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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated February 26, 2026, claim 3 was amended. Claims 3, 10, and 11 are pending.
The amendments to the claims overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant's arguments with respect to the art rejections over Nakazono have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2022023381 to Imazato (hereinafter, “Imazato”) in view of WO-2019111302 to Shigeo (hereinafter, “Shigeo”). Note: Copies of Imazato and Shigeo are attached to the Office Action dated March 3, 2025.
Regarding claim 3, Imazato discloses a protrusion tray (tray 9, Figs. 6-7) comprising: a stack portion (annotated Fig. 7 below) comprising an upper portion (annotated Fig. 7) and a lower portion (annotated Fig. 7), a cross-sectional area of the lower portion (see annotated Fig. 7) being greater than a cross-sectional area of the upper portion (see annotated Fig. 7); and a protrusion (protrusion 97, Fig. 7) protruding from the stack portion (annotated Fig. 7) and configured to stack another protrusion tray thereon (p. 2, ll. 32-35 of translation), wherein the protrusion (protrusion 97) is spaced apart from a lower end (annotated Fig. 7) of the lower portion (annotated Fig. 7) of the stack portion (annotated Fig. 7) along a height direction (annotated Fig. 7), and wherein, along the height direction (annotated Fig. 7), the cross-sectional area of the lower portion (annotated Fig. 7) increases (see Fig. 7) from the protrusion (protrusion 97) toward the lower end (annotated Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Imazato Annotated Figure 7
Imazato does not expressly disclose the protrusion is between and spaced apart from an upper surface of the upper portion and a lower end of the lower portion along a height direction, and the protrusion protrudes beyond each of the upper portion and the lower end along a lateral direction intersecting the height direction.
Shigeo teaches a similar protrusion tray (tray 1, Fig. 1) comprising a stack portion and a protrusion (undercut 3 in sidewall of tray 1, see Fig. 1). Shigeo teaches the protrusion protrudes from the stack portion and is configured to stack another protrusion tray thereon (p. 4, ll. 11-13). Shigeo teaches the protrusion (undercut 3) is between the upper surface of the upper portion of the stack portion (see Fig. 3; see also Figs. 2b, 7) and a lower end of the lower portion of the stack portion along a height direction (see Fig. 3; see also Figs. 2b, 7). Shigeo teaches the protrusion is spaced apart from the upper surface of the upper portion and the lower end of the lower portion of the stack portion (see e.g., Fig. 7). Shigeo teaches the protrusion protrudes beyond each of the upper portion and the lower end along a lateral direction intersecting the height direction (see e.g., Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protrusion tray of Imazato to move the protrusion down such that it is spaced apart from and between the upper surface of the upper portion and the lower end of the lower portion, and have the protrusion extend in a lateral direction beyond the upper portion and the lower end as taught by Shigeo because (1) it has been held that changes in shape are an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), citing In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47); and (2) it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), citing In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Regarding claim 10, Imazato further discloses an upper surface (annotated Fig. 7) of the protrusion (protrusion 97) is parallel to the upper surface of the upper portion (annotated Fig. 7) of the stack portion (annotated Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Imazato further discloses a lower surface (annotated Fig. 7) of the protrusion (protrusion 97) is inclined relative to the upper surface (annotated Fig. 7) of the protrusion (protrusion 97).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 571-270-5055. 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.
/LAURA E. PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3733