Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/130,858

Volume-Adjustable Package Box

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 16, 2025
Examiner
DEMEREE, CHRISTOPHER R
Art Unit
3734
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
1097 granted / 1594 resolved
-1.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
82 currently pending
Career history
1676
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.4%
+1.4% vs TC avg
§102
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
§112
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1594 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 . Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 line 23 recites, “…the first tear-stating feature…”. Appropriate correction is required. 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) 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 5375761 A; hereinafter Sullivan) in view of Volz et al. (US 2008/0197177 A1; hereinafter Volz). Regarding claims 1-4 and 8, Sullivan discloses a pizza box comprising a foldable piece of boxing material; the foldable piece of boxing material comprising a first lengthwise edge, a second lengthwise edge (i.e. left and right side), a first widthwise edge (front wall 58), a second widthwise edge (rear wall 26), a backing pair of folding lines (52), a cutaway pair of perforated lines (72a-b), and a first tear-starting feature (74); the backing pair of folding lines being positioned parallel and offset from each other by a box height (i.e. creating rear wall 26); the backing pair of folding lines traversing from the first lengthwise edge to the second lengthwise edge (see Figures 1-10); the backing pair of folding lines being centrally positioned in between the first widthwise edge and the second widthwise edge; the cutaway pair of perforated lines traversing perpendicular from the first widthwise edge to the second widthwise edge; the cutaway pair of perforated lines being positioned parallel and offset from each other by a ribbon width (73; see Fig. 4); the first tear-starting feature being positioned in between the cutaway pair of perforated lines (see Fig. 3); and the first tear-stating feature being positioned in between the first widthwise edge and the backing pair of folding lines (Examiner notes that 74 is on wall 38 which is positioned interior of wall 58 when the box is closed; therefore, 74 is in between the first widthwise edge 58 and the backing pair of folding lines 52). Examiner notes that Sullivan’s tear strip extends into the front and rear walls. Sullivan lacks a secondary lengthwise tab defining folding line. Volz teaches an ez-fold modular pizza box comprising a first lengthwise edge, a second lengthwise edge (i.e. left and right side), a first widthwise edge, a second widthwise edge (i.e. distal edge of upper front wall and distal edge of lower front wall; see Fig. 1), a backing pair of folding lines (defining a rear wall; see Fig. 1), a cutaway pair of perforated lines (defining central tear strip; see Fig. 1), and a first tear-starting feature (i.e. pull tab); and a secondary lengthwise-tab-defining folding line (Latent Fold line A-B; see Fig. 1), the secondary lengthwise-tab-defining folding line traversing perpendicular from the first widthwise edge to the second widthwise edge (see Fig. 1); the secondary lengthwise-tab-defining folding line being positioned in between the first lengthwise edge and the cutaway pair of perforated lines (i.e. positioned between the left side and the tear strip; see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Sullivan’s disposable pizza box to have the latent fold line taught by Volz in order to aid in the collapse and disposal of the box after the pizza has been consumed (Volz; see Par. 0009). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-7 and 9-14 are 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 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. 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, NATHAN J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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. /CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 16, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595093
PACKING BOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595091
METHOD OF COLLAPSING A COLLAPSIBLE BOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589908
TAKEOUT FOOD BOX WITH EXTRA FOOD POCKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582987
CARRIER DEVICE FOR A DISPENSING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577031
BIODEGRADABLE COOLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
69%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+13.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1594 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