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 .
Issues of Form
The examiner notes that the applicant has, as a seemingly unintentional mistake, added an additional claim ‘23’ as ‘previously presented’, when a previous claim 23 still exists in the claim set. The examiner notes that the secondary ‘claim 23’ will be considered ‘claim 24’ with the status identifier ‘New’, for examination and rejection purposes. As such, the new ‘claim 24’ will be considered ‘claim 25’, and the new ‘claim 25’ will be considered ‘claim 26’. Corrections to claim numbering and status identifiers, as indicated above, must be formally made in response to this action or the examiner will issue a form of non-compliance.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 23 has been renumbered 24.
Misnumbered claim 24 has been renumbered 25.
Misnumbered claim 25 has been renumbered 26.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morales (NPL: “Impact of Adult Weight, Density, and Age…”, as cited on previous 892), in view of Choi (KR 20190119307, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Morales and Choi, respectively.
Regarding claim 1:
Morales discloses a set of trays (see trays A-C in Fig 1), comprising:
a cover tray having a closed end surrounded by a peripheral sidewall that defines a cavity, the cavity having an opening opposite the closed end (tray C in Fig 1); and
a screened tray having a configuration that is distinct from the cover tray (tray B in Fig 1), the screened tray comprising:
a screened panel that permits airflow therethrough (screen bottom of tray B in Fig 1); and
a support structure that extends outward from a second face of the screened panel (sidewalls of tray B in Fig 1), the support structure having apertures that permit airflow through the support structure (see openings in front side of tray B in Fig 1), the support structure being sized to engage the closed end of the cover tray at a position spaced from the screened panel such that the apertures are disposed between the closed end of the cover tray and the screened panel (structure capable of engaging as such - should a tray C be put atop the screened tray, the screened panel would be spaced from the bottom of the tray atop the screened tray);
wherein the closed end of the cover tray and the support structure of the screened tray further comprise cooperating profiles (see Fig 1, same width/height) that permit the screened tray to support the cover tray in an aligned position (see Fig 1) and in a transverse position (functional language: screened tray structure inherently capable of being stacked transversely upon the cover tray structure given the length of the screen tray is larger than the width of the cover tray) relative to the screened tray.
Morales fails to specifically disclose a containment flange that surrounds and extends outward from a first face of the screened panel, the containment flange being sized to engage the opening of the cover tray such that the screened panel covers and permits airflow through the opening of the cavity, wherein a top edge of the containment flange is spaced from the screened panel such that the screened panel such that the containment flange and the screened panel define a unitary containment tray cavity that is bounded by the containment flange.
Choi discloses stackable trays, each with a containment flange that surrounds and extends outward from a first face of a screened panel (rim rib ¶0049, including outermost ribs 211a, 213a as seen in Fig 3), the containment flange being sized to engage an opening of a tray below it, such that the screened panel covers and permits airflow through the opening of the tray below it (see Fig 12; airflow through opening capable of occurring when top tray engaged on bottom tray), and wherein a top edge of the containment flange is spaced from the screened panel such that the screened panel such that the containment flange and the screened panel define a unitary containment tray cavity that is bounded by the containment flange (see Fig 2; ‘unitary’ under BRI of plain meaning of the term – see response to arguments section for more in depth explanation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trays of Morales to each include edge ribs/containment flanges, as in Choi, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as disclosed in Choi, the edge ribs help facilitate the stackability of the trays, specifically helping to ensure that their relative positions are maintained (¶0051).
Regarding claim 2:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and Choi further discloses wherein the containment flange is sized to nest within the opening of the cavity and immediately adjacent to an inner surface of the peripheral sidewall (¶0051: edge ribs contact front and back plates 301/303 and both side plates 400).
Regarding claim 3:
Morales as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein
the support structure surrounds the screened panel and comprises a remote edge (see annotated Fig 1 below); and wherein the closed end of the cover tray is sized to nest within the support structure (the provision of flanges to the bottom of each tray, as with the modification of Choi for claim 1 above, would provide such functional capability, the flange of a top tray extending into the opening of a lower tray, thereby providing nesting), and comprises a peripheral shoulder that is sized to engage the remote edge of the support structure (see annotated Fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
563
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6:
Morales as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the screened tray comprises a stepped profile that is configured to engage the peripheral sidewall of the cover tray (stepped profile would be formed with the addition of a containment flange on the bottom of each tray, as modified in with Choi for claim 1; see Fig 8 of Choi) and support the screened panel of the screened tray at the opening of the cavity of the cover tray (functional language: structure capable of providing support as such).
Regarding claim 21:
Morales as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the peripheral sidewall is closed to airflow (see sidewalls of tray C, Fig 1).
Claims 8-10, 12-13 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morales in view of Choi and Graham (US 3524431, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Graham.
Regarding claim 8:
Morales discloses a stack of trays (fig 1), comprising:
a first set of trays (A-C in Fig 1), the first set of trays comprising a cover tray (tray C in Fig 1) and a screened tray (tray B in Fig 1), the screened tray having a shape that is distinct from the cover tray (see Fig 1), wherein:
the cover tray comprises a length, a width that is different than the length, and a closed end surrounded by a peripheral sidewall that defines a cavity having an opening opposite the closed end (see Fig 1.C); and
the screened tray comprises:
a length and a width that are substantially the same as the length and the width of the cover tray (see Fig 1);
a screened panel that permits airflow therethrough (screen bottom of tray B in Fig 1);
a support structure that extends outward from a second face of the screened panel (sidewalls of tray B in Fig 1), the support structure having apertures that permit airflow through the support structure (see openings in front side of tray B in Fig 1), the support structure being configured to engage the closed end of the cover tray when the cover tray is substantially aligned with the screened tray such that the screened panel is disposed between the apertures and the closed end of the tray (walls of tray B engage closed end of cover tray C, given tray B engages tray C; see Fig 1 for screened panel being between apertures and closed end of tray C);
Morales fails to specifically disclose:
a containment flange that surrounds and extends outward from a first face of the screened panel, the containment flange being sized to be received within the opening of the cover tray such that the screened panel covers and permits airflow through the opening of the cavity; wherein the containment flange the screened tray is received within the opening of the cover tray in each set of trays.
that the stack of trays comprises at least a first set of trays and a second set of trays (doesn’t teach two sets, only one; it is noted that, as claimed, this second set may be structurally read on by a substantial duplicate of the first set of trays), and that the first set of trays is oriented transversely to the second set of trays with the closed end of the cover tray of the first set of trays engaging the support structure of the screened tray of the second set of trays (duplicate sets of trays are engaged transversely relative to each other).
Choi discloses a set of stackable trays, each with a containment flange that surrounds and extends outward from a first face of a screened panel (rim rib ¶0049, including outermost ribs 211a, 213a as seen in Fig 3), the containment flange being sized to engage an opening of a tray below it, such that the screened panel covers and permits airflow through the opening of the tray below it (see Fig 12; airflow through opening capable of occurring when top tray engaged on bottom tray), the containment flange being received in the opening of the tray below it (see Fig 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the screened tray of Morales to include edge ribs/containment flanges, as in Choi, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as disclosed in Choi, the edge ribs help facilitate the stackability of the trays, specifically helping to ensure that their relative positions are maintained (¶0051).
Graham discloses a stack of trays (animal enclosure structure 10, Fig 1) comprising a first set (top elongated enclosure unit 11 in Figs 1-2) of a tray (top thin-walled container 12, Fig 1) with a screened lid (top closure member 14, Fig 1) and a substantially duplicative second set of a tray with a lid (bottom elongated closure unit 11 in Figs 1-2), wherein the first set is oriented transversely to the second set with the closed end of the tray of the first set engaging the screened lid of the second set (see Figs 1-3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the set of trays in Morales, and oriented them transversely relative to each other, as in Graham, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to provide multiple sets in order to increase insect production rate for mass-scale insect farming, or to provide separate reproductive habitats for insects of different breeds, further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. One would have been motivated to specifically stack the duplicative sets transversely, in order to optimize storage space for mass rearing and transit, while retaining stability of the trays to prevent a set from being easily knocked over; further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 9:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 8 above and Choi further discloses wherein the containment flange of each screened tray is sized to nest within the opening of the cavity and immediately adjacent to an inner surface of the peripheral sidewall of each cover tray (¶0051: edge ribs contact front and back plates 301/303 and both side plates 400).
Regarding claim 10:
Morales as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 above and further discloses wherein the support structure comprises a spacer flange that surrounds the screened panel (support structure as previously defined is in the form of a flange surrounding the screened panel), and the closed end of each cover tray is configured to nest within the spacer flange of an adjacent screened panel (the provision of flanges to the bottom of each tray, as with the modification of Choi for claim 8 above, would provide such functional capability, the flange of a top tray extending into the opening of a lower tray, thereby providing nesting) with a shoulder that is configured to engage a remote edge of the spacer flange (see annotated Fig 1 below; functional language: capable of engaging as claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
563
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12:
Morales as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 above and further discloses wherein the screened tray comprises a stepped profile that is sized to engage the peripheral sidewall of the cover tray (stepped profile would be formed with the addition of a containment flange on the bottom of each tray, as modified in with Choi for claim 1; see Fig 8 of Choi) and support the screened panel of the screened tray at the opening of the cavity of the cover tray (functional language: structure capable of providing support as such).
Regarding claim 13:
Morales as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 above and further discloses wherein each screened tray is invertible (the screened tray is inherently invertible), such that the containment flange and the screened panel define a containment tray cavity (being that the containment flange would extend outward from the screened panel, as visible in Choi with containment flange/ribs 211/213 in Fig 3, a cavity would be formed between the flange and screened panel, having a depth equal to the height of the containment flange/ribs), and encloses the cavity of the cover tray in a second orientation (see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 22:
Morales as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 above and further discloses wherein the closed end of each cover tray is closed to airflow (see cover tray C in Fig 1) and a height of the cover tray is less than a height of the screened tray (see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 23:
Morales as modified discloses the limitations of claim 22 above and further discloses wherein the peripheral sidewall of each cover tray is closed to airflow (see cover tray C in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 24:
Morales as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 above and further discloses wherein a height of the cover tray is less than a height of the screened tray (see Fig 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are allowed.
Claims 11, 25, and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, the applicant contends that Choi teaches containment tray cavities defined by the structural ribs adjacent to a screened surface, and that these spaces do not define a “unitary containment tray cavity that is bounded by the containment flange.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the term ‘unitary’ is broader than the applicant seems to suggest. Per MPEP 2111, the words of a claim must be given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and claims must be given their “broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) in light of the specification, unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification. Nothing in the disclosure indicates that the term should be limited to something other than its BRI/plain meaning; the specification does not include the term ‘unitary’. This being said, the word ‘unitary’ is defined by Dictionary.com as “of or relating to a unit or units”, Merriam webster similarly defining ‘unitary’ as “based on or characterized by unity or units.” This definition is understood as the plain meaning of the term under broadest reasonable interpretation.
The cited structures of Choi fulfill this plain meaning of the term under BRI. The portions of the cavity defined by the grid-pattern structural ribs, within the containment flange could clearly be considered ‘units’ and therefore the cavity may be considered ‘unitary’. The examiner also notes that the applicant’s own invention seems consistent with this interpretation – given the rib-like screen supports 50.
On page 9, the applicant contends that there is no motivation to modify Morales in view of Graham, as suggested by the examiner, and that, by re-orienting the sets of trays in morales, the cavities would be open on either end and no longer enclosed by an overlaying tray. The applicant asserts that Graham provides a screened lid for each tray, but the screened lid of Graham is different than the claimed screened tray, so Graham would not suggest the claimed stack of trays.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that the examiner is not suggesting transversely orienting the screened tray of Morales (tray B in Fig 1) relative to the cover tray of Morales (tray C in Fig 1); as the applicant discussed, this would result in the screened tray being open for insects to potentially escape, and the cover tray not fully below the screened tray, and therefore unable to collect debris from all the screened tray. Instead, the examiner contends that Morales teaches an insect rearing unit, composed of components A-B, and that Graham teaches the transverse orientation of one multipart insect rearing unit (tray and screened lid) atop another insect rearing unit (tray and screened lid). One of ordinary skill in the art, when looking at Morales and Graham, would have found it obvious to have duplicated the unit of Morales and stacked the units transversely to each other, as in Graham, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. The mere fact that the screened lid of Graham is different that the claimed screen tray is immaterial, given Graham is not being relied on for the screened tray. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the examiner asserts that duplicating morales and providing the duplicated units as a transverse stack would have been obvious, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that more insect rearing units would allow for the rearing of more/different insects, based on the users intention, and that transverse stacking may help with space optimization and stack stability.
On pages 9-10 the applicant remarks that the examiner has not addressed the claimed limitation regarding tray height in claim 23.
The examiner notes that the previous claim 23 has been addressed. As explained above, the applicant has introduced a duplicate claim 23 as a new claim, so the examiner has not had a chance to respond to this claim until this action.
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 BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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 on 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights