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 .
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, 6, 8-19 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 claims is unclear because it recites a second opening; however, a first opening has not been recited. It is unclear if applicant is claiming one opening or a plurality of openings.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0196922 to Hughett, Sr (Hughett) in view of US 2015/0375937 to McIntosh.
Regarding claim 1, Hughett discloses a tray (Fig 6a) comprising a first layer (110) having a first compartment (114) and second compartment (116), first compartment includes a first compartment first barrier wall (A, Fig 6b) and first compartment second barrier wall (B, Fig 6b), first compartment first barrier wall and first compartment second barrier wall form a second opening (C, Fig 6b) extending through both first compartment (114) and second compartment (116), a second layer (120), non-removably coupled to the first layer (110) (€0054), a container (storage tray) is positioned within interior of the second layer (120), a cover (A, Fig 6a below) attachable to an opening (121) of the second layer (120). Hughett does not teach cover having a passageway as recited. However, McIntosh discloses a container (Fig 1) and in particular discloses the container comprising a cover (200), the cover (200) having a passageway (410) extending through the cover (200) and into interior of the container (Figs 1-3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate an opening extending through the Hughett cover as suggested by McIntosh in order to provide a form of indicia for the contents in the second layer of the tray (McIntosh, €0030). The modification would have resulted in the opening capable of being a passageway into interior of the second layer since it has the structure as recited and the cover extends in the second layer in its entirety (Fig 6a).
PNG
media_image1.png
871
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
654
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hughett further discloses the first layer (110) being a frame (Fig 6a).
Regarding claim 3, Hughett further discloses plurality of compartments includes a third and fourth compartment (112, 118).
Regarding claim 4, Hughett further discloses first compartment (114) positioned between the second (116) and third compartment (112).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026 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 previous claim 7 was not rejected in the prior action and thus the claims as amended overcome the applied prior art of record. This is not persuasive because the claims as currently amended do not recite all the limitations of previous claim 7.
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
Prosecution Insights