DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is written in response to the amendment filed 04/26/2025
Claims 65-80 are presented for examination
This action is Final
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 65-71 and 75-79 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katsis (US 7,757,843) in view of Gelardi et al. (US 2003/0062287).
Claim 65: Katsis discloses a tray system comprising: a bendable plastic tray 14, the bendable plastic tray having four continuous rectangular walls integrally connected to one another by substantially right-angle corners (fig. 4);
a first protrusion 60 extending outwardly and perpendicularly from a first wall of the four continuous walls;
a second protrusion 60 (opposing side) extending outwardly and perpendicularly from a second wall of the four continuous walls, wherein the first wall and the second wall are parallel to one another and the first protrusion and the second protrusion are diagonally opposite one another (col. 4, ll. 65-67; col. 5, ll. 1-10; fig. 4);
a third protrusion 76 extending outwardly from at least one of the four continuous walls (fig. 4); and
a container 52, wherein when the bendable plastic tray is received in the container, the container is configured to bend at least one of the first protrusion, the second protrusion, or the third protrusion when the bendable plastic tray is received in the container (abstract).
Katsis fails to disclose a flap extending from the container wall. Gelardi teaches wherein a protrusion comprises a flap 13 configured to be bent at an acute angle with respect to either the first protrusion or the second protrusion (fig. 5, 8, 9, 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the walls of Katsis to include the flap of Gelardi to provide additional child-resistant features such as a tongue in groove locking assembly.
Claim 66: Katsis-Gelardi discloses the tray system of claim 65, wherein when the bendable plastic tray is received in the container, the container is configured to bend at least two of the four continuous rectangular walls and at least one of the first protrusion, the second protrusion, or the third protrusion when the bendable plastic tray is received in the container (Katsis; abstract; col. 3, ll. 18-30).
Claims 67-68: Katsis-Gelardi discloses the tray system of claim 66, wherein when the bendable plastic tray is received in the container, the container is configured to bend at least two of the four continuous rectangular walls, the first protrusion, and at least one of the second protrusion or the third protrusion (Katsis; abstract; col. 3, ll. 18-30).
Claim 69: Katsis-Gelardi discloses the tray system of Claim 65, wherein the container is tubular. (Katsis; fig. 1)
Claims 70-71: Katsis-Gelardi discloses the tray system of Claim 65, wherein the flap is longer than the first and second protrusions (Gelardi; fig. 7-8).
To modify the size/length of the bendable flap into the claimed greater length would entail a mere change in size of the components and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 75: Katsis-Gelardi discloses the tray system of claim 65, wherein the bendable plastic tray is configured to hold at least one edible product (Katsis; abstract).
Claims 76-77: Katsis-Gelardi discloses the tray system of claim 75, wherein the bendable plastic tray has at least one cavity substantially in the shape of the at least one edible product to hold the at least one edible product (Katsis; fig. 1).
It is noted that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the product to match the shape of the container tray shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) MPEP 214.04 IV B
Claim 78: Katsis-Gelardi discloses the tray system of claim 75, wherein when the bendable plastic tray is received in the container while holding the at least one edible product, the container is configured to bend at least two of the four continuous rectangular walls and at least one of the first protrusion, the second protrusion, or the third protrusion when the bendable plastic tray is received in the container (Katsis; abstract; col. 3, ll. 18-30).
Claim 79: Katsis-Gelardi discloses the tray system of Claim 75, wherein the flap is longer than the first and second protrusions (Gelardi; fig. 7-8).
To modify the size/length of the bendable flap into the claimed greater length would entail a mere change in size of the components and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 65 and 72-74 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katsis (US 7,757,843) in view of Hession (US 2008/0093252).
Claim 65: Katsis discloses a tray system comprising: a bendable plastic tray 14, the bendable plastic tray having four continuous rectangular walls integrally connected to one another by substantially right-angle corners (fig. 4);
a first protrusion 60 extending outwardly and perpendicularly from a first wall of the four continuous walls;
a second protrusion 60 (opposing side) extending outwardly and perpendicularly from a second wall of the four continuous walls, wherein the first wall and the second wall are parallel to one another and the first protrusion and the second protrusion are diagonally opposite one another (col. 4, ll. 65-67; col. 5, ll. 1-10; fig. 4);
a third protrusion 76 extending outwardly from at least one of the four continuous walls (fig. 4); and
a container 52, wherein when the bendable plastic tray is received in the container, the container is configured to bend at least one of the first protrusion, the second protrusion, or the third protrusion when the bendable plastic tray is received in the container (abstract).
Katsis fails to disclose a flap extending from the container wall. Hession teaches wherein a protrusion comprises a flap 20 configured to be bent at an acute angle with respect to either the first protrusion or the second protrusion (abstract; fig. 3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the walls of Katsis to include the flap of Hesson to assist in easily locking the assembly.
Claim 72: Kastsis-Hession discloses the tray system of claim 65, wherein the flap is bent at the acute angle while in the container (Hession; fig. 3-4).
Claim 73: Katsis-Hession discloses thee tray system of claim 71, wherein the flap is bent at the acute angle when the tray is received in the container (Hession; [0026]).
Claims 74: Katsis-Hession discloses the tray system of claim 65, wherein when the bendable plastic tray is received in the container, the container is configured to bend at least two of the four continuous rectangular walls and at least one of the first protrusion, the second protrusion, or the third protrusion when the bendable plastic tray is received in the container, further wherein the flap is longer than the first protrusion and the second protrusion, and further wherein the flap is bent at the acute angle when the tray is received inside the container (Katsis; abstract; col. 3, ll. 18-30).
Claim 80 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katsis (US 7,757,843) in view of Gelardi et al. (US 2003/0062287) in view of Hession (US 2008/0093252).
Claim 80: Katsis-Gelardi disclose the tray system of claim 79, but fails to disclose a flap being bent at an acute angle. Hesson teaches wherein the flap is bent at the acute angle when the tray and the at least one edible product are received inside the container (fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the walls of Katsis to include the flap of Hesson to assist in easily locking and accessing the stored product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant referenced the spring arms of prior art Katsis (US 7,757,843) displays to assist in biasing the push-buttons located on the sidewalls of the container body. Katsis fails to teach that the spring arms are slits. The spring arms are placed as latch attachments on the container body. Push-buttons 38/40 engage the latches and are slid and depressed to extend through the openings of the outer container body. Because the spring arms are not represented as slits, the continuity of the container sidewalls is maintained.
The motivational statements found in the rejection above have been updated to reflect the similar child resistant features of the combined references. The rejection is respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm 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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached at 571-272-4561. 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.
/RAVEN COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735