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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/16/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 dependent upon a cancelled claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 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.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is dependent upon a cancelled claim and thus it is unclear what the scope/status of the claim is.
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) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6,077,221 to Fowler, Jr (Fowler) in view of US 2007/0175776 to Reeves and US 2022/0265071 to Battaglia et al. (Battaglia).
Regarding claim 8, Fowler discloses a notched rim medical organizer (10, Fig 1) for surgical patties comprising a rim structure (16) being defined by an internal edge and external edge, the external edge including a plurality of securing notches (18), a base structure (12) having a base structure edge (14) along an external perimeter of the base structure, the base structure have a size capable of receiving surgical patties since it has the structure as recited, and the rim structure’s (16) internal edge being integrally formed with the base structure edge (Fig 1, col. 3, ll. 25-30). Fowler further discloses each of the plurality of securing notches is grouped into notch clusters (one cluster on each side A, B, Fig 5 below), each of the plurality of notch clusters being separated by a plurality of rim gaps (C, D, Fig 5 below) having a width, each of the plurality of notch clusters contains tens securing notches (Fig 1). The modified Fowler does not teach each securing notch spaced apart by one-half inch from each other. However, Reeves discloses an organizer (Fig 3) and in particular discloses securing notches (42a-d) spaced apart by one-half inch from each other (€0058). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the distance of the Fowler notches such that there were spaced apart by one half inch as suggested by Reeves in order to facilitate restraint since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The modified Fowler further teaches each of the rim gaps and notch clusters located approximately equidistantly along the rim structure because Fowler discloses the shape of the tray can be square (col. 3, ll. 9-11) and thus with the rim gaps of the same size and notches spaced apart the same distance, then Fowler would also teach the rim gaps and notch clusters located equidistantly. Fowler does not explicitly teach the rim structure of a substantially circular shape; however, Fowler discloses that the tray can have alternate shapes such as round, oval and elliptical (col. 3, ll. 10-15). Battaglia discloses a tray (1) and in particular discloses the tray having a substantially circular shape with a substantially circular rim structure (16). Taken as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it further obvious to change the shape of the Fowler tray to substantially round and circular as suggested by Battaglia in order to adapt to the contents being held in the tray since it has been held that configuration of a claimed container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
PNG
media_image1.png
477
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Fowler further discloses rim structure (16) having a substantially planar structure (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 10, Fowler further discloses each of the plurality of securing notches (18) oriented perpendicular to external edge (Fig 1).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0265071 to Battaglia et al. (Battaglia) in view of Reeves.
Regarding claim 8, Battaglia discloses a notched rim medical organizer (10, Fig 1) for surgical patties (intended use) comprising a rim structure (16) being defined by an internal edge and external edge, the external edge including a plurality of securing notches (24, 26), a base structure (12) having a base structure edge (12c) along an external perimeter of the base structure, the base structure have a size capable of receiving surgical patties since it has the structure as recited, and the rim structure’s (16) internal edge being integrally formed with the base structure edge (Fig 2). Battaglia further discloses each of the plurality of securing notches is grouped into notch clusters (A, B, C, Fig 1 below), each of the plurality of notch clusters being separated by a plurality of rim gap (D, Fig 1 below), each of the plurality of notch clusters contains tens securing notches (Fig 1 below). Battaglia further discloses rim structure (16) configured in a substantially circular shape (Fig 1, ¶0041). Battaglia does not teach each securing notch spaced apart by one-half inch from each other. However, Reeves discloses an organizer (Fig 3) and in particular discloses securing notches (42a-d) spaced apart by one-half inch from each other (€0058). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the distance of the Battaglia notches such that there were spaced apart by one half inch as suggested by Reeves in order to optimize the dimensions of the tray and number of locking assemblies since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In particular, the modified Battaglia further teaches each of the rim gaps and notch clusters located approximately equidistantly along the rim structure as shown in Fig 1 below since the container is circular.
Regarding claim 9, Battaglia further discloses rim structure (16) having a substantially planar structure (Fig 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
712
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Fowler has a different number of securing notches on opposing long sides of the tray relative to the short sides. However, as stated in the rejection above, only the notches on the long sides (A, B) of the tray are considered the plurality of notch clusters and the plurality of notch clusters on the long sides contains ten securing notches. Applicant argues that the rim gaps and notch clusters are not located approximately equidistantly along the rim structure. This is not persuasive because the rim gaps are defined by the short sides of the tray and the length of the short sides are approximately the same. Similarly, the notch clusters are defined by the long sides of the tray and the length of the long sides are approximately the same.
Applicant argues that Battaglia does not teach a grouping of clusters of securing notches. This is not persuasive because as stated in the rejection, above, the grouping of clusters can be considered (A, B, C, Fig 1 above) with rim gaps (D). Applicant argues that clusters of ten securing notches with rim gaps of equal two-inch widths is important for purposes of the invention; however, Battaglia already discloses clusters of ten securing notches as marked above (Fig 1) and applicant has explicitly deleted the limitation of rim gaps of equal two-inch widths in their amendment which raises questions as to the criticality of such a limitation.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., rim gaps being of equal two-inch widths) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm.
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.
/ROBERT POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3735