 de Saint Rapt). Regarding claim 27, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that the valve is in line with the body portion (see fig. 6 de Saint Rapt). Regarding claim 28, the modified de Saint Rapt discloses that the drinking, feeding or inhalation instrument is at least one selected from a straw, a bottle pourer, a spout, a squeeze bottle, a tube (i is a tube, de Saint Rapt), a hose, a nebulizer, a smoking apparatus, an e-cigarette, a vape pen, an inhaler, and a ventilator. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Saint Rapt and Kern, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hosac (10,980,296). Regarding claim 15, the modified de Saint Rapt is silent regarding that at least one of the body portion or anchor portion comprises at least one of a silicone material, nylon, plastic composites, a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), metal, rubber, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polylactic acid (PLA), high impact polystyrene (HIPS), polyethylene terephthalate (PETG), nylon, carbon fiber filled, acrylonitrile styrene acrylate (ASA), polycarbonate, polypropylene, metal filled, wood filled, or combinations thereof. However, in fig. 2 Hosac teaches a body portion 126 made of metal (Col. 6, ll. 34-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified de Saint Rapt’s body portion material with metal, as taught by Hosac, for the purpose of providing an alternate material having the predictable results of supporting a valve. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-2, filed 1/16/26, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under de Saint Rapt have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of de Saint Rapt in view of Kern. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. 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. /RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 27, 2025
Application Filed
Aug 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 17, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 15, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 15, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 16, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12544604
Nose Mask
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539379
DEVICE FOR UNBLOCKING AND REMOVING SECRETIONS FROM AIRWAYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12539376
Inhaler
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12533279
CAM AND NON-CIRCULAR GEAR PAIR FOR UNPOWERED MULTI-JOINT SYNCHRONOUS TRAINING DEVICE, MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, TRANSMISSION MECHANISM USING THE SAME, AND UNPOWERED MULTI-JOINT SYNCHRONOUS TRAINING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12533478
Oil leaking prevention structure and aromatherapy machine with the same
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+57.2%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 791 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