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 .
This action is written in response to the amendment filed 03/11/2026
Claims 1, 4, 16, 23 and 34 have been amended
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 151, 18, 21, 23, 26, 29, 32, 34 and 37 are presented for examination
This action is Final
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 11, 14and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Godsey (Des. 283,162).
Claim 1. Godsey discloses a substrate for retaining a fluid wherein said substrate is substantially planar, has an upper surface and comprises a plurality of wells provided therein each having walls and a base positioned below the upper surface, wherein each one of said wells has a cross-sectional shape and cross-sectional length configured to retain fluid by capillary action and further wherein the walls of said wells extend above the upper surface of said substrate forming a rim.
PNG
media_image1.png
196
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4. Godsey discloses the substrate according to claim 1 wherein at least one of:
the rim comprises an elongate structure mirroring a well boundary and extended extending above the upper surface of the substrate (fig. 1, 4), or
the rim comprises a tapered rim edge.
Claim 11. Godsey discloses the substrate according to claim 1 wherein the wells are positioned immediately adjacent to one another (fig. 6).
Claim 14. Godsey discloses the substrate according to claim 1 wherein at least one of: the wells are of a cross-sectional shape selected from substantially circular, elliptical, triangular, cross-shaped, hexagonal, or otherwise polygonal shapes in cross- section, or the wells are of a cross-sectional shape selected from substantially circular, triangular, cross-shaped, or hexagonal shape in cross-section (fig. 6-7).
Claim 16. Godsey discloses the substrate according to claim 1 wherein at least one of: the wells are provided as at least one array having a two-dimensional shape, a first dimension of which is aligned or staggered with a first axis of said substrate which it is provided and a second dimension of which is aligned or staggered with a second axis of said substrate or the substrate is provided with a plurality of arrays of wells (fig. 6-7).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 2, 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godsey (Des. 283,162).
Claims 2, 6, 10. Godsey discloses the substrate according to claim 1 wherein at least one of:
the rim has a height and cross-sectional width (fig. 5, 7).
To modify the size of rim into the claimed range of 10 and greater 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 '1 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(s) 8, 12, 18, 21, 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godsey (Des. 283,162) in view of Holden (US 4,533,585).
Claims 8, 12. Godsey discloses the substrate according to claim 1 but fails to disclose a cross-sectional length of the wells. Holden teaches a substrate provided with a plurality of wells wherein at least one of: the wells have a diameter or maximum cross-sectional length selected within a range of about 6-13 mm including both 6mm and 13mm and all 0.01 mm therebetween, or the wells have a diameter or maximum cross-sectional length selected from the group comprising 6mm, 7mm, 8mm, 9mm, 10mm, 1 1mm, 12mm, 13mm and all 0.01 mm therebetween (col. 3, 11. 55-63; col. 5, 11. 19-24). 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 wells of Godsey to include the cross-sectional areas of Holder to accommodate the anticipated spillage of the stored product.
Claim 18. Godsey discloses the substrate according to claim 1 but fails to disclose tapered wells. Holden teaches a substrate wherein at least one of: the wells are tapered whereby a cross-sectional length of the wells changes diminishes from a top of the well to a base of the well, or vice versa (col. 4, ll. 50-67), the wells are tapered by an angle selected from a range of about 1-15° including both 1° and 15° and every 0.1° therebetween (col. 4, ll. 50-67), or the wells are tapered by an angle selected from a range of about 5-15° including both 5° and 15° and every 0.1° therebetween. 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 well shape of Godsey to include the tapered wells of Holden to assist in providing extra strength to the well walls.
Claim 21. Godsey discloses the substrate according to claim 1 but fails to disclose a specific manufactured material. Holden teaches wherein at least one of:
the substrate is manufactured from a material selected from the group comprising:
polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, or combinations thereof (col. 3, ll. 20-33;),
including thermoformed or expanded polymer forms thereof or
the wells are provided as at least one array, wherein the array comprises circular cross-sectional wells having a cross-sectional length within a range of about 8-10mm including both 8mm and 10mm and all 0. 1mm therebetween (fig. 1)
Claims 23, 26. Godsey discloses the substrate according to claim 1 but fails to disclose a specific cross-sectional range. Holden teaches wherein at least one of:
the wells have a rim of height of about at least 0.2mm, the wells comprise a tapered rim edge (@33), or
the rim has a cross-sectional width, as measured in a horizontal/transverse plane, within a range of about 0.20-1.00mm including both 20mm and 1.00mm and all 0.0 mm therebetween (col. 3, 11. 55-63; col. 5, 11. 19-24; fig. 2). 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 wells of Collett to include the cross-sectional areas of Holder to accommodate the anticipated spillage of the stored product.
Claim(s) 29, 32, 34 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godsey (Des. 283,162).
Claims 29, 32. Godsey discloses a packaging tray comprising at least one substrate according to claim 1 but fails to disclose upwardly extending walls from the floor. Holden teaches wherein at least one of:
the packaging tray comprises a floor and side walls extending upwardly from the floor (fig. 1-4), wherein the floor comprises the at least one substrate, or the at least one substrate is provided as a removable insert for positioning in the floor of the packaging tray. 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 sidewalls of Godsey to include the upwardly extending walls of Holden to maintain the liquid in the tray during transport/usage.
Claim 34. Godsey-Holden discloses the packaging tray according to claim 29, further comprising at least one of: one or more raised platforms, one or more bumpers, or a plurality of wells having a chamfered wall (Godsey; fig. 5).
Claim 37. Godsey discloses a substrate made form a single sheet but fails to disclose a process for manufacturing a substrate by thermoforming. Visser discloses a process of manufacturing according to claim 1, comprising the thermoforming a sheet of material into a substrate or a tray [0069]. 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 process of forming the sheet of Godsey to include the thermoforming process of Visser to assist in fabricating a more cost-effective product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but in view of the amendment the search has been updated, new prior art has been identified and applied, and a new rejection has been made.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
Prosecution Insights