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 .
This Final Office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 8/3/2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/3/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2, line 4, “the at least one separating ribs have” should be “the at least separating rib has”. 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, line 2, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, lines 2-3, the limitations “along either or both the entire length or width of the product carrier, and along the entire length and/or width” fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, thus renders the claim indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be examined as best understood or so far as definite.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0041706 Whetstone.
Whetstone discloses (Claim 1). A product carrier 30 for transporting food products, and in particular chocolate products, in a transport device, the transport device in a plant for producing food products, wherein the product carrier 30 has an upper side 31 for loading and/or inserting products and an underside opposite the upper side, the product carrier 30 has a rectangular basic shape with longitudinal sides which have a length in a longitudinal direction, and with width sides which have a width in a width direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, wherein the product carrier 30 has, on the longitudinal sides, mutually-opposing longitudinal-edge strips, each of which has a drive aperture (defined as between sidewalls 42,43), wherein the drive apertures of the two longitudinal-edge strips are open in a direction extending away from the upper side, have a longitudinal extent of greater than 50% of the length of the product carrier 30, and have stop edges in and counter to the longitudinal direction, and, on the width sides, the product carrier has mutually-opposing width-edge strips (defined the outer surface of sidewalls 42, 43) which each have at least one guide aperture 45a,45b (Fig. 4), wherein the guide apertures 45a,45b of the width-edge strips are open in a direction extending away from the upper side 31 such that a bar guide (defined as conveyance projections disclosed in [0056]) of a transport device can engage in the guide apertures so that the product carrier 30 is supported from the underside, and have a width extent of less than 10% of the width of the product carrier 30; (Claim 2). The product carrier according to claim 1, wherein at least one separating rib (see below annotated copy) which extends perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction, is arranged on the underside of the product carrier 30 and forms at least two channels which are open in a direction pointing away from the upper side and along which air can be conducted, wherein the at least one separating rib has a lower height than the width-edge strips;
PNG
media_image1.png
726
1010
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Claim 3). The product carrier according to claim 2, wherein the height of the separating rib is smaller than or equal to the height of the width-edge strips on the guide apertures; (Claim 6). The product carrier according to claim 1, wherein the product carrier 30 comprises support bars (see below annotated copy) which are each arranged parallel to the width-edge strips which have just as many apertures as the width-edge strips;
PNG
media_image2.png
694
992
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Claim 7). The product carrier according to claim 1, wherein one or a plurality of alveoli 32 (Fig. 2) is arranged on the upper side of the product carrier 30; (Claim 9). The product carrier according to claim 1, wherein each of the width-edge strips has one to eight guide apertures 45a,45b.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whetstone in view of USP 5868080 to Wyler et al (hereinafter Wyler).
Whetstone discloses all the elements as discussed above except for the limitations recited in claims 4 and 8.
Regarding claim 4, Wyler discloses (Claim 1). A product carrier 12 for transporting food products, and in particular chocolate products, in a transport device, the transport device in a plant for producing food products, wherein the product carrier 12 has an upper side for loading and/or inserting products and an underside opposite the upper side, the product carrier 12 has a rectangular basic shape with longitudinal sides (Fig. 1, X-axis) which have a length in a longitudinal direction, and with width sides (Fig. 1, Y-axis) which have a width in a width direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, wherein the product carrier 12 has, on the longitudinal sides, mutually-opposing longitudinal-edge strips (not numbered), each of which has a drive aperture 18, wherein the drive apertures 18 of the two longitudinal-edge strips are open in a direction extending away from the upper side, have a longitudinal extent of greater than 50%, and preferably greater than 80%, of the length of the product carrier 12, and have stop edges in and counter to the longitudinal direction, and, on the width sides, the product carrier 12 has mutually-opposing width-edge strips (defined by side walls 44) which each have at least one guide aperture 54, wherein the guide apertures 54 of the width-edge strips 44 are open in a direction extending away from the upper side, and have a width extent of less than 10%, and preferably less than 5%, of the width of the product carrier; (Claim 2). The product carrier according to claim 1, wherein at least one separating rib (middle runner shown in Fig. 1) which extends perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction, is arranged on the underside of the product carrier and forms at least two channels (such as shown in Fig. 4) which are open in a direction pointing away from the upper side and along which air can be conducted, wherein the at least one separating rib has a lower height than the height of the width-edge strips 44; (Claim 3). The product carrier according to claim 2, wherein the height of the separating rib is smaller than the height of the width-edge strips 44 on the guide apertures 54; (Claim 4). The product carrier according to claim 2, wherein reinforcing ribs (such as shown in Figs. 8A-9B) which extend in the longitudinal direction and which have a lower height than the separating rib are attached in the channels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Wyler, to modify Whetstone to include the limitations in claim 4 of wherein reinforcing ribs which extend in the longitudinal direction and which have a lower height than the separating rib are attached in the channels with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the product carrier.
Regarding claim 8, Whetstone discloses in [0046] that the product carrier 30 has a generally rectangular base 40, which means the base 40 includes a longer side and a shorter side. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Whetstone, to modify Whetstone to include the limitations in claim 8 of wherein the length is shorter than the width with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the product carrier.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whetstone in view of USP 10737832 to Apps et al (hereinafter Apps).
Whetstone discloses all the elements as discussed above the limitations in claim 5.
However, Apps discloses a product carrier 10 comprising an upper side for loading products and an underside opposite the upper side, the product carrier 10 has a rectangular basic shape with longitudinal sides which have a length in a longitudinal direction, and with width sides which have a width in a width direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, wherein the product carrier 10 has, on the longitudinal sides, mutually-opposing longitudinal-edge strips, each of which has a drive aperture, wherein the drive apertures of the two longitudinal-edge strips are open in a direction extending away from the upper side, have a longitudinal extent of greater than 50%, and preferably greater than 80%, of the length of the product carrier 10, and have stop edges in and counter to the longitudinal direction, and, on the width sides, the product carrier has mutually-opposing width-edge strips (defined as the outer surface of each support 14); wherein the longitudinal-edge strips and/or the width-edge strips are beveled towards the upper side of the product carrier, and preferably along the entire length and/or width (such as shown in Figs. 1, and 3-4).
PNG
media_image3.png
860
1070
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Apps, to modify Whetstone to include the limitations in claim 5 of wherein the longitudinal- edge strips and/or the width-edge strips are beveled towards the upper side of the product carrier, and along the entire length and/or width a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent potential snagging of the product carrier.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whetstone in view of USP 10815028 to Turner et al (hereinafter Turner).
Whetstone discloses all the elements as discussed above except for the limitations in claim 10.
However, Turner discloses a product carrier 5 comprising an upper side for loading products and an underside opposite the upper side, the product carrier 5 has a rectangular basic shape with longitudinal sides which have a length in a longitudinal direction, and with width sides which have a width in a width direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, wherein the product carrier 5 has, on the longitudinal sides, mutually-opposing longitudinal-edge strips, each of which has a drive aperture, wherein the drive apertures of the two longitudinal-edge strips are open in a direction extending away from the upper side, have a longitudinal extent of greater than 50%, and preferably greater than 80%, of the length of the product carrier 10, and have stop edges in and counter to the longitudinal direction, and, on the width sides, the product carrier has mutually-opposing width-edge strips (defined as the outer surface of each riser 300) which have at least one guide aperture (Fig. 5: defined between end sections 308 and middle section 310), wherein the guide apertures of the width-edge strips are open in a direction extending away from the upper side; wherein the part of the contour of the guide aperture which abuts the edge, facing away from the upper side, of the width- edge strips encloses an angle α of 85°-95° with the edge, facing away from the upper side, of the width-edge strips Figs. 6 & 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Turner, to modify Whetstone to include the limitations in claim 10 of wherein the part of the contour of the guide aperture which abuts the edge, facing away from the upper side, of the width- edge strips encloses an angle a of 85°-95° with the edge, facing away from the upper side, of the width-edge strips with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the product carrier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments on page 12 that Whetstone fails to clearly disclose the limitations in claim 1 of the drive aperture having a longitudinal extent of greater than 50%, the guide aperture having a width extent of less than 10%, and such that a bar guide of a transport device can engage in the guide apertures so that the product carrier is supported from the underside, the examiner respectfully take the position that Whetstone clearly shows, as stated in the above claimed rejection, the drive aperture having a longitudinal extent of greater than 50%, the guide aperture having a width extent of less than 10%, and such that a bar guide of a transport device can engage in the guide apertures so that the product carrier is supported from the underside.
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 HANH VAN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, DANIEL TROY can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
HVT
September 30, 2026
/HANH V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights