Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 35/523,973

Expandable and collapsible pantry shelf

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 10, 2024
Examiner
YOSINSKI, JENNIFER SIERRA
Art Unit
2932
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Journe Brands Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
97%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 12m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 97% — above average
97%
Career Allow Rate
86 granted / 89 resolved
+36.6% vs TC avg
Minimal -2% lift
Without
With
+-2.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 12m
Avg Prosecution
1 currently pending
Career history
90
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§102
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
§112
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 89 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Election Applicant’s response received on 01/05/2026 and the election without traverse of the design designated as Design 1: Expandable and collapsable pantry shelf (Reproductions 1.1-1.21) is acknowledged. Designs 2-8 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being for the non-elected designs. 37 CFR 1.142(b) Pursuant to the request in the remarks received 01/05/2026, the reproductions and associated descriptions have been canceled from the drawings and specification. Please see the attached OA Appendix-Canceled Drawings. Specification Objection The specification is objected to as follows: The title of the invention must be consistent throughout the application. Accordingly, the claim must be amended to cancel the phrase [kitchen appliances] and replace it with the phrase --an expandable and collapsible pantry shelf--. Descriptions of the figures are not required to be written in any particular format; however, they must describe the views of the design clearly and accurately. (MPEP 1503.01 (II) For clarity and accuracy because there two positions of the article, the reproduction descriptions should be amended to read similar to the following: --1.8 : Perspective, in an extended position 1.9 : Top, in an extended position 1.10 : Bottom, in an extended position 1.11 : Left, in an extended position 1.12 : Right, in an extended position 1.13 : Front, in an extended position 1.14 : Back, in an extended position 1.15 : Perspective, in a folded position 1.16 : Top, in a folded position 1.17 : Bottom, in a folded position 1.18 : Left, in a folded position 1.19 : Right, in a folded position 1.20 : Front, in a folded position 1.21 : Back, in a folded position-- Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b) The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The scope of a claim is definite only when it is supported by an enabling disclosure.1 When the scope of protection sought exceeds what is enabling in the disclosure, the claim is indefinite. The claim scope must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement.2 The scope of enablement, in turn, is that which is disclosed in the specification and is understandable to a designer of ordinary skill in the art without resorting to conjecture. The claim is indefinite and nonenabling for the following reasons. Specifically: Reproductions 1.3, 1.10, 1.17 depict certain surfaces and rib-like features which are not shown in enough detail to confirm their three-dimensional appearance. Therefore, there is no support in the instant application to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the depth, contour, and configuration of the surfaces and rib-like features without resorting to conjecture. Please see the following illustrations, with the indefinite and nonenabling areas highlighted in grey. PNG media_image1.png 768 941 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 560 1100 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 658 852 media_image3.png Greyscale The applicant is advised that it may not be possible to redraw the indefinite/nonenabling features indicated above without introducing new matter. In the alternative, Reproductions 1.3, 1.10, 1.17 may be revised to remove the indefinite and nonenabling areas from the claim by removing the shading and converting the edges to broken lines, as shown below. Please see the following illustrations. PNG media_image4.png 737 930 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 584 1097 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 658 847 media_image6.png Greyscale Additionally, if broken lines are used, a statement similar to the following must be added to the specification following the figure descriptions and preceding the claim. Please see MPEP § 1503.02(III) and In re Blum, 374 F.2d 904, 153 USPQ 177 (CCPA 1967) --The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the Expandable and Collapsible Pantry Shelf that form no part of the claim.-- The claim is further indefinite and nonenabling because the inconsistencies between the views herein render the appearance and scope of the claim uncertain. Specifically: The termination of the inner rail of the inner sliding shelf appears to be inconsistently drawn between reproductions 1.3 and 1.10. Please see the following illustration. PNG media_image7.png 706 893 media_image7.png Greyscale To overcome the above rejection, the applicant may amend the drawing disclosure wherein all figures are made consistent. A response is required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. If corrected drawings are submitted in response to this Office action, they must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d). When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). Conclusion The claimed design is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and (b), as set forth above. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Yosinski whose telephone number is (571) 272-9481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-5PM EST. 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, Jennifer Rempfer can be reached at (571) 270-0248. 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. /J.S.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2932 /JENNIFER L REMPFER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2932 1 A patent claim is invalid if it is not supported by an enabling disclosure. MPEP 2164 2 National Recovery Technologies Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Systems Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1999) See Goodman, 11 F.3d at 1050, 29 USPQ2d at 2013 (“the specification must teach those of skill in the art ‘how to make and how to use the invention as broadly as it is claimed’ “) (citing Vaeck, 947 F.2d at 496); In re Fisher , 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970)
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 10, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1104523
Container Holder
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104492
Hanger
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104493
GARMENT CLIP AND STRAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104534
Gun Rack Set
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104533
Helmet Rack Wall Mount
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
97%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (-2.1%)
1y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 89 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