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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the masking cover comprising the bottom of another of said multi-purpose parts tray” in claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 4-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the scope of the claim is unclear because the claims are directed to a parts tray and it is unclear how the cover member can be part of a parts tray and also be fitted on the parts tray. Note that the original disclosure makes the distinction between the paint mask cover and the parts tray (applicant’s specification, €0017, €0019). For purposes of examination, claims will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and be treated as directed to the tray capable of functioning with a cover.
Regarding claim 5, the scope of the claim is unclear because the claims are directed to a parts tray and recites the parts tray comprising a masking cover but further recites the masking cover adapted for placement over the tray. It is not clear how the masking cover is adapted for placement over the tray when the masking cover is part of the tray. In addition, the disclosure describes the cover separate from the parts tray and thus it is not clear how the parts tray can comprise the masking cover. For purposes of examination, claims will be treated as the tray capable of functioning with a masking cover.
Regarding claim 7, the scope of the claims is unclear because the claims are directed to a tray and it is not clear how the tray can comprise a masking cover that further comprises the bottom of another parts tray since the “another of said multi-purpose parts tray” is not part of the part tray. For purposes of examination, claims will be treated as the tray capable of functioning with a masking cover/another parts tray. In addition, “the bottom of another of said multi-purpose parts tray” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what it is referring to.
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, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2011/0132789 to Peng et al. (Peng).
Regarding claim 1, Peng discloses a stackable paintable moveable multi-purpose parts tray (Fig 1) comprising multiple parts holding locations (15) adapted for securing multiple parts (200) to be processed in a multistep process including painting of the part and other downstream processing of the part (intended use). Peng further discloses the tray (Fig 1) capable of functioning with a cover member as recited since it has the structure as recited.
Claim(s) 1, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2007/0215517 to Holler.
Regarding claim 1, Holler discloses a stackable paintable moveable multi-purpose parts tray (10, Fig 1) comprising multiple parts holding location (14) adapted for securing multiple parts (50) to be processed in a multistep process including painting of the parts and other downstream processing of the part (intended use), a cover member (30) fitted on the tray and having a painting orifice (34) adapted to enable painting of parts in the parts holding locations while the parts are contained in the parts holding locations since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 5, Holler discloses a stackable paintable moveable multi-purpose parts tray (10, Fig 1) comprising at least one parts holding location (14) for securing a part to be processed in a multistep process including painting of the part and other downstream processing of the part (intended use), said parts holding location (14) including a paint orifice (15) for allowing paint to be injected into the part holding location for painting of the parts (intended use), a removable masking cover (30) which is adapted for placement over the tray, the masking cover (30) having a painting orifice (34) for injecting paint into a paint channel for distributing paint to a part contained in the tray (intended use) and a masking area (31) which masks off areas of the part not to be painted.
Claim(s) 5-7, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2009/0152158 to Kidd et al. (Kidd).
Regarding claim 5, Kidd discloses a stackable paintable moveable multi-purpose parts tray (Fig 5) comprising at least one parts holding location (204) for securing a part to be processed in a multistep process including painting of the part and other downstream processing of the part (intended use), said parts holding location (204) including a paint orifice (218) for allowing paint to be injected into the part holding location for painting of the parts (intended use), a removable masking cover (500b) which is adapted for placement over the tray, the masking cover (500b) having a painting orifice (218) for injecting paint into a paint channel for distributing paint to a part contained in the tray (intended use) and a masking area (210-216) which masks off areas of the part not to be painted. In particular, Kidd discloses stacking of trays where the top tray can function as a cover since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 6, Kidd further discloses the masking cover comprising a separate cover (500b) which fits over and engages the parts tray (500a) for painting of the parts while the part is secured (intended use).
Regarding claim 7, Kidd further discloses the masking cover further comprises the bottom (210-216) of another of said multi-purpose parts tray (500a) which fits over and engages the parts tray for painting of the part while the part is secured in the part tray (intended use).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holler in view of US 2014/0197064 to Prince et al. (Prince).
Regarding claim 4, Holler teaches the tray of claim 1 and further teaches the tray made of plastic (€0047) but does not explicitly teach the plastic to be HMW polyethylene. However, Prince discloses a tray (Fig 1) and in particular discloses the tray made of high molecular weight polyethylene (€0087). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to manufacture the plastic Holler tray out high molecular weight polyethylene as suggested by Prince in order to have a sufficiently rigid tray (Prince, (€0087) since it has been held that selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to invention was held to be obvious. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holler/Kidd in view of Prince.
Regarding claims 8-9, Holler/Kidd teaches the tray of claim 5 and further teaches the tray made of plastic (Holler, €0047)/polyethylene (Kidd, €0010) but does not teach the tray molded of high molecular weight polyethylene. However, Prince discloses a tray (Fig 1) and in particular discloses the tray molded from high molecular weight polyethylene (€0087). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to mold the plastic Holler/Kidd tray out high molecular weight polyethylene as suggested by Prince in order to have a sufficiently rigid tray (Prince, €0087) since it has been held that selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to invention was held to be obvious. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant argues that the cover member is part of the tray. This is not persuasive because the original disclosure sets apart the cover member from the tray and the claims are directed to the tray as recited in the preamble and not to the combination of the tray and cover member/second tray. Thus, reciting the parts tray comprising a cover/second tray renders the scope of the claims unclear.
In response to applicant's argument that Peng/Holler/Kidd does not teach usage of the tray during painting or other processing of components, 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.
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