Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/125,754

OPENING AND CLOSING MEMBER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 30, 2025
Priority
Oct 31, 2022 — nonprovisional of PCTJP2022040806
Examiner
CUMAR, NATHAN
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Mutsubishi Rubber Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 4m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allowance Rate
947 granted / 1205 resolved
+26.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1237
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
73.5%
+33.5% vs TC avg
§102
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
§112
8.2%
-31.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1205 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Ido et al., JP 2022 076243) in view of D2 (Gu, KR 2019 0113689). For Claim 1, D1 discloses an opening and closing member (6) that opens and closes an opening (4a) by being attached to and detached from the opening of a container main body (4), the opening and closing member comprising: a top surface portion (Top surface of 7) that covers the opening in a closed state (Figure 1) where the opening is closed (Figure 2); a grip portion (8) that extends to an outer edge of the top surface portion and grips an outer periphery of an opening end of the container main body (4) in the closed state (Figure 2); and a depressurization path (9, P4, para. [7]) that penetrates into a tubular space formed in the grip portion and is attached to the grip portion, and depressurizes the space (Figure 2), wherein the top surface portion has an inner surface (inner surface of 7) facing an inside of the container main body in the closed state where the opening is closed (Figure 2), the inner surface includes an annular inner surface annular region extending along an inner periphery of the opening end of the container main body (Figures 1-2), and the inner surface annular region includes: a protruding region portion (7a) provided with one or a plurality of protrusions protruding from the inner surface (Figure 2), and a flat region portion where the protrusion is not provided. D2 teaches an opening and closing member 110 in which the opening and closing member 110 has an annular inner surface with protruding parts 122 and flat regions 126 where the protruding parts 122 are not included, as in Figures 4-5, for better sealed closure of the opening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 such that the protruding region portion (7a) is provided flat region portion where the protrusion is not provided, as taught by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success of having better sealed closure of the opening. For Claim 2, the combination teaches the opening and closing member according to claim 1, wherein a shape of the top surface portion (7) is a disk (Figure 1), and the protruding region portion is provided with a first protrusion and a second protrusion arranged so as to sandwich a central axis of the top surface portion (D1 discloses protrusion 7a. D2 teaches protrusions 122 and flat regions 126. D1 combined with D2 teaches the claimed limitations.) For Claim 3, the combination teaches the opening and closing member according to claim 1, wherein an area of the flat region portion occupying the inner surface annular region is larger than an area of the protruding region portion occupying the inner surface annular region (D2 teaches protrusions 122 and flat regions 126, except for an area of the flat region portion occupying the inner surface annular region is larger than an area of the protruding region portion occupying the inner surface annular region. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have an area of the flat region portion occupying the inner surface annular region is larger than an area of the protruding region portion occupying the inner surface annular region, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). D1 modified with modified with D2 teaches the claimed limitations.) For Claim 4, D1 discloses the opening and closing member according to claim 1, wherein the inner surface of the top surface portion further includes an inner surface inner region surrounded by the inner surface annular region, and the flat region portion of the inner surface annular region is flush with the inner surface inner region (Surface of 8j contacts 8 is flat. Figure 2.) For Claim 5, D1 discloses the opening and closing member according to claim 1, wherein the inner surface of the top surface portion further includes an inner surface inner region surrounded by the inner surface annular region, and a step is present between the flat region portion of the inner surface annular region and the inner surface inner region (Surface of 8j contacts 8 is flat next to a step. Figure 2.) For Claim 6, the combination teaches the opening and closing member according to claim 1, wherein the inner surface of the top surface portion further includes an inner surface inner region surrounded by the inner surface annular region, and the flat region portion of the inner surface annular region protrudes from the inner surface inner region (D1 discloses the claimed limitations. D2 teaches a flat region portion 126. D1 modified with D2 teaches the claimed limitations.) For Claim 7, D1 discloses the opening and closing member according to claim 1, wherein the depressurization path (9) includes: a main body provided with a through hole penetrating the tubular space of the grip portion (8, Figure 2), a valve (8g, Figure 5) that switches the through hole between a closed state and an open state, a switching unit (10c) that brings the valve into the open state when receiving a pressing force (Figure 5b) and brings the valve into the closed state when the pressing force is removed (Figure 5a), and an elastic force applying portion that presses the valve against an opening of the through hole (8b elastically deforms during opening and closing. P3, para. [4]. Figures 5a-b, and 6a.) Conclusion Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides example of invention. A few of the prior art cited but not applied includes Stewart (US Pub. 2017-0253393); Baird (US 8,348079); and Morris (US 6,006,942). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN CUMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, KRISTINA FULTON can be reached at 571-272-7376. 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. /NATHAN CUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 30, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12677991
FOOD PROCESSOR BLADE LOCK MECHANISM
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12680340
REKEYABLE LOCK WITH SMALL INCREMENTS
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12680347
SECURE VEHICLE LOCKING
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12680344
A Driving Device, In Particular For Controlling A Lock Equipped With A Cylinder Insert, A Rotary Housing Of A Driving Device, And A Toothed Ring Of A Driving Device
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12668296
STEERING COLUMN ANTI-ROTATION ASSEMBLY
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+14.7%)
2y 7m (~1y 4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1205 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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