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 .
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2023/0174274 to Brown II et al (Brown).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses a tray system (Fig 4) comprising an open container base (100) having at least one raised edge (420) and adapted to hold items, at least one divider (115) adapted to facilitate dividing of the open container base into different areas for holding items (€0030), each said divider comprising at least one defined portion (1105) that is adapted to facilitate desired breakage of the divider into a desired length or lengths or desired width or widths since it has the structure as recited (€0053).
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,553,710 to Takama.
Regarding claim 1, Takama discloses a tray system (Fig 1) comprising an open container base (1) having at least one raised edge (12) and adapted to hold items, at least one divider (2) adapted to facilitate dividing of the open container base into different areas for holding items (Fig 1), each said divider comprising at least one defined portion (21) that is adapted to facilitate desired breakage of the divider into a desired length or lengths or desired width or widths since it has the structure as recited (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 2, Takama further discloses said divider comprising multiple defined portions (21) adapted to facilitate breakage (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, Takama further disclosed defined portions (21) substantially spaced apart along a length of the divider (2) (Fig 1-2).
Regarding claims 4-7, Takama further discloses the define portion (21) capable of being formed by the process as recited since it has the structure as recited. Note that product by process limitations are given little patentable weight.
Regarding claim 8, Takama further discloses defined portion (21) is a perforation (dovetail groove) in the divider.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,150,809 to Leigh.
Regarding claim 1, Leigh discloses a tray system (Fig 1) comprising an open container base (20) having at least one raised edge (top edge of sidewalls 22-25) and adapted to hold items, at least one divider (38) adapted to facilitate dividing of the open container base into different areas for holding items (Fig 2), each said divider comprising at least one defined portion (52) that is adapted to facilitate desired breakage of the divider into a desired length or lengths or desired width or widths since it has the structure as recited (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 9, Leigh further discloses at least one connector (57) adapted to connect a divider to a raised edge of to another divider.
Regarding claim 10, Leigh further discloses the connector (57) defining a slot (between 60, 61) adapted to receive a distal edge of another connector since it has the structure as recited.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2007/0246471 to Hrovat.
Regarding claim 11, Hrovat discloses a tray system (Fig 1) comprising an open container base (10) having at least one raised edge (37) and adapted to hold items, at least one connector (26) adapted to facilitate dividing of the open container base into different areas for holding items, each connector (26) comprising a clip portion (38) that is associated with a distal slot portion (46), said clip portion (38) adapted to attach the connector to a respective said raised edge (37) of the open container base or to a divider (24), the distal slot portion (46) adapted to receive a divider (15) (Fig 6, col 2, ll. 45-50). Hrovat further discloses the clip portion comprising at least one prong (38) adapted to engage raised edge of the container base since it has the structure as recited (Fig 2).
Claim(s) 11, 13-16, 24-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent No. 6,871,921 to Ernst.
Regarding claim 11, Ernst discloses a tray system (Fig 1) comprising an open container base (1) having at least one raised edge and adapted to hold items, at least one connector (25) adapted to facilitate dividing of the open container base into different areas for holding items, each connector (25) comprising a clip portion (31) that is associated with a distal slot portion (24), said clip portion (31) adapted to attach the connector to a respective said raised edge of the open container base or to a divider (15), the distal slot portion adapted to receive a divider (15) (Fig 6, col 2, ll. 45-50). Ernst further discloses the clip portion comprising at least one prong (32) adapted to engage raised edge of the container base since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 13, Ernst further discloses the at least one prong adapted to flex to facilitate positioning of the clip portion over the raised edge of the open container base or divider (col. 3, ll. 1-5).
Regarding claim 14, Ernst further discloses the at least one prong resilient to adjust to variations of thickness (col. 3, ll. 1-5).
Regarding claim 15, Ernst further discloses the prong comprising a rounded distal portion (32, Fig 9) adapted to facilitate positioning of the clip portion over a raised edge.
Regarding claim 16, Ernst further discloses the rounded distal portion further adapted to resist against the connector being undesirably removed from the raised edge since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 24, Ernst further discloses distal slot portion (24) comprising a first side (26), second side (26) opposite first side such that a slot (24) is formed between the first and second side, a proximal edge (30) connecting first and second sides (26), a top edge (28) that connects first and second sides (26), top edge (28) adapted to rest on top of a divider (15).
Regarding claim 25, Ernst further discloses clip portion (31) adjacent proximal edge (30) (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 26, Ernst further discloses clip portion (31) positioned adjacent intersection of proximal edge (30) and top edge (28) (Fig 6).
Regarding claims 27, Ernst further discloses first and second flange (left and right portions of 30 flanking the slot) extending away from proximal edge and first and second sides, the flanges extending below the clip portion (31) (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 28, Ernst further discloses the flanges (left and right portions of 30 flanking the slot) adapted to facilitate attachment of the connector to a raised edge (9) since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 29, Ernst further discloses clip portion (31) and distal slot portion (24) are respectively configured such a respective raised edge of open container base adapted to be substantially perpendicular to a divider (15) to be received by distal slot portion (24) (Fig 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernst in view of Leigh.
Regarding claim 17, Ernst teaches the tray system of claim 11 but does not teach the connector having a second prong. However, Leigh discloses a tray system (Fig 1) and in particular discloses a connector (57) having first and second prong (60, 58) operationally opposing each other to facilitate positioning of the clip portion of a raised edge of a base (65) (Fig 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a second prong to Ernst connector as suggested by Leigh in order to facilitate clipping.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Ernst further teaches both prongs resilient such that they are adapted to adjust to variations of thickness (Leigh, col. 4, ll. 50-55).
Claim(s) 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernst in view of Leigh and US 2008/0115449 to Kodi.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Ernst teaches the tray system of claim 17 but does not teach third and fourth prongs. However, Leigh further discloses a third prong (61) to facilitate clipping and Kodi discloses a clip (4, Fig 2) having four prongs (10) to facilitate clipping of an item with the fourth prong operationally opposing the third prong. Taken as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to duplicate additional prongs to the modified Ernst such that there were a third and fourth prong operationally opposing each other as suggested by Kodi in order to facilitate clipping of an item in between the prongs since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Ernst teaches the tray system of claim 19 and further teaches all prongs resilient and flexible to adjust to variations in thickness (Leigh, col. 4, ll. 50-55).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Ernst further teaches first and second prong spaced apart and substantially parallel to third and fourth prong (Kodi, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Ernst further teaches first and second prong positioned adjacent first side of distal slot portion and third and fourth prong positioned adjacent second side of the distal slot portion opposite the first side (Kodi, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Ernst further teaches first and second prong forming a first set, third and fourth prong forming a second set and first and second set forming a proximal slot that can receive distal edge of another connector since it has the structure as recited. In particular, Kodi shows the four prongs (10, Fig 2) spaced apart with openings that can form a proximal slot as recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach an intent to break a divider to resize, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant further argues that Hrovat/Ernst/Leigh does not teach a clip portion comprising at least one prong because the clip portion is laterally-wide and generally appears to maintain the same outer shape as it extends along its width. This is not persuasive because the definition of a prong is defined as any pointed projecting part and insofar as applicant has defined their structure as a prong, then so too does the prior art teach the projecting part (38/32/60, 58) to be a prong.
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 ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ROBERT POON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735