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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 35, there is no support in the original disclosure for the longitudinal partition having a constant height between webs and thus it constitutes new matter. In particular, the original disclosure is silent regarding the longitudinal partition having a constant height.
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.
Claim 10 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 10, the scope of the claims is unclear because it recites a container received by the tray; however, the claims are directed to a tray and a container received by the tray is not part of the tray itself and thus it fails to further limit the parent claim and/or renders the scope of the claim unclear as to whether the subcombination of the tray is being claimed or whether a combination of the tray and container is being claimed. For purposes of examination, claims will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and be treated as directed to the subcombination; however, clarification of the scope of the claims is required.
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, 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0240068 to Sanders et al. (Sanders) in view of US 2022/0135267 to Girimonte et al. (Girimonte) or US 2024/0067387 to Otte.
Regarding claim 1, Sanders discloses a tray for storing containers (intended use) comprising a body (20) comprising an upper surface comprising a perimeter portion having an outer perimeter and inner perimeter, a recess extending downwardly from and surrounded by the inner perimeter of the perimeter portion, wherein the recess is divided into a plurality of wells (24), each well adapted to receive at least a portion of a container (€0004) since it has the structure as recited, the tray comprises molded plant-based pulp (€0041). Sanders further discloses inner sidewalls of the wells adjacent the perimeter portion are defined by a body inner sidewall (A, Fig 1 below) extending downwardly from inner perimeter of the perimeter portion, a longitudinal partition (B, Fig 1 below) extending in a longitudinal direction from a first side (C, Fig 1 below) of the body inner sidewall to an opposing second side (D, Fig 1 below) of the body inner sidewall but does not teach a plurality of webs extending in a transverse direction between body inner sidewall and partition. However, Girimonte teaches a tray (Fig 5) and in particular discloses the tray comprising multiple rows of wells formed by a plurality of webs (A, Fig 5 below) extending in transverse direction and connecting sidewalls of adjacent wells. Otte also teaches a tray (Fig 1) comprising multiple rows of wells formed by a plurality of webs (A, Fig 1 below) extending in a transverse direction and connecting sidewalls of adjacent wells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a plurality of webs extending in a transverse direction to Sanders as suggested by Girimonte or Otte in order to have additional wells in the transverse direction to hold more content.
PNG
media_image1.png
654
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
667
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
631
791
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the modified Sanders teaches the tray of claim 1 but does not teach the shape of the inner sidewalls as recited. However, Otte further discloses inner sidewalls of the wells (120) having circular cross-section (Fig 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the shape of Sanders to be circular as suggested by Otte in order to hold items of circular shape.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Sanders further discloses closed bottom (25) surfaces of the wells (24) have a shape capable of corresponding to a shape of a bottom surface of the collection container to be received by tray since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 11, Sanders further discloses plurality of wells (24) adapted to hold fluid collection containers since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 12, Sanders further discloses outer sidewall (at 20, Fig 1a) extending downwardly from outer perimeter of perimeter portion (Fig 1a).
Regarding claim 13, Sanders further discloses outer sidewall (at 20) is substantially perpendicular to upper surface (Fig 1a).
Regarding claim 14, Sanders further discloses outer sidewall (at 20) being angled with respect to upper surface (90 degree angle, Fig 1a).
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0135267 to Grimonte et al. (Grimonte) in view of Sanders.
Regarding claim 1, Grimonte discloses a tray (Fig 5) for storing containers (intended use) comprising a body (100) comprising an upper surface (112) comprising a perimeter portion having an outer perimeter and inner perimeter, a recess extending downwardly from and surrounded by the inner perimeter of the perimeter portion, wherein the recess is divided into a plurality of wells (102), each well adapted to receive at least a portion of a container since it has the structure as recited. Grimonte does not teach the tray comprises molded plant-based pulp. However, Sanders discloses a tray (20) and in particular discloses the tray comprising recyclable material such a molded plant-base pulp (€0041). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to manufacture the Grimonte tray out of plant based pulp as suggested by Sanders in order to facilitate recyclability. Grimonte further discloses inner sidewalls of the plurality of wells adjacent to perimeter portion defined by a body inner sidewall (A, Fig 5 below) extending downward from inner perimeter, a longitudinal partition (106) extending in longitudinal direction from first side (B, Fig 5 below) to opposing second side (C, Fig 5 below), a plurality of webs (D, 108, Fig 5 below) extending in transverse direction between inner side wall and partition.
PNG
media_image4.png
704
607
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Grimonte further discloses body inner sidewall extends downwardly from inner perimeter of perimeter portion and inner sidewalls of the plurality of wells that are not adjacent to perimeter portion are defined by two longitudinal partitions (106) extending in longitudinal direction from a first side of the body inner sidewall to opposing second side of the body inner sidewall and a plurality of webs (108) extending in transverse direction between partitions.
Regarding claim 4, Grimonte further discloses plurality of wells (102) having a closed bottom surface (104).
Regarding claim 5, Grimonte further discloses a portion of the inner sidewalls of the wells are discontinuous such that an opening (A, Fig 5) is provided between wells.
PNG
media_image5.png
664
656
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Grimonte further discloses plurality of wells (102) defined by a body inner sidewall extending downwardly from inner perimeter of the perimeter portion, longitudinal partition (106) extending in longitudinal direction from a first side of the body inner sidewall to an opposing second side of the body inner sidewall, a plurality of webs (108) extending in a transverse direction between body inner sidewall and partition by two longitudinal partitions (106) extending in longitudinal direction from first side of body inner sidewall extending downwardly from inner perimeter to opposing second side of the body inner sidewall, a plurality of webs (108) extending in a transverse direction between partitions, the opening (A, Fig 65 above) defined by the webs.
Regarding claim 7, Grimonte further discloses plurality of wells (102) arranged in rows extending in longitudinal direction of the tray (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 35, Girimonte further teaches longitudinal portion (106) having a constant height between a web (A, Fig 5 below) nearest first side of the body inner sidewall and web (B, Fig 5 below) nearest opposing second side of body inner sidewall.
PNG
media_image6.png
728
622
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimonte in view of Sanders and US 2024/0067387 to Otte et al. (Otte).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Grimonte teaches the tray of claim 7 but does not teach position of ends of a first row offset from ends of a second row. However, Otte discloses a tray (Fig 1) and in particular discloses first and second rows in an array (110) having ends offset from each other (Fig 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to offset the rows of wells of Grimonte as suggested by Otte in order to strengthen the tray and have a larger upper surface.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Otte.
Regarding claims 15-16, Sanders teaches the tray of claim 12 but does not teach outer sidewall including ribs. However, Otte discloses a tray (Fig 1) and in particular discloses the tray comprising an outer sidewall (116) including a plurality of ribs (115) embossed in the outer sidewall such that the ribs are recesses on an outer surface of the outer sidewall (Fig 1) and protrusions on an inner surface of the outer sidewall (Fig 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate ribs to the outer sidewall of Sanders as suggested by Otte in order to facilitate stacking (Otte, €0076).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/6/2025 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 prior art, specifically Girimonte, does not teach a plurality of webs extending in a transverse direction between the body inner sidewall and the partition because the base support columns (108) are arranged to protrude upwardly from areas between adjacent cells. This is not persuasive because the columns have a width and length in addition to a height and since they are located centrally of the tray, would extend in transverse direction between body inner sidewall and a partition (106).
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