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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 March 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11 March 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(h)(3) because the plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. MPEP 608.02 V. Section line 10-10 does not indicate the plane upon which figure 10 is taken as it does not pass through a divider. Section line 6-6 does not extend past the downturn 54 and exist at the plate bottom.
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (p)(3) because numbers, letters, and reference characters should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct. See MPEP 608.02 V. See section lines 6-6 and 10-10 figure 2.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: R4, R5, R6, R10. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The description is objected to because all section lines used are not referred to in the brief description of drawings. MPEP 608.01(f).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification is replete with floating reference characters with no associated structure. See at least A1, A2, Y1, Y2, Y3, X1, X2, X3, R1, R2, R3.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: lesser downturn.
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) 1-3, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johns (US 20040069788).
Claim 1: Johns discloses a plate 10 (compartmented pressware paper plate) [see P. 0087 & 0089] with ribs 34, 36, 38 (tall dividers) formed from a paperboard blank comprising a bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) adjoining a first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16, together reading on the claimed plate sidewall, extending around the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) and projecting outwardly and upwardly therefrom to a second annular transition portion 18 and flange 20, together reading on the claimed flange, flaring outwardly from the first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall), ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more tall dividers) adjoining the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) characterized by a height 48 (divider height, DH,) from the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) greater than 9/32", said ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more tall dividers) extending from the first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall) to a central portion of the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) and being configured to segment the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) into a plurality of serving sections 40, 42, 44 (serving compartments), the second annular transition portion 18 and flange 20 (flange) being characterized by height, H, at its apex from the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) and a flange 20 (outward flange downturn) extending downwardly an flange outer vertical drop 54 (distance, V,) with respect to the apex of the second annular transition portion 18 and flange 20 (flange), wherein the flange 20 (outwards flange downturn) extends further downwards at location of tabs 24 & 26 a distance, V, equal to the height, H, minus a tab height H.sub.T, wherein a variable ratio of V:H is from about 0.1 to about 0.75 such that the second annular transition portion 18 and flange 20 (outward flange) is provided with an enhanced downturn, leading to the tabs 24 & 26, at a junction with the ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more dividers) with the first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall) and a flange 20 (lesser downturn) located other than in the vicinity of the junction (see annotated fig. 14 below, fig. 1, 5, and P. 0019, 0067, 0096, 0027, 0098, 0134). Examiner notes that Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “at” as used as a function word to indicate presence or occurrence in, on, or near. As such, the broadest most reasonable interpretation of “at a junction” is near a junction. As at least part of the enhanced downturn is near the junction of the rib 36 (divider) and the annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall) the enhanced downturn likewise is at the junction of the rib 36 (divider) and the annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall).
As Johns discloses the ratio of the height H of the container to the characteristic diameter being about 0.05 to about 0.3 and the ratio of the flange outer vertical drop 54 (distance, V) to the diameter being greater than about 0.0175, Johns discloses the ratio of the flange outer vertical drop 54 (V):H being .35 when the ratio of height H of the container to the characteristic diameter is 0.05 and the ratio of the flange outer vertical drop 54 (distance, V) to the diameter is 0.0175, Johns further discloses that the ratio of the Y5/D is slightly larger than the ratio of H.sub.T/D resulting in the ratio of height, H, minus tab height H.sub.T (distance, V) to H being slightly larger than the ratio of the flange outer vertical drop 54 (V):H and within the claimed range when the ratio of height H of the container to the characteristic diameter is 0.05 (see P. 0019, 0067, 0096, 0027, 0098, 0134).
As Johns discloses the height 48 (divider height, DH) being at most 0.75 times the height, H, the ratio of the Height, H, of the container to the characteristic diameter being about 0.05 to about 0.3, and the diameter being 9”, Johns discloses a height 48 (divider height, DH) of .3375 inches when the ratio of height H of the container to the characteristic diameter is 0.05 and the height 48 (divider height, DH) is 0.75 times the height, H (see P. 0019, 0067, 0096, 0027, 0098, 0134).
Pressware and formed from a paperboard blank are product-by-process limitations. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the divider height or for the ratio of V:H.
PNG
media_image1.png
333
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Johns discloses wherein the divider height DH of each of the ribs 34, 36, 38 (tall dividers) being .3375 inches which falls within the claimed range of from about 0.3" to 0.75" (see above calculations).
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the divider height range.
Claim 3: Johns discloses wherein the variable ratio of V:H is .35 and slightly larger at the tab 26 which fall within the claimed range of from 0.3 to 0.65 (see above calculations).
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the ratio of V:H.
Claim 17: Johns discloses wherein the plate 10 has 3 ribs 34, 36, 38 (tall dividers) in a Y configuration at a central junction on the plate 10 (see fig. 1).
Claim 19: Johns discloses wherein the plate 10 has 3 ribs 34, 36, 38 (tall dividers) in a Y configuration at a central junction on the plate 10, ribs 34 and 38 (two of which) are longer than rib 36 (the third) and extend outwardly in an arcuate trajectory from the central junction (see fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johns (US 20040069788).
Claim 18: Johns discloses wherein the central junction transitions between ribs 34, 36, 38 (tall dividers) with a radii 46 (radius of curvature) of about 0.04 to about 0.3 times diameter, D and the diameter being 9” resulting in the radii 46 (radius of curvature) being from 0.36” to 2.7” which overlaps the claimed range of from 0.75" to 1.5" (see P. 0096 & 0134 and fig. 2).
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the radius of curvature of the central junction range.
Claim(s) 12-15 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johns (US 20040069788) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Finchum (US 5335787).
Claim 12: Johns discloses wherein the enhanced downturn has lobes extending downwardly more than adjacent portions of the second annular transition portion 18 and flange 20 (flange) (see annotated fig. 14 above and fig. 1).
Johns does not disclose wherein said one or more dividers adjoining the sidewall of the plate at a height, SDH, less than DH.
Finchum teaches a tray 10 having a divider rib 14 that is not of even height across the tray 10 and which adjoins a continuous sidewall 11 at a lower height (height, SDH) than the pinnacle of the divider rib 14 (see fig. 1 and C. 4 L. 51-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more dividers) to adjoin the first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall) of the plate 10 at a lower height (height, SDH) less than height 48 (divider height, DH), as taught by Finchum, in order to increase plate 10 strength.
Claim 13: The combination discloses the claimed invention except for the ratio of SDH to DH being from 0.15 to 0.75.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the ratio of SDH to DH be from 0.15 to 0.75, since applicant has not disclosed that the ratio of SDH to DH solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the ratio of SDH to DH.
Claim 14: The combination discloses the claimed invention except for the ratio of SDH to DH being from 0.25 to 0.65.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the ratio of SDH to DH be from 0.25 to 0.65, since applicant has not disclosed that the ratio of SDH to DH solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the ratio of SDH to DH.
Claim 15: The combination meets claim 15 as the enhanced downturn having lobes is optional.
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the lobe distance.
Claim 25: Johns discloses a plate 10 (compartmented pressware paper plate) [see P. 0087 & 0089] with ribs 34, 36, 38 (dividers) formed from a paperboard blank comprising a bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) adjoining a first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16, together reading on the claimed plate sidewall, extending around the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) and projecting outwardly and upwardly therefrom to a second annular transition portion 18 and flange 20, together reading on the claimed flange, flaring outwardly from the first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall), ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more dividers) adjoining the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) characterized by a height 48 (divider height, DH,) from the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom), said ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more dividers) extending from the first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall) to a central portion of the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) and being configured to segment the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) into a plurality of serving sections 40, 42, 44 (serving compartments), said ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more dividers) adjoining the sidewall of the plate 10 at a height, SDH, wherein the second annular transition portion 18 and flange 20 (flange) is provided with an enhanced downturn, leading to the tabs 24 & 26, in the vicinity of a junction of the ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more dividers) with the first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall), as the original disclosure provides a special definition of “in the vicinity” being a distance between recited elements of generally 0.35 times the characteristic diameter of the plate or less and as can be seen in figure 2 the innermost portion of the enhanced downturns, leading to the tabs 24 & 26, are within 0.35 times the diameter of the plate of the junction between the rib 36 (divider) and the annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall) and therefore are within the vicinity, the enhanced downturn having lobes extending downwardly more than adjacent portions of the second annular transition portion 18 and flange 20 (flange) (see fig. 1, 2, 4, 5, and P. 0019, 0067, 0096, 0027, 0098, 0134, and annotated fig. 14 above).
Johns does not disclose the height SDH being less than DH.
Finchum teaches a tray 10 having a divider rib 14 that is not of even height across the tray 10 and which adjoins a continuous sidewall 11 at a lower height (height, SDH) than the pinnacle of the divider rib 14 (see fig. 1 and C. 4 L. 51-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more dividers) to adjoin the first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall) of the plate 10 at a lower height (height, SDH) less than height 48 (divider height, DH), as taught by Finchum, in order to increase plate 10 strength.
Pressware and formed from a paperboard blank are product-by-process limitations. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the divider height or for the ratio of V:H.
Claim(s) 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johns (US 20040069788) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chase US D695077).
Claim 4: Johns discloses wherein the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) defines a bottom surface adjoining and transitioning to the first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (plate sidewall) extending around the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) and projecting outwardly and upwardly therefrom, wherein the first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (plate sidewall) defines a plate sidewall surface and adjoining the second annular transition portion 18 and flange 20 (flange) flaring outwardly from the first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall).
Johns does not disclose wherein transitions between adjoining surfaces of the bottom surface and the divider sidewall surfaces are characterized by variable radii of curvature wherein the variable radii of curvature vary from a first value proximate to transitions between two surfaces to a second value higher than the first value at transitions proximate to an intersection of three surfaces.
Chase teaches a compartmentalized container having a bottom surface adjoining and transitioning to a sidewall extending around the bottom and projecting outwardly and upwardly therefrom and dividers having divider sidewall surfaces, wherein transitions between adjoining surfaces of the bottom surface and the divider sidewall surfaces are characterized by variable radii of curvature wherein the variable radii of curvature vary from a first value proximate to transitions between two surfaces to a second value higher than the first value at transitions proximate to the intersection of three surfaces (see annotated fig. 4 below and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the plate 10 such that transitions between adjoining surfaces of the bottom surface and the divider sidewall surfaces had a variable radii of curvature which varies from a first value proximate to transitions between two surfaces to a second value higher than the first value at transitions proximate to the intersection of three surfaces, as taught by Chase, in order to reduce stress concentrations at the corners and more easily permit full withdrawal of held contents which may get stuck at nonrounded corners.
PNG
media_image2.png
558
643
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 5: The combination discloses wherein the ratio of the second value of variable radii of curvature proximate to the intersection of 3 surfaces to the first value of transitions proximate to transitions between 2 surfaces is ~1.3 which falls within the claimed range of from 1.25 to 2.5 (see annotated fig. 4 above).
En arguendo, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the ratio of variable radii of curvature proximate to the intersection of 3 surfaces to the first value of transitions proximate to transitions between 2 surfaces be from 1.25 to 2.5, since applicant has not disclosed that the ratio of the second value of variable radii of curvature proximate to the intersection of 3 surfaces to the first value of transitions proximate to transitions between 2 surfaces solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the ratio of the second value of variable radii of curvature proximate to the intersection of 3 surfaces to the first value of transitions proximate to transitions between 2 surfaces.
Claim 6: The combination discloses wherein a ratio of the second value of variable radii of curvature proximate to the intersection of 3 surfaces to the first value of transitions proximate to transitions between 2 surfaces is ~1.3 (see annotated fig. 4 above).
The combination does not disclose the ratio being from 1.35 to 2.1.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the ratio of variable radii of curvature proximate to the intersection of 3 surfaces to the first value of transitions proximate to transitions between 2 surfaces be from 1.35 to 2.1, since applicant has not disclosed that the ratio of the second value of variable radii of curvature proximate to the intersection of 3 surfaces to the first value of transitions proximate to transitions between 2 surfaces solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the ratio of the second value of variable radii of curvature proximate to the intersection of 3 surfaces to the first value of transitions proximate to transitions between 2 surfaces.
Claim 7: The combination discloses the claimed invention except for wherein one or more regions of the plate proximate to the intersection of 3 surfaces are characterized by a filleted structure having a radius of curvature value of from 0.25" to 0.5" between the plate bottom and divider sidewall(s).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the radius of curvature value be from 0.25" to 0.5" between the plate bottom and divider sidewall(s), since applicant has not disclosed that the range of the second value of radius of curvature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the range of the second value of radius of curvature.
Claim 8: Johns discloses wherein the ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more tall dividers) have an outer terminal portion proximate the first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall) and a medial portion between the terminal portion of the ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more tall dividers) and the central portion of the plate 10 (see fig. 2).
Johns does not disclose the one or more tall dividers transitioning from the plate bottom at a constant medial transition radius of curvature over its medial portion, the outer terminal portion of the one or more tall dividers having a filleted structure with variable radii of curvature, including a fillet characteristic radius of curvature between the sidewall surfaces and plate bottom larger than the medial radius of curvature of the medial portion of the one or more tall dividers.
Chase teaches a compartmentalized container having a divider having an outer terminal portion proximate a sidewall and a medial portion between the terminal portion of the divider and a central portion of the container, wherein the divider transitions from a bottom surface of the container at a constant medial transition radius of curvature over its medial portion, the outer terminal portion of the divider having a filleted structure with variable radii of curvature, including a fillet characteristic radius of curvature between a sidewall surface and bottom larger than the medial radius of curvature of the medial portion of the divider (see annotated fig. 4 above and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the plate 10 such that the ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more tall dividers) transitions from the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) at a constant medial transition radius of curvature over its medial portion and such that the outer terminal portion of the ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more tall dividers) had a filleted structure with variable radii of curvature, including a fillet characteristic radius of curvature between a sidewall surface and bottom larger than the medial radius of curvature of the medial portion of the one or more tall dividers, as taught by Chase, in order to reduce stress concentrations at the corners and more easily permit full withdrawal of held contents which may get stuck at nonrounded corners.
Claim 9: The combination discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the medial transition radius of curvature is from 0.15" to 0.40".
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the medial transition radius of curvature be from 0.15" to 0.40", since applicant has not disclosed that the range of the second value of radius of curvature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the range of the medial transition radius of curvature.
Claim 10: The combination discloses wherein the filleted structure of the outer terminal portion of the ribs 34, 36, 38 (tall divider) includes a first pair of fillets aligned with the medial portion of the ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more tall dividers) along the tall divider sidewall surfaces (see annotated fig. 4 above).
Claim 11: The combination discloses wherein the filleted structure of the outer terminal portion of the ribs 34, 36, 38 (tall divider) includes a second pair of fillets aligned with the outer terminal portion of the ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more tall dividers) along the tall divider sidewall surfaces (see annotated fig. 4 above).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johns (US 20040069788) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chase US D695077) and Finchum (US 5335787).
Claim 16: Johns discloses the claimed invention except wherein transitions between adjoining surfaces of the plate bottom and divider sidewall surfaces are characterized by variable radii of curvature wherein the variable radii of curvature vary from a first value proximate to transitions between two surfaces to a second value higher than the first value at transitions proximate to the intersection of three surfaces, said one or more dividers also adjoining the sidewall of the plate at a height, SDH, less than DH.
Finchum teaches a tray 10 having a divider rib 14 that is not of even height across the tray 10 and which adjoins a continuous sidewall 11 at a lower height (height, SDH) than the pinnacle of the divider rib 14 (see fig. 1 and C. 4 L. 51-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more dividers) to adjoin the first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall) of the plate 10 at a lower height (height, SDH) less than height 48 (divider height, DH), as taught by Finchum, in order to increase plate 10 strength.
Chase teaches a compartmentalized container having a bottom surface adjoining and transitioning to a sidewall extending around the bottom and projecting outwardly and upwardly therefrom and dividers having divider sidewall surfaces, wherein transitions between adjoining surfaces of the bottom surface and the divider sidewall surfaces are characterized by variable radii of curvature wherein the variable radii of curvature vary from a first value proximate to transitions between two surfaces to a second value higher than the first value at transitions proximate to the intersection of three surfaces (see annotated fig. 4 above and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the plate 10 such that transitions between adjoining surfaces of the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) and the divider sidewall surfaces had a variable radii of curvature which varies from a first value proximate to transitions between two surfaces to a second value higher than the first value at transitions proximate to the intersection of three surfaces, as taught by Chase, in order to reduce stress concentrations at the corners and more easily permit full withdrawal of held contents which may get stuck at nonrounded corners.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johns (US 20040069788) further in view of Chase US D695077).
Claim 24: Johns discloses a plate 10 (compartmented pressware paper plate) [see P. 0087 & 0089] with ribs 34, 36, 38 (dividers) formed from a paperboard blank comprising a bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) defining a bottom surface adjoining and transitioning to a first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16, together reading on the claimed plate sidewall, extending around the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) and projecting outwardly and upwardly therefrom, the first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (plate sidewall) defining a plate sidewall surface and adjoining a second annular transition portion 18 and flange 20, together reading on the claimed flange, flaring outwardly from the first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall), the plate 10 further comprising ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more dividers) each having a pair of divider sidewall surfaces and adjoining the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) which transitions to the divider sidewall surfaces, wherein the ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more dividers) are characterized by a height 48 (divider height, DH,) from the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom), said ribs 34, 36, 38 (one or more dividers) extending from the first annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall) toward a central portion of the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) and being configured to segment the bottom portion 12 (plate bottom) into a plurality of serving sections 40, 42, 44 (serving compartments) (see fig. 1, 5, 14, and P. 0019, 0067, 0096, 0027, 0098, 0134).
Johns does not disclose wherein transitions between adjoining surfaces of the bottom surface and the divider sidewall surfaces are characterized by variable radii of curvature extending from one to another of the adjoining surfaces of the bottom surface and the divider sidewall surfaces, wherein the variable radii of curvature vary from a first value proximate to transitions between two surfaces to a second value higher than the first value at transitions proximate to n intersection of three surfaces.
Chase teaches a compartmentalized container having a bottom surface adjoining and transitioning to a sidewall extending around the bottom and projecting outwardly and upwardly therefrom and dividers having divider sidewall surfaces, wherein transitions between adjoining surfaces of the bottom surface and the divider sidewall surfaces are characterized by variable radii of curvature in a direction extending from one to another of the adjoining surfaces of the bottom surface and the divider sidewall surfaces, wherein the variable radii of curvature vary from a first value proximate to transitions between two surfaces to a second value higher than the first value at transitions proximate to an intersection of three surfaces (see annotated fig. 4 above and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the plate 10 such that transitions between adjoining surfaces of the bottom surface and the divider sidewall surfaces had a variable radii of curvature in a direction extending from one to another of the adjoining surfaces of the bottom surface and the divider sidewall surfaces which varies from a first value proximate to transitions between two surfaces to a second value higher than the first value at transitions proximate to the intersection of three surfaces, as taught by Chase, in order to reduce stress concentrations at the corners and more easily permit full withdrawal of held contents which may get stuck at nonrounded corners.
Pressware and formed from a paperboard blank are product-by-process limitations. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Response to Arguments
The claim objections in paragraph 6 of office action dated 17 November 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 11 March 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 8-18 of office action dated 17 November 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 11 March 2026.
Examiner reminds applicant that all changes to the drawings shall be explained, in detail, in either the drawing amendment or remarks section of the amendment paper as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.121. As applicant has failed to do so, Examiner herewith requires a marked-up copy of any further amended drawing figures including annotations indicating the changes made.
Applicant's arguments filed 11 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that when discussing claim 25 the Office Action pointed to peripheral tabs (24, 26) extending outwardly from flange 20 of Johns and alleged these were comparable to the claimed “enhanced downturn”, the Examiner replies that this is inaccurate. The rejection to claim 25 in the most recent outstanding office action stated that “wherein the second annular transition portion 18 and flange 20 (flange) is provided with an enhanced downturn, leading to the tabs 24 & 26” as well as provided figure 14 with an annotation pointing to the structure relied upon to read on the claimed enhanced downturn. The tabs 24 and 26 were not pointed to as being comparable to the claimed enhanced downturn, rather the structure leading to the tabs 24 & 26 was compared to the claimed enhanced downturn (see annotated fig. 14 above).
In response to applicant’s argument that the peripheral tabs 24, 26 do not read on the claimed enhanced downturn because the peripheral tabs 24, 26 are outwardly extending relative to otherwise provided portions of the flange and no additional (i.e., enhanced) downturn is provided via peripheral tabs 24, 26, the Examiner responds that this argument in not commensurate in scope with the rejection at hand which does not rely on the peripheral tabs 24, 26 to read on the claimed enhanced downturn. However, it is noted that Jones explicitly discloses that the tabs may be angled downward -20 degrees or more from a direction parallel to the bottom of the container (P. 0017).
In response to applicant’s argument that redesigning the tabs in that manner would have arguably rendered them inoperable for their intended purpose in Johns, namely for enabling controlling of orientation of the blank during processing into a container, the Examiner responds that this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection at hand which does not redesign any tabs to include an enhanced downturn. It is further noted that Jones explicitly disclose at P. 0102 that the tab design may be altered depending upon the desired aesthetics of the container. Applicant has provided no factual evidence that changing the location of the tabs would render them inoperable.
In response to applicant’s argument that the tabs 24, 26 are not constructed in the vicinity of a junction with any of the divider walls 34, 36, 38 of Johns and instead the tabs 24, 26 are positioned intermediate its divider walls (i.e., not in the vicinity thereof), the Examiner replies that the original disclosure provides a special definition of “in the vicinity” as a distance between recited elements of generally 0.35 times the characteristic diameter of the plate or less. As can be seen in figure 2 the innermost portion of the enhanced downturns, leading to the tabs 24 & 26, are within 0.35 times the diameter of the plate of a junction between the rib 36 (divider) and the annular transition portion 14 and sidewall portion 16 (sidewall) and therefore are within the vicinity.
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., enhanced downturn of a flange only in the vicinity of divider walls) 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). The limitation of “a lesser downturn other than in the vicinity of the junction” is interpreted to require a lesser downturn located at a position other than in the vicinity of the junction. Examiner notes that there does not appear to be support for all locations outside of the vicinity of the junction having a lesser downturn, in light of the special definition of in the vicinity.
In response to applicant’s argument that the variability of any radii of curvature in Chase involves changes in degree of curvature as the compartments change from short to long sides, thus a change in radii in a direction that extends along the length of the respective sides, that the radii of curvature extending in a direction from bottom surfaces to divider surfaces in Chase remain constant and there is no variability in radii of curvature as between the two specific surfaces recited in the claim language nor would those of ordinary skill in the industry have been led to anything of that nature from Chase alone and/or in combination with Johns, the Examiner responds that Chase discloses that there is variability in radii of curvature in a direction extending from one to another of the adjoining surfaces of the bottom surface and the divider sidewall surface (see annotated fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
477
465
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights