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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “the given carrier” in lines 20-25. The Office understands that Applicant used the term “the given carrier” to reference “the carrier”, however this may cause confusion as to whether these are distinct and separate structures. Applicant is suggested to revise the language to be consistent with use of -the carrier- to avoid any possible confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: The amended limitation of “wherein the carrier further comprises a nesting element comprising an opening at a corner of the base” is incomplete. As best understood through observation of Applicant’s Figures 7 and 12, nesting would only be possible if multiple openings (133) are present in the invention. Having only a singular opening, as currently recited, would make it impossible to nest another similarly constructed carrier on top of the carrier. Applicant is advised to revise the claim so that multiple openings are present, and thus providing sufficient structure for the claimed invention to function as intended.
Claims 3-5, 7-9 are similarly rejected due to dependency on claim 1 above, as they do not provide sufficient structure to overcome the rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reference of Eland (EP 2817233) fails to teach the limitations of a carrier comprising a perforated base, an upper surface of the base comprising one or more raised sliding rails, and a nesting element comprising an opening at a corner of the base. While newly cited art van Heugten (US 20070137101 A1) teaches a carrier comprising a perforated base and a nesting element comprising an opening at a corner of the base, further modification would need to be done to the base of the carrier to include the raised sliding rails. Furthermore these raised sliding rails would need to be found in a tertiary reference, in which the sliding rails would not interfere with the newly recited limitations of a nesting element. A rejection of the currently recited claim would not be possible without the use of impermissible hindsight, by combining numerous references in a way that would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/EDGAR REYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights