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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (Figures 1-8) in the reply filed on 1/9/2026 is acknowledged. In the reply, Applicant indicated that claims 1-10 read on the elected species. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsieh (US 2020/0307884).
Regarding claim 1, Hsieh discloses a tray module (at 20 – See Fig. 2 labeled below), comprising: a tray (tray at 21 - See Fig. 2 labeled below); and a pad (pad at 22/23 - See Fig. 2 labeled below) disposed on the tray (as shown in Fig. 2), wherein the pad includes a plurality of flow prevention patterns (projections on either side of slots 24 prevent the flow of contents laterally within the tray module) that protrude in a cross-section view. Hsieh discloses the claimed invention except for the specific shape of the 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 module of Hsieh to be any shape such as square in order to accommodate items of the desired size/shape. 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
914
1148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hsieh discloses a distance (width of slots 24 in Fig. 2) between each of the plurality of flow prevention patterns is constant (See Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Hsieh discloses the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the specific distance between 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 distance between the flow prevention patterns of Hsieh to be any distance such as about 4 mm in order to securely hold items of a desired size. 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).
Regarding claim 4, Hsieh discloses each of the plurality of flow prevention patterns has a same width (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Hsieh 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 (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Hsieh discloses the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the specific width 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 width of the flow prevention patterns of Hsieh to be any width such as about 4 mm in order to provide sufficient protective space between items. 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).
Regarding claim 7, Hsieh discloses a height of each of the plurality of flow prevention patterns are equal to each other (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Hsieh discloses the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of 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 Hsieh to be any height such as about 0.20 mm in order to provide sufficient protection to the side surfaces of items. 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 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh (US 2020/0307884) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Chen et al. (US 8,777,007). As described above, Hsieh discloses the claimed invention except for the tray including a protruding portion and the pad including a hole. However, Chen teaches a tray module (See Figs. 1-3) comprising a tray (at 1 in Fig. 2) having a pad (at 3 in Fig. 2) disposed therein, wherein the tray includes a protruding portion (at 4 in Fig. 2 – also shown in Fig. 3) that protrudes in an upward direction, and wherein the pad further includes a hole (recess at 31 – See Fig. 3) formed at a position that corresponds to a position of the protruding portion, for the purpose of providing a buffer element within the tray module for protecting contents. 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 Hsieh with a protruding portion and hole, respectively, as taught by Chen in order to better protect the contents.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh (US 2020/0307884) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Aston et al. (US 10,299,468). As described above, Hsieh discloses the claimed invention except for the specific material of the pad. However, Aston teaches a tray module (at 10 in Fig. 1) comprising a tray (at 14 in Fig. 1) including a pad (at 18 in Fig. 1), wherein the pad is formed from an elastomer material for the purpose of imparting a retaining force for grips items (column 4, lines 59-62 and column 5, lines 39-48). 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 Hsieh to be formed from an elastomer material as taught by Aston in order to have resiliency to better grip items stored therein. 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.
Conclusion
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