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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The examiner noticed that claim 10 recites “an adjacent screened panel”, and thought the applicant might mean for this to be –an adjacent screened tray--. However, if no correction is desired by the applicant, none is required, as each spacer flange is associated with a screened panel.
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.
Claims 8-13, and 22-23 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 8 recites the limitation "the tray" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the stops support the cover tray of the first set of trays relative to the second set of trays when the first set of trays is oriented transversely to the second set of trays.” This language implies that the first set of trays is not always oriented transversely to the second set of trays; however, this appears to directly contradict claim 8, on which claim 11 depends, which positively claims that the first set of trays is oriented transversely to the second set of trays. Clarification is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (KR 20190119307, as cited on previous 892.
Regarding claim 4:
Choi discloses a set of trays (boxes 100, Figure 12) comprising:
a cover tray (lower of boxes 100 in Figure 12, i.e. lower box 100a as seen in Fig 5) having a closed end surrounded by a peripheral sidewall that defines a cavity, the cavity having an opening opposite the closed end (see annotated Figs 3 and 5 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
464
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
509
711
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a screened tray (upper of boxes 100 in Figure 12, i.e. upper box 100b as seen in Fig 5) comprising:
a screened panel that permits airflow therethrough (see annotated Fig 5 below)
PNG
media_image3.png
372
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a containment flange that surrounds and extends outward from a first face of the screened panel (rim rib ¶0049, including outermost ribs 211a, 213a as seen in Fig 3), 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 (see Fig 12; airflow through opening capable of occurring when cover tray engaged); and
a support structure that extends outward from a second face of the screened panel opposite the containment flange (support structure are outer walls of upper box 100b; see front, rear, and side plates 301, 303 and 400 in Fig 5), the support structure surrounding the screened panel and having a remote edge (see Fig 5; remote edge is upper surface of sidewalls, formed due to sidewall thickness; see annotated Fig 5 below), the support structure having apertures that permit airflow through the support structure (¶0078, ¶0111);
PNG
media_image4.png
499
554
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wherein:
Each of the cover tray and the screened tray are rectangular (see Fig 12);
the support structure is 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 (should the closed end of the cover tray/lower box be stacked atop the screened tray/upper box, because the boxes have identical structure, the result would be as depicted in Figure 12, and the apertures of the support structure would be disposed between the closed end of the cover tray and the screened panel);
the closed end further comprises indents (see indents in outer rib 423 on side opposite protrusions 425 in Fig 6; see annotated Fig 6 below) and the remote edge of the support structure comprises stops (stops are the protruding areas of remote edge in between grooves 110; see annotated Fig 1 below), the indents being configured to cooperate with the stops to permit the cover tray to be supported transversely relative to the screened tray (see Figs 5-6; ¶0038; ¶0026).
PNG
media_image5.png
459
491
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
441
431
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Lee (KR 200349666, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 5:
Choi discloses the limitations of claim 4 above.
Choi fails to disclose wherein the containment flange of the screened tray comprises indents that are configured to cooperate with the stops of the support structure of an additional screened tray to permit the screened tray and the additional screened tray to be stacked transversely.
Lee discloses a tray with a containment flange extending from a lower end of the tray, the containment flange comprising indents that assist in stacking a plurality of the trays transversely in relation to each other (see annotated Fig 3 below; see Fig 4; ¶0054)
PNG
media_image7.png
330
454
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 containment flange of Choi by adding indents, as taught in Lee, whereby the indents and stops would thereby be configured to cooperate to provide the transverse stacking functionality, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because adding the indents would allow for a more stable and secure connection between the trays when stacked transversely, providing less freedom of movement of the trays relative to each other.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 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-D in Fig 2), 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, the closed end being closed to air flow (see frass collection tray C, Fig 2); and
a screened tray (stacked larvae tray B, directly above tray C, Fig 2) having a configuration that is distinct from the cover tray (see Fig 2), the screened tray comprising:
a screened panel that permits airflow therethrough (“screen bottoms”, Pg 4, Fig 2 description); and
a support structure that extends outward from a second face of the screened panel (see annotated Fig 2 below), the support structure having apertures (see annotated Fig 2 below) that permit airflow through the support structure (capable of permitting airflow), 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 2, same width/height) that permit the screened tray to support the cover tray in an aligned position (see Fig 2) 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
PNG
media_image8.png
436
793
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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;
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).
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 2 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 2 below).
PNG
media_image9.png
568
616
media_image9.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 7:
Morales as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the 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).
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 2).
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 8:
Choi discloses a stack of trays, comprising at least a first set of trays and a second set of trays, each of the first set of trays and second set of trays comprising a cover tray and a screened tray (Choi discloses a box structure that is stackable upon itself, shown in the drawings a stack of two for exemplary purposes; based on the stackability of the box and stacking description in the disclosure, a stack of any number of these boxes, including a stack of at least four, is inherently taught by the disclosure; in such a stack, for clarity, the examiner defines the lowermost box as the cover tray of the second set of trays, the second box up as the screened tray of the second set of trays, the third box up as the cover tray of the first set of trays, and the fourth box up/uppermost box as the screened tray of the first set of trays), the screened tray having a configuration that is distinct from the cover tray (the cover tray elements are arranged at a lower position in space than the screened tray elements in each respective set, thereby the screened tray has a distinct configuration from the cover tray in each set) wherein:
each cover tray (having structure of tray 100; Fig 1) 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 annotated Figs 1 & 2 below); and
PNG
media_image10.png
598
690
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
529
710
media_image11.png
Greyscale
each screened tray (having structure of tray 100; Fig 1) comprises:
a length and a width that are substantially the same as the length and the width of the cover tray (length and width the same as they are structurally identical trays);
a screened panel that permits airflow therethrough (see annotated Fig 1 below; capable of permitting airflow through due to apertures);
a containment flange that surrounds and extends outward from a first face of the screened panel (rim rib ¶0049, including outermost ribs 211a, 213a as seen in Fig 3), 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 (when stacked above a cover tray, as seen in Fig 12, the containment flange is received in the opening; airflow through opening capable of occurring when the trays are stacked as such); and
a support structure that extends outward from a second face of the screened panel opposite the containment flange (support structure are outer walls of box 100 that acts as each screened tray; see front, rear, and side plates 301, 303 and 400 in Fig 5; see annotated Fig 1 below), the support structure having apertures that permit airflow through the support structure (see annotated Fig 1 below; ¶0078; ¶0111), 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 (see Fig 12) such that the screened panel is disposed between apertures and the closed end of the tray (with the screen tray engaged atop the cover tray, the result would be as depicted in Figure 12: the support structure of the screened tray would engage the closed end of the cover tray given the screened tray as a whole and the cover tray as a whole would be engaged, and the screened panel would be disposed between the closed end of the cover tray and the apertures, given that the screened panel is the base of the screened tray, which is atop the cover tray, and the apertures are in the walls of the screened tray, which extend up from the screened panel).
PNG
media_image12.png
446
755
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Choi doesn’t specifically disclose wherein, with the containment flange of the screened tray received within the opening of the cover tray for each of the first set of trays and the second set of trays: 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. (i.e. configuration with 4 trays, bottom two stacked parallel, top two stacked parallel, bottom grouping transverse to top grouping, as shown in Fig 5 of applicant’s drawings).
However, Choi does disclose, generally, a box structure that is stackable upon itself (shown in drawings as a stack of two for exemplary purposes), the box being stackable upon itself in two orientations: transverse and non-transverse (as shown in Figs 9 and 12); wherein, in the non-transverse/parallel orientation, the containment flange of the top tray is received within the opening of the bottom tray (see Fig 12; ¶0051), and in the transverse orientation, the closed end of the top tray engages the support structure of the bottom tray (see Fig 9).
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 combined the tray orientations disclosed in Figs 9/12 of Choi, so as to arrange the trays in a stack with each set of the first set of trays and second set of trays having non-transverse orientated tray sets, the first set of trays and second set of trays oriented transversely relative to each other, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to rearrange the trays in such a modification in order to provide spacing as needed between filled trays, to optimize storage and stability during transport, or to, based on the sizes of fish being caught, do or do not provide space for the fish tail to exceed the length of the tray. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. The examiner contends that stacking trays in any number and with any orientation of each tray in the stack, would be well within the ordinary skill in the art in view of the disclosure of Choi.
Regarding claim 9:
Choi discloses the limitations of claim 8 above and 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:
Choi 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 (see Fig 12) with a shoulder (see annotated Fig 8 below) that is configured to engage a remote edge (upper surface of support structure, formed due to the sidewall thickness; see annotated Fig 5 below) of the spacer flange (see Fig 12).
PNG
media_image4.png
499
554
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
437
374
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11:
Choi discloses the limitations of claim 10 above and further discloses wherein the closed end of each cover tray further comprises indents (see indents in outer rib 423 on side opposite protrusions 425 in Fig 6; see annotated Fig 6 below) and the remote edge of the support structure of each screened tray comprises stops (stops are the protruding areas of remote edge in between grooves 110; see annotated Fig 1 below), the indents being configured to cooperate with the stops to support the cover tray of the first set of trays relative to the second set of trays when the first set of trays is oriented transversely to the second set of trays (see Figs 5-6; ¶0038; ¶0026).
PNG
media_image5.png
459
491
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
441
431
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12:
Choi discloses the limitations of claim 8 above and further discloses wherein each screened tray comprises a stepped profile that is sized to engage the peripheral sidewall of each cover tray and support the screened panel of each screened tray at the opening of the cavity of each cover tray (see annotated Fig 8 below; engages peripheral sidewall and supports screened tray when column-stacked, as seen in Fig 12).
PNG
media_image14.png
437
374
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13:
Choi discloses the limitations of claim 8 above and further discloses wherein each screened tray is invertible, such that the containment flange and the screened panel define a containment tray cavity in a first orientation (the screened tray is inherently invertible, and being that the containment flange/ribs 211/213 extend outwards from the screened panel, as can be seen 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 (when not inverted, and stacked on the cover tray, the screened tray would enclose the cavity, as seen in Fig 12).
Claims 8, and 22-23 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), as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 8:
Morales discloses a stack of trays (fig 1), comprising a 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 configuration 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 also 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 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).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the remarks, the applicant remarks that claim 4 has been amended to include the subject matter of claims 1 and 3, which the examiner suggested would be considered allowable.
The examiner remarks that the applicant failed to incorporate all the limitations of the previous claim 1, therefore, claim 4 as amended is no longer indicated allowable, and is rejected over Choi above. On page 9 the applicant contends that, in Choi, the stack of trays is made up of trays having the same configuration, and not distinct configurations as claimed.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the term ‘configuration’ is broader than the applicant seems to contend. 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 “configuration” should be limited to something other than its BRI/plain meaning. This being said, the word “configuration” is defined by Collins Dictionary as “an arrangement of a group of things”. This definition is understood as the plain meaning of the term under broadest reasonable interpretation, and is consistent with the specification. As such, although the cover tray and screened tray of Choi have the same structure, the configuration of the cover tray may be considered different than the configuration of the screened tray, in that the cover tray elements are arranged at a lower position in space than the screened tray elements. Should the applicant wish to require that the structure of the cover tray be different from the structure of the screened tray, more specific language must be used.
Conclusion
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