USPTO Art Unit 3761 Examiners

Active examiners: 86
Average office actions per grant: 2.16

Grant ratio

Art Unit 3761: 60.2%
Group 3760: 62.9%

Active examiners


Jacqueline Stephens	75.9%	1.90	August 2026
Reginald L. Alexander	81.1%	1.78	June 2026
Adam Marcetich	68.7%	1.89	August 2026
Thien S Tran	66.6%	1.98	August 2026
Michele M. Kidwell	58.1%	2.55	August 2026
Susan Su	66.5%	1.75	August 2026
Brian Jennison	70.0%	1.91	August 2026
Leslie Deak	71.8%	1.71	August 2026
Sang Y. Paik	59.4%	2.08	August 2026
Philip R. Wiest	77.0%	1.67	August 2026
Jimmy Chou	69.2%	2.29	August 2026
Thor Campbell	65.5%	1.46	August 2026
Quang Van	74.6%	1.69	August 2026
Hung D. Nguyen	71.7%	1.76	August 2026
John J. Norton	59.8%	2.25	August 2026
Phuong Nguyen	66.2%	2.09	August 2026
Joseph Iskra	63.2%	1.88	August 2026
Eric Stapleton	58.0%	2.67	June 2026
Kuangyue Chen	59.2%	2.37	August 2026
Thomas Ward	48.3%	3.12	August 2026
Joe E Mills Jr	61.7%	1.98	August 2026
Alba T Rosario-Aponte	49.2%	3.21	August 2026
Justin C Dodson	44.8%	3.75	August 2026
Benjamin Klein	79.2%	1.93	July 2026
Chris Q Liu	61.4%	2.28	August 2026
Lawrence H Samuels	52.2%	2.55	August 2026
Vy T Nguyen	61.7%	2.17	August 2026
Guy K. Townsend	65.9%	2.33	August 2026
Elizabeth Kerr	48.4%	2.51	August 2026
Tiffany T Tran	36.6%	2.91	August 2026
Erwin J Wunderlich	22.4%	3.14	August 2026
Ket D. Dang	67.5%	2.71	August 2026
Kevin Guanhua Wen	37.4%	2.30	August 2026
Ariana Zimbouski	59.9%	2.42	August 2026
Erin Mcgrath	65.4%	2.65	August 2026
Andrew J. Mensh	52.5%	2.65	August 2026
Bonita Khlok	35.1%	2.76	August 2026
Dilnessa Belay	47.0%	2.38	August 2026
Simpson A Chen	44.6%	2.41	August 2026
Adam M Eckardt	43.6%	2.81	August 2026
Spencer H Kirkwood	43.6%	2.79	July 2026
Yeong Juen Thong	33.6%	2.26	August 2026
Abigail Rhue	30.9%	2.95	August 2026
Ayub Maye	67.3%	3.48	August 2026
Kai H Weng	74.1%	2.32	August 2026
Franklin Jefferson Wang	30.4%	2.30	August 2026
Thao Tran-Le	19.7%	3.22	August 2026
Keith Brian Assante	43.6%	1.65	August 2026
Theodore J Evangelista	39.5%	2.28	August 2026
Fahmida Ferdousi	22.4%	3.56	August 2026
Woody A. Lee	20.2%	1.56	August 2026
Lynne Anderson	46.2%	2.25	August 2026
Michael Hoang	74.7%	3.08	May 2026
Jessica Arble	47.2%	2.40	August 2026
Kristina J Babinski	39.4%	1.79	July 2026
Karin M Reichle	15.9%	2.75	August 2026
Chris Q Liu	1.8%	2.00	August 2026
Hamzeh Hicham Amin	3.6%	1.50	August 2026
Allison Helferty	13.5%	1.57	June 2026
Helena Kosanovic	74.5%	2.54	May 2026
Topaz L Elliott	0.0%	1.41	August 2026
Gabriella E Burnette	59.5%	2.39	August 2026
John S Hunter Jr	0.0%	1.92	August 2026
Nathaniel Wiehe	97.6%	1.95	June 2026
Yi Hao	43.6%	1.72	August 2026
Daniel W Hatten	13.2%	1.20	August 2026
Ibrahime A. Abraham	0.0%	3.21	August 2026
Edward F. Landrum	10.7%	2.32	August 2026
Je Hwan John Park	0.0%	N/A	August 2026
Krystene Nhelle B Maceda	0.0%	N/A	August 2026
Thuyhang Nguyen	3.8%	1.82	August 2026
Drew J Mitchum	0.0%	N/A	August 2026
Ellen H Grzegorzewski	21.1%	1.25	June 2026
Chancie I Velasquez Sanchez	0.0%	N/A	June 2026
Emma Elizabeth Ulatowski	0.0%	N/A	August 2026
Hunter Hemmings	0.0%	N/A	August 2026
John Michael Chambers	0.0%	N/A	August 2026
Rodolphe Andre Chabreyrie	0.0%	1.91	August 2026
Marissa Rae Boss	0.0%	N/A	August 2026
The Entire Disclosure. If The Patent Is In The Nature Of An Improvement In An Old Apparatus, Process, Product, Or Composition, The Abstract Should Include The Technical Disclosure Of The Improvement. The Abstract Should Also Mention By Way Of Example Any Preferred Modifications Or Alternatives. Where Applicable, The Abstract Should Include The Following: (1) If A Machine Or Apparatus, Its Organization And Operation; (2) If An Article, Its Method Of Making; (3) If A Chemical Compound, Its Identity And Use; (4) If A Mixture, Its Ingredients; (5) If A Process, The Steps. Extensive Mechanical And Design Details Of An Apparatus Should Not Be Included In The Abstract. The Abstract Should Be In Narrative Form And Generally Limited To A Single Paragraph Within The Range Of 50 To 150 Words In Length. See Mpep § 608.01(B) For Guidelines For The Preparation Of Patent Abstracts. The Abstract Of The Disclosure Is Objected To Because It Discusses The Purported Merit Of The Proposed Invention, Stating “In This Way The Heating Element Inhibits The Perishable Construction Materials And The Battery Chargers From Being Exposed To Freezing Temperatures”. Drawings The Drawings Are Objected To Under 37 Cfr 1.83(A) Because Figure 3 Indicates Coils 88 Of Heating Element 86 Are Found In The Mat 84 However In Figure 8 No Coils Can Be Seen. Any Structural Detail That Is Essential For A Proper Understanding Of The Disclosed Invention Should Be Shown In The Drawing. Mpep § 608.02(D). Corrected Drawing Sheets In Compliance With 37 Cfr 1.121(D) Are Required In Reply To The Office Action To Avoid Abandonment Of The Application. Any Amended Replacement Drawing Sheet Should Include All Of The Figures Appearing On The Immediate Prior Version Of The Sheet, Even If Only One Figure Is Being Amended. The Figure Or Figure Number Of An Amended Drawing Should Not Be Labeled As “Amended.” If A Drawing Figure Is To Be Canceled, The Appropriate Figure Must Be Removed From The Replacement Sheet, And Where Necessary, The Remaining Figures Must Be Renumbered And Appropriate Changes Made To The Brief Description Of The Several Views Of The Drawings For Consistency. Additional Replacement Sheets May Be Necessary To Show The Renumbering Of The Remaining Figures. Each Drawing Sheet Submitted After The Filing Date Of An Application Must Be Labeled In The Top Margin As Either “Replacement Sheet” Or “New Sheet” Pursuant To 37 Cfr 1.121(D). If The Changes Are Not Accepted By The Examiner, The Applicant Will Be Notified And Informed Of Any Required Corrective Action In The Next Office Action. The Objection To The Drawings Will Not Be Held In Abeyance. Claim Interpretation The Following Is A Quotation Of 35 U.S.C. 112(F): (F) Element In Claim For A Combination. – An Element In A Claim For A Combination May Be Expressed As A Means Or Step For Performing A Specified Function Without The Recital Of Structure, Material, Or Acts In Support Thereof, And Such Claim Shall Be Construed To Cover The Corresponding Structure, Material, Or Acts Described In The Specification And Equivalents Thereof. The Following Is A Quotation Of Pre-Aia 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph: An Element In A Claim For A Combination May Be Expressed As A Means Or Step For Performing A Specified Function Without The Recital Of Structure, Material, Or Acts In Support Thereof, And Such Claim Shall Be Construed To Cover The Corresponding Structure, Material, Or Acts Described In The Specification And Equivalents Thereof. This Application Includes One Or More Claim Limitations That Do Not Use The Word “Means,” But Are Nonetheless Being Interpreted Under 35 U.S.C. 112(F) Or Pre-Aia 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph, Because The Claim Limitation(S) Uses A Generic Placeholder That Is Coupled With Functional Language Without Reciting Sufficient Structure To Perform The Recited Function And The Generic Placeholder Is Not Preceded By A Structural Modifier. Such Claim Limitation(S) Is/Are: “A Heating Element” In Claim 1. Because This/These Claim Limitation(S) Is/Are Being Interpreted Under 35 U.S.C. 112(F) Or Pre-Aia 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph, It/They Is/Are Being Interpreted To Cover The Corresponding Structure Described In The Specification As Performing The Claimed Function, And Equivalents Thereof. The Claim Limitation Will Thus Be Interpreted As A “Plurality Of Coils”, As Disclosed In The Specification And In Claim 8, And Equivalents Thereof. Because Claim 8 Discloses The Coils, Claim 8 No Longer Invokes 112(F). If Applicant Does Not Intend To Have This/These Limitation(S) Interpreted Under 35 U.S.C. 112(F) Or Pre-Aia 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph, Applicant May: (1) Amend The Claim Limitation(S) To Avoid It/Them Being Interpreted Under 35 U.S.C. 112(F) Or Pre-Aia 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph (E.G., By Reciting Sufficient Structure To Perform The Claimed Function); Or (2) Present A Sufficient Showing That The Claim Limitation(S) Recite(S) Sufficient Structure To Perform The Claimed Function So As To Avoid It/Them Being Interpreted Under 35 U.S.C. 112(F) Or Pre-Aia 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 Usc § 112 The Following Is A Quotation Of 35 U.S.C. 112(B): (B) Conclusion. —The Specification Shall Conclude With One Or More Claims Particularly Pointing Out And Distinctly Claiming The Subject Matter Which The Inventor Or A Joint Inventor Regards As The Invention. The Following Is A Quotation Of 35 U.S.C. 112 (Pre-Aia ), Second Paragraph: The Specification Shall Conclude With One Or More Claims Particularly Pointing Out And Distinctly Claiming The Subject Matter Which The Applicant Regards As His Invention. Claims 3, 6, 7, 8, And 12 Are Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 112(B) Or 35 U.S.C. 112 (Pre-Aia ), Second Paragraph, As Being Indefinite For Failing To Particularly Point Out And Distinctly Claim The Subject Matter Which The Inventor Or A Joint Inventor (Or For Applications Subject To Pre-Aia 35 U.S.C. 112, The Applicant), Regards As The Invention. Claim 3 Recites The Limitation " Said Exterior Wall Of Said Lid" In Line. There Is Insufficient Antecedent Basis For This Limitation In The Claim. Claim 6 Recites The Limitation " Said First Sleeves” In Line And “Said Second Sleeves" In Line. There Is Insufficient Antecedent Basis For This Limitation In The Claim. The Term “A Substantial Length And Width” In Claim 7 Is A Relative Term Which Renders The Claim Indefinite. The Term “A Substantial Length And Width” Is Not Defined By The Claim Or The Specification. What Is Considered “Substantial” Can Vary Case-By-Case And Therefore No Specific Definition Can Be Utilized. For Example, A Drop Of Hot Sauce For Someone Who Cannot Tolerate Spicy Foods Is A Substantial Amount, However The Same Amount Of Hot Sauce For Someone That Likes Spicy Foods May Not Be Substantial. Examiner Will Consider Any Predetermined Length And Width To Meet The "Substantial" Requirement. The Term “A Substantial Length And Width” In Claim 12 Is A Relative Term Which Renders The Claim Indefinite. The Term “A Substantial Length And Width” Is Not Defined By The Claim Or The Specification. What Is Considered “Substantial” Can Vary Case-By-Case And Therefore No Specific Definition Can Be Utilized. For Example, A Drop Of Hot Sauce For Someone Who Cannot Tolerate Spicy Foods Is A Substantial Amount, However The Same Amount Of Hot Sauce For Someone That Likes Spicy Foods May Not Be Substantial. Examiner Will Consider Any Predetermined Length And Width To Meet The "Substantial" Requirement. Claim 12 Recites The Limitation " Said Exterior Wall Of Said Lid" In Line. There Is Insufficient Antecedent Basis For This Limitation In The Claim. Claim Rejections - 35 Usc § 103 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 1 Is Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 103 As Being Unpatentable Over Peterson Et Al. (Us Patent No. 8,067,715 B2), Hereinafter Peterson, In View Of Grela Et Al. (Us Patent No, 10,293,478 B2), Hereinafter Grela. Regarding Claim 1, Peterson Teaches (Figure 10) A Toolbox (840) With A Hingedly Attached Lid (850), Interior Outlets (Col. 7 Ln. 13; 846), And A Means Of Heating The Contents Within (844). Peterson Teaches All Of The Elements Of The Current Invention As Stated Above Except Removeable Shelves. Grela Teaches (Figures, 4, 5, And 14-16) It Is Known To Provide Removable Shelving (120) Within A Toolbox To Allow For The Storage Of A Variety Of Dissimilar Items (Col. 9, Lines 50-67). It Would Have Been Obvious To One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Before The Effective Filing Date Of The Claimed Invention To Have Modified Peterson To Incorporate The Teachings Of Grela To Include Removable Shelving Within The Toolbox To Allow For The Toolbox To Securely Hold Dissimilarly Shaped Items. Claims 2, 4,7,8 And 11 Are Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 103 As Being Unpatentable Over The Modified Device Of Peterson, As Applied To Claim 1, In View Of Patterson (Us Publication No. 2007/0062839 A1), Hereinafter Patterson. Regarding Claim 2, Peterson Teaches A Storage Box That Opens From The Top (Col. 1 Ln. 50-53; Figure 10), A Lid With A Rim Extending Downward (Col. 1 Ln 50-53; Figure 10), And Said Lid Hingedly Connected At The Back (Col. 1 Ln 50-53; Fig. 10). Therefore, The Modified Device Of Peterson Teaches All Of The Elements Of The Current Invention As Stated Above Except Dividing Walls That Are Organized In Order Of Height And Used To Define A Plurality Of Storage Spaces. Patterson Teaches It Is Known To Provide Tiered Partitions (Figure 3) Within A Toolbox To Allow For Better Visual Inspection And Retrieval Of Stored Items (Paragraph 12-16). It Would Have Been Obvious To One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Before The Effective Filing Date Of The Claimed Invention To Have Modified The Modified Device Of Peterson To Incorporate The Teachings Of Patterson To Include Tiered Partitions (Figure 3) Within The Toolbox To Allow For Better Visual Inspection And Retrieval Of Stored Items Regarding Claim 4, The Modified Device Of Peterson Teaches All Of The Elements Of The Current Invention As Stated Above Except A Plurality Of Sleeves Attached To The Inside Wall Of The Storage Box, Open At The Top And Bottom, Which Are Laterally Distributed Along The Wall. Grela Teaches It Is Known That For The Purpose Of Attaching Removable Shelving (120) For The Shelving To Include Tabs (242-254; Figure 18) That Engage Sleeves (104) That Are Open At The Bottom And Top (The Shelf Of Grela Is Three Dimensional And Therefore Has A Thickness And Therefore Can Be Considered A Sleeve) That Are Laterally Distributed Along Interior Wall Surfaces (Col. 9, Lines 56-58). It Would Have Been Obvious To Have Modified The Modified Device Of Peterson To Incorporate The Teachings Of Grela To Utilize A Tab And Slot/Sleeve Connection Between The Removable Shelving And The Walls To Removably Connect The Shelves To The Toolbox When In Use. Doing So Would Allow For A User To Attach Different Types Of Removable Shelves For Dissimilarly Shaped Items Easily And Quickly Thereby Increasing The Overall Flexibility And Utility Of The Tool Box. Regarding Claim 7, Peterson Teaches (Figures 4A And 10) The Heating Element (404) Is Utilized In Conjunction With A Mat (Generally 444) Integrated Into A Bottom Of The Toolbox (Figure 10; 844). Therefore, The Modified Device Of Peterson Teaches The Invention Of Claim 7. Regarding Claim 8, Peterson Teaches (Figures 4A And 10) The Heating Element (404) Integrated Into A Mat, (Generally 444) Comprising Coils Spanning The Full Surface Of Said Mat (Figure 10; 844). Therefore, The Modified Device Of Peterson Teaches The Invention Of Claim 8. Regarding Claim 11, Peterson Teaches (Col. 6 Ln. 25-26) A Power Cord Able To Provide 120V Power To The Storage Box And The Electrically Powered Features Therein. Therefore, The Modified Device Of Peterson Teaches The Invention Of Claim 11. Claims 3 And 6 Are Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 103 As Being Unpatentable Over The Modified Device Of Peterson, As Applied To Claim 2, In View Of Perkins (Us Patent No. 4303158A). Regarding Claim 3, The Modified Device Of Peterson Teaches All Of The Elements Of The Current Invention As Stated Above Except A Latch Comprising A Looped Member Attached To A Lever Wherein The Loop Engages A Hook, Pulling The Lid Into A Closed And Locked Position. Perkins Discloses It Is Known To Provide A Latching Mechanism (35, Figure 1) On A Toolbox (11). The Latch Includes A Looped Member Attached To A Lever Wherein The Loop Engages A Hook. It Would Have Been Obvious To Have Modified The Modified Device Of Peterson To Incorporate The Teachings Of Perkins To Include A Known Latch Suitable For Closing Toolboxes. Locking Toolboxes With Latches Is Known In The Art For The Express Purpose Of Preventing The Lid Of The Toolbox From Inadvertently Opening And Releasing The Contents Of The Box. Regarding Claim 6, The Modified Device Of Peterson Teaches All Of The Elements Of The Current Invention As Stated Above Except The Plurality Of Electrical Outlets Being Integrated Into The Inside Wall Of The Storage Box Positioned Between The Top Opening Of The Storage Box And The Mounting Points Of The Storage Shelf. Grela Discloses (Figure 14) It Is Known To Include Electrical Outlets (300) Inside Of A Toolbox To Provide Needed Power For Power Tools. A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Have Recognized That There Is A Finite Number Of Locations To Place Power Outlets Within The Toolbox, And Would Have Had A Reasonable Expectation Of Success Placing Them As Close As Possible To Where A User Would Need Them In Order To Easily Provide Power To Tools. Therefore, It Would Have Been Obvious To One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Before The Effective Filing Date Of The Claimed Invention To Try Integrating A Plurality Of Electrical Outlets Into Any Wall A Designer And/Or User Found Useful, Including Into The Wall Inside Of The Toolbox Above The Shelves, To Provide Needed Electrical Power To Tools/Batteries Stored On The Shelves. It Has Been Held That Shifting The Locations Of Parts Without Modifying How The Device Functions Is Within The Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art And Does Not Constitute A Patentable Advance. Claim 5 Is Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 103 As Being Unpatentable Over The Modified Device Of Peterson, As Applied To Claim 4, In View Of Demarco (Us Patent No. 9,056,756 B1), Hereinafter Demarco. Regarding Claim 5, Grela Teaches Tabs (242-254; Figure 18) Extending From A Shelf That Engage Respective Sleeves For The Purpose Of Attaching Removable Shelving, As Applied In Claim 4. Therefore, The Modified Device Of Peterson Teaches All Of The Elements Of The Current Invention As Stated Above Except A Shelf, Featuring A Mesh Panel, Capable Of Supporting A Charger. Demarco Discloses (Col. 2 Ln. 23-24; Figure. 6) It Is Known To Construct A Shelf (40), With A Bottom (42) Constructed From A Mesh Material (50), With The Purpose Of Providing Storage For Small Objects. Because Both Demarco And The Modified Device Of Peterson Teach Known Ways To Construct The Bottom Of A Shelf, It Would Have Been Obvious To One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Before The Effective Filing Date Of The Claimed Invention To Substitute One For The Other To Achieve The Predictable Result Of Providing A Shelf Capable Of Supporting Various Elements Housed Within The Toolbox, Including Battery Chargers. Claims 9 Is Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 103 As Being Unpatentable Over The Modified Device Of Peterson, As Applied To Claim 2, In View Of Foster (Us Patent No. 12,004,671 B2), Hereinafter Foster. Regarding Claim 9, Peterson Teaches A Thermostat (220) As A Means Of Controlling A Heating Element (844). Therefore, The Modified Device Of Peterson Teaches All Of The Elements Of Claim 9 As Stated Above Except The Thermostat Having A Display And Being Integrated Into The Exterior Wall. Foster Teaches (Figure 3) A Thermostat (50) And Display (90) On The Exterior Of A Storage Box As A Means Of Climate Control Interface (Col. 7 Ln. 17-30). It Would Have Been Obvious To One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Before The Effective Filing Date Of The Claimed Invention To Have Modified The Modified Device Of Peterson To Incorporate The Teachings Of Foster To Integrate The Thermostat Into The Exterior Wall And Provide A Display. Doing So Would Allow A User To Easily Interface With The Thermostat Without Having To Open The Toolbox. Claims 10 Is Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 103 As Being Unpatentable Over The Modified Device Of Peterson, As Applied To Claim 9, In View Of Bowles Et Al. (Us Patent No. 5,183,994 A), Hereinafter Bowles. Regarding Claim 10, The Modified Device Peterson Teaches All Of The Elements Of The Current Invention As Stated Above Except A Pair Of External Indicators Showing The On/Off Status Of Power Being Supplied To The Heating Element. Bowles Discloses (Figure 3) A Heated Storage Box With A Pair Of External Indicator Lights (68 And 70) As A Means To Observe When Power Is Being Supplied And When The Heating Element Is Cycled On/Off Respectively (Col. 2 Ln. 63). It Would Have Been Obvious To One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Before The Effective Filing Date Of The Claimed Invention To Have Modified The Modified Device Of Peterson To Incorporate The Teachings Of Bowles To Provide A Pair Of Indicator Lights On The Outside Wall To As A Means To Observe Whether The Heating Element Is Actively Powered Or Not. Claims 12 Is Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 103 As Being Unpatentable Over Peterson In View Of Grela, Patterson, Perkins, Demarco, Foster, And Bowles . Peterson Teaches: A Toolbox (840) With A Hingedly Attached Lid (850), Interior Outlets (Col. 7 Ln. 13; 846), And A Means Of Heating The Contents Within (844); A Storage Box That Opens From The Top (Col. 1 Ln. 50-53; Figure 10), A Lid With A Rim Extending Downward (Col. 1 Ln 50-53; Figure 10), And Said Lid Hingedly Connected At The Back (Col. 1 Ln 50-53; Fig. 10); (Figures 4A And 10) A Heating Element (404) Is Utilized In Conjunction With A Mat (Generally 444) Integrated Into A Bottom Of The Toolbox (Figure 10; 844); (Figures 4A And 10) Said Heating Element (404) Integrated Into A Mat, (Generally 444) Comprising Coils Spanning The Full Surface Of Said Mat (Figure 10; 844); (Col. 6 Ln. 25-26) A Power Cord Able To Provide 120V Power To The Storage Box And The Electrically Powered Features Therein; And A Thermostat (220) As A Means Of Controlling A Heating Element. Peterson Fails To Teach: Removeable Shelves; Dividing Walls That Are Organized In Order Of Height And Used To Define A Plurality Of Storage Spaces; A Plurality Of Sleeves Attached To The Inside Wall Of The Storage Box, Open At The Top And Bottom, Which Are Laterally Distributed Along The Wall; A Latch Comprising A Looped Member Attached To A Lever Wherein The Loop Engages A Hook, Pulling The Lid Into A Closed And Locked Position; A Plurality Of Electrical Outlets Integrated Into The Inside Wall Of The Storage Box Positioned Between The Top Opening Of The Storage Box And The Mounting Points Of The Storage Shelf; The Shelves, Featuring A Mesh Panel, Capable Of Supporting A Charger; The Thermostat Having A Display And Being Integrated Into The Exterior Wall; And A Pair Of External Indicators Showing The On/Off Status Of Power Being Supplied To The Heating Element. Grela Teaches: (Figures, 4, 5, And 14-16) It Is Known To Provide Removable Shelving (120) Within A Toolbox To Allow For The Storage Of A Variety Of Dissimilar Items (Col. 9, Lines 50-67); It Is Known That For The Purpose Of Attaching Removable Shelving (120) For The Shelving To Include Tabs (242-254; Figure 18) That Engage Sleeves (104) That Are Open At The Bottom And Top (The Shelf Of Grela Is Three Dimensional And Therefore Has A Thickness And Therefore Can Be Considered A Sleeve) That Are Laterally Distributed Along Interior Wall Surfaces (Col. 9, Lines 56-58); And (Figure 14) It Is Known To Include Electrical Outlets (300) Inside Of A Toolbox To Provide Needed Power For Power Tools. It Would Have Obvious To One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Before The Effective Filing Date Of The Claimed Invention To Have Modified Peterson To Incorporate The Teachings Of Grela To: Include Removable Shelving Within The Toolbox To Allow For The Toolbox To Securely Hold Dissimilarly Shaped Items; Utilize A Tab And Slot/Sleeve Connection Between The Removable Shelving And The Walls To Removably Connect The Shelves To The Toolbox When In Use. Doing So Would Allow For A User To Attach Different Types Of Removable Shelves For Dissimilarly Shaped Items Easily And Quickly Thereby Increasing The Overall Flexibility And Utility Of The Tool Box; Integrate A Plurality Of Electrical Outlets Into The Wall Inside Of The Toolbox Above The Shelves Where They Will Be Used To Provide Needed Electrical Power For Battery Chargers. A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Have Recognized That There Is A Finite Number Of Locations To Place Power Outlets Within The Toolbox, And Would Have Had A Reasonable Expectation Of Success Placing Them As Close As Possible To Where They Are Needed. It Has Been Held That Shifting The Locations Of Parts Without Modifying How The Device Functions Is Within The Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art And Does Not Constitute A Patentable Advance. Patterson Teaches It Is Known To Provide Tiered Partitions (Figure 3) Within A Toolbox To Allow For Better Visual Inspection And Retrieval Of Stored Items (Paragraph 12-16). It Would Have Been Obvious To One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Before The Effective Filing Date Of The Claimed Invention To Have Modified Peterson To Incorporate The Teachings Of Patterson To Include Tiered Partitions (Figure 3) Within The Toolbox To Allow For Better Visual Inspection And Retrieval Of Stored Items. Perkins Discloses It Is Known To Provide A Latching Mechanism (35, Figure 1) On A Toolbox (11). The Latch Includes A Looped Member Attached To A Lever Wherein The Loop Engages A Hook. It Would Have Been Obvious To Have Modified Peterson To Incorporate The Teachings Of Perkins To Include A Known Latch Suitable For Closing Toolboxes. Locking Toolboxes With Latches Is Known In The Art For The Express Purpose Of Preventing The Lid Of The Toolbox From Inadvertently Opening And Releasing The Contents Of The Box. Demarco Discloses (Col. 2 Ln. 23-24; Figure. 6) A Shelf (40), With A Bottom (42) Constructed From A Mesh Material (50), With The Purpose Of Providing Storage For Small Objects. Because Both Demarco And The Modified Device Of Peterson Teach Known Ways To Construct The Bottom Of A Shelf, It Would Have Been Obvious To One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Before The Effective Filing Date Of The Claimed Invention To Substitute One For The Other To Achieve The Predictable Result Of A Shelf Capable Of Supporting Various Elements Housed Within The Toolbox, Including Battery Chargers. Foster Teaches (Figure 3) A Thermostat (50) And Display (90) On The Exterior Of A Storage Box As A Means Of Climate Control Interface (Col. 7 Ln. 17-30). It Would Have Been Obvious To One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Before The Effective Filing Date Of The Claimed Invention To Have Modified Peterson To Incorporate The Teachings Of Foster To Integrate The Thermostat Into The Exterior Wall And Provide A Display. Doing So Would Allow A User To Easily Interface With The Thermostat Without Having To Open The Toolbox. Bowles Discloses (Figure 3) A Heated Storage Box With A Pair Of External Indicator Lights (68 And 70) As A Means To Observe When Power Is Being Supplied And When The Heating Element Is Cycled On/Off Respectively (Col. 2 Ln. 63). It Would Have Been Obvious To One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Before The Effective Filing Date Of The Claimed Invention To Have Modified The Modified Device Of Peterson To Incorporate The Teachings Of Bowles To Provide A Pair Of Indicator Lights On The Outside Wall To As A Means To Observe Whether The Heating Element Is Actively Powered Or Not. Conclusion Any Inquiry Concerning This Communication Or Earlier Communications From The Examiner Should Be Directed To Nicholas Fredrick Gauthier	0.0%	N/A	August 2026
Gargi Mansingh	0.0%	N/A	July 2026
Andrew T Blenke	0.0%	N/A	August 2026
Margaret H. Clarke	0.0%	N/A	August 2026
Adam Yonas	0.0%	N/A	August 2026
Christopher J. Mccormick	0.0%	N/A	August 2026
Liliana Cerullo	0.0%	1.00	July 2026

Examiner distribution

Median grant ratio: 48.8%
Middle 50% of grant ratios: 30.8%–66.2%
Median office actions / grant: 2.29
Middle 50% of office actions / grant: 1.89–2.65

Active examiners with at least 20 applications.

Other associated examiners

Examiners without recent activity.


Ilya Treyger	64.6%	2.36	April 2024 Appears inactive
Geoffrey S. Evans	85.1%	1.62	June 2025 Appears inactive
Shawntina Fuqua	84.8%	1.54	September 2024 Appears inactive
Melanie J. Hand	64.5%	2.36	November 2015 Appears inactive
Joseph M. Pelham	80.9%	1.75	June 2024 Appears inactive
Ginger T. Chapman	56.7%	2.17	December 2013 Appears inactive
Michael Laflame	79.4%	1.89	August 2022 Appears inactive
James Sims	80.5%	1.98	April 2026 Potentially inactive
Mark Paschall	92.3%	1.37	March 2021 Appears inactive
Sara Sass	56.8%	3.26	April 2020 Appears inactive
Benedict L C Hanrahan	56.3%	2.14	September 2014 Appears inactive
Frederick Calvetti	61.3%	2.84	March 2025 Appears inactive
Gyounghyun Bae	77.6%	2.82	November 2021 Appears inactive
Ahmad Abdel-Rahman	39.0%	3.65	June 2023 Appears inactive
Paula L. Craig	43.0%	2.37	August 2018 Appears inactive
Diallo I. Duniver	66.7%	3.99	June 2022 Appears inactive
Masahiko Muranami	53.9%	2.84	December 2020 Appears inactive
Karin M. Reichle	6.3%	3.08	November 2021 Appears inactive
Michael Stuart Poetzinger	43.4%	2.33	August 2021 Appears inactive
William C Gibson	32.9%	2.04	February 2025 Appears inactive
Joseph Baillargeon	64.3%	3.26	January 2020 Appears inactive
Biniam Asmelash	71.4%	2.83	April 2020 Appears inactive
Damon Jd Alfaro	47.3%	2.08	September 2024 Appears inactive
Samuel M. Heinrich	89.8%	1.52	September 2019 Appears inactive
Gyounghyun Bae	19.6%	2.36	June 2023 Appears inactive
Bryan M Badalamenti	59.5%	2.00	May 2023 Appears inactive
Rachel R Rizzo	71.4%	1.40	June 2022 Appears inactive
Bennett Gallup Bowers	4.3%	2.00	September 2025 Appears inactive
Maurisa Doreen Morris	8.7%	1.00	September 2025 Appears inactive
Xin Xie	42.9%	1.44	May 2012 Appears inactive
Brandon Harvey	68.4%	2.10	July 2019 Appears inactive
Joseph H Tam	43.8%	1.14	September 2019 Appears inactive
Michael Bogart	57.1%	1.00	June 2008 Appears inactive
Wint W Zaw	7.1%	1.00	April 2023 Appears inactive
Examiner name unavailable	0.0%	N/A	September 2025 Appears inactive
Jordan B. Bailey	81.8%	1.11	December 2012 Appears inactive
Shruti S Sharma	20.0%	1.00	April 2025 Appears inactive
Zunjing J. Wang	0.0%	N/A	May 2026 Potentially inactive
Aaron Gabriel Wright	75.0%	1.17	September 2022 Appears inactive
Benjamin C Clark	25.0%	1.00	April 2020 Appears inactive
Cole Weston Shimanek	0.0%	N/A	May 2025 Appears inactive
Brett Spurlock	0.0%	1.06	December 2020 Appears inactive
Cristian Oscar Rivas	50.0%	1.00	April 2026 Potentially inactive
Sergiu Mihail Pop	25.0%	1.00	April 2025 Appears inactive
Steven W Crabb	0.0%	1.90	September 2025 Appears inactive
Andrew Joseph J Purcell	100.0%	2.00	December 2023 Appears inactive

Based on available public USPTO records; may be incomplete.