Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 29/885,798

Absorbent Pad Package

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 28, 2023
Examiner
GANNON, CLARE A
Art Unit
2911
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
95%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 95% — above average
95%
Career Allow Rate
534 granted / 564 resolved
+34.7% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+2.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
2 currently pending
Career history
566
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
§102
11.1%
-28.9% vs TC avg
§112
71.8%
+31.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 564 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejection--35 U.S.C. § 103 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent number 3,563,371 (Heinz) in view of United States Design Patent number D386,398 (Davis) and United States Patent number 5,222,813 (Kopp) . Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 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 designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable. Heinz shows a package having design characteristics that are visually similar to those of the claimed design: Both designs consist of a rectangular package with a protruding center portion that consists of a relatively thin rectangular design with rounded corners and outer sides that slope into a substantially thinner frame portion with a textured surface and sharp outer corners. The claim differs from Heinz showing a wider design and a tear notch positioned near the corner on the long side of the design. Davis shows a wider design. Kopp shows a tear notch positioned near the corner on the long side of the design. PNG media_image1.png 220 286 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 172 258 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 102 307 media_image3.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heinz with Davis by widening the packaging because this modification is a well-known practice in the art. It is customary for designers to offer package designs with slightly different dimensions to appeal to consumers who are looking for packaging that best suits their need, which is demonstrated by United States Patent publication 2005/0214495 (Thiebaut). PNG media_image4.png 694 439 media_image4.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heinz with Kopp by adding a tear notch near the corner of the design because this modification is also well-known in the art. It is customary for designers to offer package designs with tear notches including using a slit style notch shown in the claim to appeal to consumers who want to make the design more visually intuitive and appealing, which is demonstrated by United States patent D464,257 (Gates), D312569 (Wijas), D746152 (Murray). PNG media_image5.png 679 374 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 268 440 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 263 355 media_image7.png Greyscale This modification of the primary reference in light of the secondary reference is proper because the applied references are so related that the appearance of features shown in one would suggest the application of those features to the other.1 Further, it is noted that case law has held that a designer skilled in the art is charged with knowledge of the related art; therefore, the combination of old elements, herein, would have been well within the level of ordinary skill.2 Conclusion The claim stands rejected for the reasons set forth above. The references cited but not applied, are considered cumulative art related to the claimed design. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE ANN GANNON whose telephone number is (571)270-0212. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 10am to 6pm EST. To act on behalf of the applicant in most situations, a properly executed power of attorney must be present in the application file. See MPEP 402. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Wilson can be reached on (571) 272-7639. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/status/private_pair/index.jsp. For questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CLARE ANN GANNON/Examiner, Art Unit 2926 1 See In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 213 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1982); In re Carter, 673 F.2d 1378, 213 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1982), and In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 109 USPQ 50 (CCPA 1956). 2 See In re Antle, 444 F.2d 1168,170 USPQ 285 (CCPA 1971) and In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 211 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1981).
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1104538
FLOOR COVERING
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104539
BATH MAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104537
CURTAIN DRIVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104562
Seat cover
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104540
Non-Slip Mat
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
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
95%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+2.3%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 564 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