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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (Figs 1-2, claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 2/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that none of the present claims are directed to patentably distinct species. This is not found persuasive because the election is based on an election of species and not on an election of claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2023/0158274 to Justus et al. (Justus).
Regarding claim 1, Justus discloses a tray comprising a first layer (38) having a plurality of compartments, a second layer (34), non-removably coupled to the first layer, a container is positioned within interior of the second layer, a cover (32) attachable to an opening of the second layer, the cover (32) having a passageway (40) extending through the cover (32) and into interior of the second layer (34) (Fig 4).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent No. 8,177,123 to Voute et al. (Voute).
Regarding claim 1, Voute discloses a tray (117) comprising a first layer (204) having a plurality of compartments (221), a second layer (85), non-removably coupled to the first layer, a container is positioned within interior of the second layer, a cover (115) attachable to an opening (80) of the second layer (85), the cover (115) having a passageway (420) extending through the cover (115) and into interior of the second layer (85) (Fig 3).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent No. 4,687,096 to Mansur.
Regarding claim 1, Mansur discloses a tray (12) comprising a first layer (16) having a plurality of compartments (28), a second layer (18), non-removably coupled to the first layer (16), a container (compartment) is positioned within interior of the second layer, a cover (14) attachable to an opening (top) of the second layer (18), the cover (14) having a passageway (50) extending through the cover (14) and into interior of the second layer (18).
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) 1-6 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 plurality of compartments (114, 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
654
540
media_image1.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 first, second, third and fourth compartment (118, 114, 116, 112).
Regarding claim 4, Hughett further discloses first compartment (116) positioned between second (114) and third compartment (112).
Regarding claim 5, Hughett further discloses first compartment (116) including a first barrier wall (A, Fig 1a below) and second barrier wall (B, Fig 1a below).
Regarding claim 6, Hughett further discloses first barrier wall and second barrier wall forming a first opening (C, Fig 1a below).
PNG
media_image2.png
632
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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