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 office action is in response to the reply filed on 5/21/2026, wherein claims 1 and 9 were amended. Claims 11-20 remain withdrawn from consideration.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ting et al. (US 8,162,147).
Regarding claim 1, Ting discloses a tray module (See Figs. 1 and 15), comprising: a tray (at 220 in Fig. 1), wherein the tray includes a bottom portion (bottom wall of 220) and a wall portion (at 222/224/226/228 in Fig. 1) that surrounds the bottom portion in a plan view and protrudes upward from the bottom portion in a cross-sectional view; and a pad (at 210) disposed on the bottom portion of the tray, wherein the pad has a rectangle shape in a plan view and includes a plurality of flow prevention patterns (at B in Fig. 1 – shown in detail in Fig. 2) that protrude from a top surface of the pad in a cross-section view, wherein a top surface of each of the patterns is square in a plan view (as shown in Fig. 2 below), wherein the plurality of flow prevention patterns are spaced apart from the wall portion of the tray.
PNG
media_image1.png
758
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ting discloses the claimed invention except for the specific shape of the tray/pad. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tray/pad of Ting to be any shape such as square in order to accommodate the desired contents. Furthermore, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 2, Ting discloses a distance between each of the plurality of flow prevention patterns is constant (See Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3, Ting discloses the distance between each of the plurality of flow prevention patterns is greater than or equal to about 3 mm and less than or equal to about 5 mm (column 3, lines 13-16).
Regarding claim 4, Ting discloses each of the plurality of flow prevention patterns has a same width (See Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 5, Ting discloses the distance between each of the plurality of flow prevention patterns and the width of each of the plurality of flow prevention patterns are a same (See Fig. 2 and column 3, lines 13-30).
Regarding claim 6, Ting discloses the width of each of the plurality of flow prevention patterns is greater than or equal to about 3 mm and less than or equal to about 5 mm (column 3, lines 13-30).
Regarding claim 7, Ting discloses a height of each of the plurality of flow prevention patterns are equal to each other (See Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Ting discloses the claimed invention except for the specific height of the flow prevention patterns. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the height of the flow prevention patterns of Ting to be any height such as about 0.15mm to 0.25mm in order to provide the desired gap between contents and the pad bottom wall. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ting et al. (US 8,162,147) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niederhofer et al. (US 2018/0033665). As described above, Ting discloses the claimed invention except for the protruding portion and hole. However, Niederhofer teaches a packaging arrangement (See Figs. 4A-4B) comprising a tray (at 224) having a protruding portion (222) that protrudes in an upward direction, and a support element (at 990) having a hole (at 1014) formed at a position that corresponds to the protruding portion, wherein the protruding portion extends through and penetrates the hole (as shown in Fig. 4B), for the purpose of guiding and fixing the support element on the tray. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the tray and pad of Ting with a protruding portion and hole, respectively, as taught by Niederhofer in order to more easily guide and fix the pad to the proper placement on the tray.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ting et al. (US 8,162,147) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0097946). As described above, Ting discloses the claimed invention except for the specific material of the pad. However, Kim teaches a tray module (See Fig. 1) comprising a tray (at 10) and a pad (at 20), wherein the pad is formed from an elastomer for the purpose of having excellent flexibility, durability and abrasion resistance ([0079]-[0081]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pad of Ting to be formed from an elastomer as taught by Kim in order to have excellent flexibility, durability and abrasion resistance. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights