CTNF 18/202,570 CTNF 86992 DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species A-1, B-2, C-2, D-2, and E-1 (claims 1 – 4, 7 – 17, 21, 22, 26, and 27) in the reply filed on February 25, 2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 5, 6, 18 – 20, 23 – 25, and 28 – 44 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and/or Species (Inventions II – IV and Species A-2, A-3, B-1, B-3, C-1, C-3, D-1, D-3, D-4, E-2, E-3, and E-4) , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 25, 2026 . 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing machine” recited in claim 11 and 17 “docking member” recited in claim 12 “mating component” recited in claims 12, 15, and 16 “mating structure” recited in claim 21 “second mating structure” recited in claim 21 Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The limitation “docking member” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because: (A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“member”). (B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“docking” or ‘for docking’). (C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “docking member” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘one of a mechanical connector, an electro-mechanical connector, a spring-loaded ball and detent connector, a magnetic connector, or a protrusion and recess,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 42), or an equivalent thereof. The limitation “mating component” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because: (A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“component”). (B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“mating” or ‘for mating’ or “configured to mate with the docking member of any support of the plurality of supports to position the support”). (C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “mating component” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘one of a mechanical connector, an electro-mechanical connector, a spring-loaded ball and detent connector, a magnetic connector, or a protrusion and recess,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 42), or an equivalent thereof. The limitation “mating structure” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because: (A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“structure”). (B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“mating” or ‘for mating’ and “configured to mate with a second mating structure of an arm of a robot to facilitate lifting the tray and moving the tray from one location to another location”). (C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “mating structure” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘one of a key, pin or hook, or magnet,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 78), or an equivalent thereof. The limitation “second mating structure” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because: (A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“structure”). (B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“mating” or ‘for mating’). (C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “second mating structure” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a mating block,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 7), or an equivalent thereof. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 17, 21, 22, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a plurality of substantially identical trays” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. Because “substantially” is a term of degree which is not expressly defined in the Specification, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a plurality of identical trays.” Claim 1 further recites the limitation “each tray” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to each of the ‘plurality of identical trays’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to refer to ‘trays’ other than the ‘plurality of identical trays’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “each of the plurality of identical trays.” Claim 1 further recites the limitation “each spacer” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to each of the ‘plurality of spacers’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to refer to ‘spacers other than the ‘plurality of spacers’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “each of the plurality of spacers.” Claim 1 further recites the limitation “each stacking post” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to each of the “at least one stacking post” previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to refer to ‘stacking posts’ other than the ‘stacking posts’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “each of the at least one stacking posts.” Claim 1 further recites the limitation “another stacking post” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one of the ‘at least one stacking post’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to refer to a ‘stacking post’ other than the ‘stacking posts’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “another one of the at least one stacking posts.” Claim 1 recites the limitation “another tray” in the last paragraph. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one of the ‘plurality of identical trays’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘tray’ which is separate and independent to the ‘plurality of identical trays’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “another tray of the plurality of identical trays.” Claim 2 recites the limitation “the other end of each stacking post.” The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the other end.” Secondly, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends ‘each stacking post’ to refer to each of the “at least one stacking post” previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to refer to ‘stacking posts’ other than the ‘stacking posts’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the another end of each of the stacking posts.” Claim 2 further recites the limitation “a centering tip of another stacking post.” The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the ‘centering tip’ to refer to the ‘centering tip’ previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘centering tip’ which is separate and independent from the ‘centering tip’ previously set forth. Secondly, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends “another stacking post” to refer to one of the ‘stacking posts’ previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘stacking post’ which is separate and independent from the ‘stacking posts’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the centering tip of another one of the at least one stacking post.” Claim 3 recites the limitation “each stacking post.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to each of the “at least one stacking post” previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to refer to ‘stacking posts’ other than the ‘stacking posts’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “each of the at least one stacking posts.” Claim 4 recites the limitation “an alignment feature.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one of the ‘alignment features’ previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘alignment feature’ which is separate and independent from the ‘alignment features’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the alignment feature.” Claim 7 recites the limitation “each alignment feature.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to each of the ‘alignment features’ previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to refer to ‘alignment features’ other than the ‘alignment features’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “each of the alignment features.” Claim 7 further recites the limitation “an upper tray.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one of the ‘plurality of identical trays’ previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an ‘upper tray’ which is separate and independent from the ‘plurality of identical trays’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “an upper tray of the plurality of identical trays.” Claim 7 further recites the limitation “a lower tray.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one of the ‘plurality of identical trays’ previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a ‘lower tray’ which is separate and independent from the ‘plurality of identical trays’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a lower tray of the plurality of identical trays.” Claim 8 recites the limitation “a plurality of substantially identical supports.” Because “substantially” is a term of degree which is not expressly defined in the Specification, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a plurality of identical supports.” Claim 8 further recites the limitation “each support” twice in the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to refer to each of the ‘plurality of identical supports’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to refer to ‘supports’ other than the ‘supports’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “each of the identical supports.” Claim 9 recites the limitation “each support.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to each of the ‘plurality of identical supports’ previously set forth in claim 8, or whether Applicant intends to refer to ‘supports’ other than the ‘supports’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “each of the identical supports.” Claims 13 and 15 each recite the limitation “first support functioning as an infeed support.” The limitations are indefinite for several reasons. First, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends “first support” to refer to one of the ‘plurality of identical supports’ previously set forth in claim 8, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘support’ which is separate and independent from the ‘plurality of identical supports’ previously set forth. Secondly, Examiner notes that the claims are directed towards ‘a tray system for robotic part processing.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to positively require the ‘first support to ‘function as an infeed support,’ such that the claims are directed towards ‘a method of robotic part processing,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitations to recite functional language of the ‘first support,’ such that the claims are directed towards the ‘tray system’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “a first support of the plurality of identical supports is configured to function as an infeed support.” Claim 13 further recites the limitation “a second dock.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one of the ‘at least one dock’ previously set forth in claim 10, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘dock’ which is separate and independent from the ‘at least one dock.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a second dock of the at least one dock.” Claims 13 and 15 each recites the limitation “... a second support functioning as an outfeed support” The limitations are indefinite for several reasons. First, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends “second support” to refer to one of the ‘plurality of identical supports’ previously set forth in claim 8, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘support’ which is separate and independent from the ‘plurality of identical supports’ previously set forth. Secondly, Examiner notes that the claims are directed towards ‘a tray system for robotic part processing.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to positively require the ‘second support to ‘function as an outfeed support,’ such that the claims are directed towards ‘a method of robotic part processing,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitations to recite functional language of the ‘second support,’ such that the claims are directed towards the ‘tray system’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “... a second support of the plurality of identical supports configured to function as an outfeed support.” Claim 13 further recites the limitation “a third dock.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one of the ‘at least one dock’ previously set forth in claim 10, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘dock’ which is separate and independent from the ‘at least one dock.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a third dock of the at least one dock.” Claims 13 and 16 each recite the limitation “... a third support functioning as a robot support” The limitations are indefinite for several reasons. First, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends “third support” to refer to one of the ‘plurality of identical supports’ previously set forth in claim 8, or whether Applicant intends to set forth an additional ‘support’ which is separate and independent from the ‘plurality of identical supports’ previously set forth. Secondly, Examiner notes that the claims are directed towards ‘a tray system for robotic part processing.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to positively require the ‘third support to ‘function as a robot support,’ such that the claims are directed towards ‘a method of robotic part processing,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitations to recite functional language of the ‘third support,’ such that the claims are directed towards the ‘tray system’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “... a third support of the plurality of identical supports configured to function as a robot support.” Claim 27 recites the limitation “each hook.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to each of the ‘hooks’ previously set forth in claim 26, or whether Applicant intends to refer to ‘hooks’ other than the ‘hooks’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “each of the hooks.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 7 – 9, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Bucker (U.S. Patent Number 3,783,800, cited in IDS) . As to claim 1, Bucker teaches a tray system for robotic part processing (abstract), comprising: a plurality of identical trays (figures 1 and 2, elements 1 and 2 being the ‘plurality of identical trays’; column 2, lines 6 – 10), each of the plurality of identical trays includes a base having an upper surface and a lower surface (figure 1, element 2 being the ‘base’; column 2, lines 6 – 10), a frame connected to the upper surface of the base and defining a plurality of pockets for receiving workpieces (figures 1 – 3, element 4 being the ‘frame,’ see below; column 2, lines 6 – 10). Examiner notes that this can be found because “pocket” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “an opening.” PNG media_image1.png 184 586 media_image1.png Greyscale Bucker further teaches a plurality of spacers (figure 1, elements 6 and 8a being the ‘spacers’; column 2, lines 11 – 23), each of the plurality of spacers including an alignment feature on the upper surface of the base (figure 1, elements 8a being the ‘alignment features’; column 2, lines 31 – 34). Examiner notes that this can be found because Examiner is reasonably interpreting element 8 as being part of the ‘base,’ such that ‘conical plug or peg 8a’ is an ‘alignment feature’ of a ‘spacer’ located on the ‘upper surface of the base.’ Bucker further teaches that each of the plurality of spacers further include a stacking post on the upper surface of the base of each of the plurality of trays (figure 1, elements 6 being the ‘stacking posts’; column 2, lines 31 – 37). Examiner notes that this can be found because claim 1 recites “and at least one stacking post on another of the upper surface or the lower surface of the base.” Because “another” does not require the alternative of the previously set forth “one of the upper surface or the lower surface of the base,” Examiner is reasonably interpreting the limitation to require the ‘stacking post’ to be located on either ‘the upper or lower surface of the base,’ regardless of the prior selection of “one of the upper surface or the lower surface of the base.” Bucker further teaches that each of the at least one stacking posts include one end having a centering tip and another end configured to mate with another one of the plurality of stacking posts (figure 1, element 6a being the ‘centering tip’ and element 6b being the ‘another end’; column 2, lines 31 – 37); wherein the trays are configured to be stacked in alignment with one another by placing the plurality of alignment features of one tray into engagement with the plurality of spacers of another tray of the plurality of identical trays (figures 1 and 2, elements 1, 2, 8a, and 6; column 2, lines 31 – 37). Examiner notes that the claim merely requires that the alignment feature of one tray be in ‘engagement’ with the stacking post of another tray, which is taught by Bucker (figure 2), the claim does not expressly require that the alignment feature of one tray be directly engaged with the stacking post of another tray. As to claim 2, Bucker teaches that the another end of each of the stacking posts is an alignment end having an interior surface shaped to receive the centering tip of another one of the at least one stacking post (figure 1, element 6b being the ‘alignment end’; column 2, lines 31 – 37). As to claim 7, Bucker teaches that each of the alignment features are connected to the lower surface of the base and each of the stacking posts is connected to the upper surface of the base of each of the plurality of trays (figure 1, elements 8a, 6, and 2); and wherein the trays are configured to be stacked in alignment with one another by placing the alignment features of an upper tray of the plurality of identical trays onto the centering tips of the stacking posts connected to a lower tray of the plurality of identical trays (figures 1 and 2, elements 8a, 6a, and 6; column 2, lines 31 – 37). As to claim 8, Bucker teaches a plurality of identical supports for carrying the plurality of trays (figure 1, bottom element 1 being the ‘plurality of identical supports’), each support of the plurality of identical supports including a base having an upper surface and a plurality of alignment members on the upper surface (figure 1, bottom elements 4 and 6 being the ‘base’ and element 7a and 6a being the ‘plurality of alignment members'), the plurality of alignment members of each of the plurality of identical supports being configured to mate with a corresponding plurality of alignment features connected to the lower surface of the base of any one of the plurality of trays to position the tray in a predetermined location and orientation on the support (figures 1 and 2, bottom element 6a and elements 8a; column 2, lines 31 – 37). As to claim 9, Bucker teaches that each support of the plurality of identical supports is a cart including a plurality of wheel connected to a lower surface of the base of the support (figure 1, elements 3 being the ‘wheels’). As to claim 21, Bucker teaches that each tray of the plurality of trays includes a first mating structure, comprising a wheel, configured to mate with a second mating structure of an arm of a robot to facilitate lifting the tray and moving the tray from one location to another location (figure 1, element 3 being the ‘mating structure’ and ‘wheel’). As to claim 22, Bucker teaches that the first mating structure is on the frame of the tray (figure 1, element 3) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucker in view of Simon (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0230802) . As to claim 10, Bucker teaches the plurality of identical trays being used to transport ceramic ware through a tunnel drier (column 1, lines 6 – 13). However, Bucker does not teach the tunnel drier itself. Simon teaches a tunnel drier (abstract), wherein a plurality of identical trays transport ceramic ware through the tunnel drier (figure 1; paragraph 25). Simon further teaches that the tunnel drier comprises a docking station including a plurality of docks that are configured to position the plurality of trays in a predetermined location and orientation (figure 1, elements 22a, 22b, and 22c being the ‘docks’; paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to employ the plurality of trays of Bucker in the tunnel drier of Simon because that the plurality of trays are specifically configured to transport ceramic ware through a tunnel drier, as desired by Simon. As to claim 11, Simon teaches that the docking station is mounted on a processing machine comprising a tunnel dryer (figure 1, element 3 being the ‘processing machine’; paragraph 25). As to claim 12, Bucker teaches that each of the supports includes a docking member comprising a plurality of wheels, Simon teaches that each of the docks includes a mating component, comprising a driving surface, configured to mate with the docking member of any support of the plurality of supports to position the support (Bucker, figure 1, element 3 being the ‘docking member’ and ‘wheels’; Simon, figure 1, element 16 being the ‘mating component’ and ‘driving surface’; paragraph 29). As to claim 13, Simon teaches that a first dock of the at least one dock of the docking station is configured to position a first support of the plurality of supports configured to function as an infeed support (figure 1, element 22a), a second dock of the at least one dock of the docking station is configured to position a second support of the plurality of supports configured to function as an outfeed support (figure 1, element 22b), and a third dock of the at least one dock of the docking station is configured to position a third support of the plurality of supports configured to function as a robot support (figure 1, element 22a). As to claim 14, Examiner notes that the limitations of claim 14 further define the ‘robot support,’ which is functionally recited and required in claim 13. It is the position of the Examiner that the third support of Simon is configured for use with a ‘robot support’ as recited in claim 14. As to claim 15, Bucker in view of Simon teaches that a first dock of the at least one dock is configured to mate with a mating component, comprising a wheel, on a first support of the plurality of supports and configured to function as a robot support, and a second dock of the at least one dock is mounted on the robot support and configured to mate with a mating support, comprising a wheel, on a second support of the plurality of supports and configured to function as an infeed support (Bucker, figure 1, element 3 being the ‘mating supports’ and ‘wheels’; Simon, element 22a being the ‘first dock,’ element 22b being the ‘second dock’). As to claim 16, Bucker in view of Simon teaches that a third dock of the at least one dock is mounted on the robot support and configured to mate with a mating component, comprising a wheel, on a third support of the plurality of supports and configured to function as an outfeed support (Bucker, figure 1, element 3 being the ‘mating support’ and ‘wheel’; Simon, element 22c being the ‘third dock’). As to claim 17, Simon teaches that the first dock is mounted on a processing machine comprising a tunnel dryer (figure 1, element 3; paragraph 25) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kalouche (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0008425) . As to claim 26, Bucker does not teach the plurality of trays including a hook. Kalouche teaches a plurality of trays (figures 5 and 6, elements 10 being the ‘plurality of trays’; paragraph 28), wherein each tray of the plurality of trays includes a hook attached to the tray at a position offset from a center line of the tray (figures 5 and 6, element 224 being the ‘hook’; paragraph 49), the hook being configured to mate with an interlock hook coupled to an arm of a robot to facilitate lifting the tray and moving it from one location to another location (figure 6, element 224; paragraphs 49 and 51). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide each tray of the plurality of trays with a hook, as taught by Kalouche, because Kalouche teaches that a hook provides the benefit of allowing the given tray to be moved by a robot arm (paragraphs 49 and 51). As to claim 27, Kalouche further teaches that each of the hooks is attached to the frame of the tray (figure 6, elements 224 and 110) . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 3 and 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner’s closest art, Bucker, does not teach each of the stacking posts including a threaded opening that extends between the one end and the alignment end, as required by claim 3 . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST). Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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. /CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 2 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 3 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 4 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 5 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 6 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 7 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 8 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 9 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 10 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 11 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 12 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 13 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 14 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 15 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 16 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 17 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 18 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 19 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 20 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/202,570 Page 21 Art Unit: 3726