DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 05/15/2023. Claim(s) 1–20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1–2, 5–6, 8–9, 12, 15–16, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,135,589 to Stokes.
With regard to claims 1, 8, & 15, Stokes discloses an apparatus comprising: a freeze dry shelf having a body comprising a planar geometry (Col. 1, lines 9–11; Col. 2, lines 43–51); a treatment applied to at least a first portion of the body (Col. 2, lines 43–51); and a surface layer applied to at least a second portion of the body (Col. 2, lines 43–51).
With regard to claims 2, 9, & 16, Stokes further discloses the first portion of the body and the second portion of the body overlap (Col. 2, lines 43–51).
With regard to claims 5, 12, & 19, Stokes further discloses the surface layer comprises a wear layer (Col. 2, lines 43–51).
With regard to claims 6 & 13, Stokes further discloses the surface layer comprises a conductive layer (Col. 2, lines 43–51).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3–4, 10–11, & 17–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stokes in view of US 6,644,136 to Carney et al.
With regard to claims 3, 10, & 17, Stokes fails to disclose the treatment comprises an anodization applied to the body. Carney teaches an anodization applied to the body of a tray (1300) (Col. 20, lines 49–50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the freeze dryer tray of Stokes with the anodization treatment of Carney because such a combination would have had the added benefit of increased corrosion resistance.
With regard to claims 4, 11, & 18, Stokes as previously combined with Carney further discloses the anodization is a black anodization (Carney: Col. 20, lines 49–50).
Claims 7, 14, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stokes in view of US 2023/0329255 to Rease.
Stokes fails to disclose the surface layer comprises an anti-stick layer. Rease teaches the surface layer comprises an anti-stick layer (¶ 0101). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the freeze dryer tray of Stokes with the anti-stick layer of Rease because such a combination would have had the added benefit of preventing items from sticking to the tray.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
February 5, 2026