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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9, “from and the lower rear section”, it appears “front” is misspelled. Appropriate correction is required.
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 17 and 19-21 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. The claim is indefinite because in line 14, “front opening” is unclear if applicant is referring to the previous “front opening” recited in line 7, or if is introducing an additional “front opening”. Applicant’s specification, figure 3, discloses only a single front opening with reference numeral 325.
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, 3, 6, 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradley (US 2005/0011055).
Claim 1
PNG
media_image1.png
334
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bradley discloses a clip (36) capable of retaining a waffle pack chip tray and lid, the clip comprising a pair of side walls; a rear wall; an upper peripheral edge extending from an upper section of each of the side walls and the rear wall and defining an upper region open area therebetween; a lower peripheral edge extending from a lower section of each of the side walls and the rear wall and defining a lower region open area therebetween; a front opening (47) capable to receive the chip tray and lid; a lower beam extending directly across the front opening forming a lower beam peripheral edge; and a lower peripheral edge extending from a lower section of each of the side walls and the rear wall, and a lower region open area defined by the side walls lower peripheral edges, rear wall lower peripheral edge and the lower beam peripheral edge (see figure above).
Claim 3
PNG
media_image2.png
328
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bradley further discloses an upper beam extending across the front opening and integrally coupled to the upper peripheral edge.
Claim 6
Bradley further discloses the lower region open area has a substantially same size as the upper region open area (see figure provided in claim 1 above).
Claim 17
PNG
media_image1.png
334
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
365
525
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bradley discloses a clip (36) capable of retaining a waffle pack chip tray and lid holding a plurality of semiconductor components, the clip comprising a pair of side walls, each of the side walls having a side flange extending from an upper side section and a lower side section; a rear wall having a rear flange extending from an upper rear section and a lower rear section, wherein the rear wall is integrally coupled to the side walls; a front opening (47) configured to receive the chip tray and lid; a lower beam extending directly across a lower section of the front opening; a base formed from the lower side section of each side flange, from and the lower rear section from the rear flange, and the lower beam; a top formed from the upper side section of each side flange from and the upper rear section from the rear flange; and a cavity formed from integrally coupling the side walls, rear wall, top and base configured to receive the chip tray and lid into the cavity (see figures above).
Claim 19
Bradley further discloses an upper beam extending across the upper section of the front opening and integrally coupled to the top (see figure provided in claim 17 above).
Claims 20 and 21
Bradley further discloses an open region in each of the top and the base capable of viewing a label applied to the lid or the chip tray (see figures provided in claim 17 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley (US 2005/0011055) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pylant (US 2005/0011056).
Bradley further discloses flanges in the top of the clip extending horizontally from the sidewalls (see figures provided in claim 17 above). Bradley does not disclose an angled section on each of the side walls proximate the upper section. However, Pylant discloses a clip for holding trays for transporting semiconductors, the clip comprising sidewalls (48 and 50) and flanges (52 and 54) extending inwardly toward a centra area of a channels (44) and channel base (46) (see [0024]), wherein an angled transition is formed between the sidewalls and the flanges (see figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bradley having angled transitions between the sidewalls and flanges as taught by Pylant for aesthetic purposes of the clip and/or smooth transition between the sidewalls and the top of the clip.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley (US 2005/0011055) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiew (US 2008/0235939).
Bradley, embodiment disclosed in figure 5, does not disclose at least one chamfered edge at the front opening of at least one of the side walls, the lower peripheral edge and the upper peripheral edge. However, Hiew discloses chamfered surfaces (154) in a front edge are used to facilitate insertion and removal of articles (see [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bradley having chamfered the front opening lower peripheral edge as taught by Hiew for easy insertion and removal of the articles enclosed within the clip.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley (US 2005/0011055) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hein (US 2009/0205982).
Bradley further discloses the clip used as a housing to enclose and/or retain articles, such as trays and covers. Bradley does not disclose at least one bore in the rear wall. However, Hein discloses a package (13) enclosing an inner pack/tray (12) containing cigarettes wherein the package comprises a hole (44) in a rear wall (29) for allowing user finger to be inserted creating a pushing force to remove the inner pack/tray to be removed from the package (see figures 6, 7 and [0039]-[0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bradley including a hole in the rear wall of the clip as taught by Hein to help removal of the articles enclosed within the clip.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley (US 2005/0011055) as applied to claim 1 above.
Bradley further discloses the clip is an integral unit (see figure 5), wherein plastic material, such as polycarbonate or polypropylene, are known type of plastic for construction of the clips (see [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clip of Bradley having the clip made of polycarbonate or polypropylene material because the uses of the plastic materials are well-known and common in in the art. Regarding the language of injection molding, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e the clip, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. injection molding. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Bradley discloses the process of injection molding is well-known and common (see [0023] and claim 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clip of Bradley having the clip formed from injection molding process because it is well-known and nominal clips formed by injection molding.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley (US 2005/0011055) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bascos (WO 2020/106877) or Arai (WO0064984).
Bradley discloses clips made from polycarbonate or polypropylene material are well-known in the art (see [0023]). Bradley does not explicitly disclose the clip being substantially translucent or colored. However, Bascos discloses a holder (500) for fitting a waffle pack (510) in its interior, wherein the holder is made from translucent polycarbonate to have visibility of the waffle pack without the need to rely on cutout regions (see [0053]). Arai discloses it is known to have IC chip trays or IC chip carriers made from thermoplastic material, wherein the thermoplastic material could be either colored or translucent provides good light transmission (see page 3 and page 8 <Application>). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clip of Bradley been made of polycarbonate translucent material as taught by Bascos to have visual access to the articles enclosed within the clip, or as taught by Arai for good light transmission of the clip.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 17 based on the teachings of Bradley, the examiner disagrees. Bradley discloses a clip for holding a stack of trays comprising all the structural features recited in the claims, specifically a “lower beam” which is shown in the figures provided in the rejection of the claims 3 and/or 17. The examiner noticed that applicant argues about the disclosure of reference numeral 47 in the teachings of Bradley, however, never is intention by the examiner to use reference numeral 47. The examiner understands reference numeral 47 discloses a front opening of the clip, which is used in the rejection for the disclosure of structural feature of “front opening” in the rejection of claims 1 and 17. In the rejection of the claims, the examiner provided multiple drawings showing in separate different structural features required in the claim to avoid possible confusion at the time of understanding the examiner position.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights