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 .
This action is written in response to the amendment filed 05/22/2026
Claims 1, 3, 8-9, 11, 13, 15, 20-21 and 23 have been amended and claims 37-38 have been added
Claims 1-9, 11-21, 23-24 and 37-38 are presented for examination
This action is Final
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.
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(s) 1-5, 8-9, 13-17, 20-21 and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevier (US 11,370,576) in view of Manizza (US 4,114,797).
Claims 1, 13. Bevier discloses a tray/blank 10 for holding a product (abstract), the tray comprising:
a plurality of panels extending at least partially around an interior of the tray, the plurality of panels comprising a bottom panel 17, a front panel 34, a back panel 35, and at least one side panel (fig. 1);
a plurality of top end flaps 34,36 foldably connected to a respective panel of the plurality of panels and cooperating to form a rim extending outwardly from the plurality of panels;
a plurality of side end flaps 44a,b foldably connected to a respective bottom panel and front panel;
the at least one side end flap is in face-to -face contact with the at least one side panel (fig. 2),
the plurality of top end flaps comprise a side top end 48,58 foldably connected to the at least one side panel,
the locking end flap is in at least partial face-to-face contact with the side top end flap to reinforce the rim (col. 7, ll. 40-60; fig. 2-4).
Bevier fails to disclose a locking end flap being received by the side panel. Manizza teaches locking features including a locking end flap 57 capable of protruding from the locking end flap, and a plurality of locking flaps 65 at least partially positioned in the at least one side panel at least partially receiving a respective locking tab therebetween (col. 2, ll. 63-67 – col. 3, ll. 1-40; fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the side panels of Berver to include the locking flaps of Manizza to assist in securing the side end panels to the side panels.
Claims 2, 14. Bevier-Manizza discloses the tray of claim 1, wherein each locking flap of the plurality of locking flaps 57 is at least partially separated from a respective adjacent locking flap 24 of the plurality of locking flaps at a cut 53 (Manizza; fig. 4).
Claims 3, 5. Bevier-Manizza discloses the tray of claim 2, wherein the plurality of locking flaps comprises a first locking flap at least partially separable from the at least one side panel, a second locking flap at least partially separable from the at least one side panel, and a third locking flap at least partially separable from the at least one side panel (Manizza; see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
169
205
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 4, 16. Bevier-Manizza discloses the tray of claim 3, wherein the third locking flap is foldably connected to a respective top end flap of the plurality of top end flaps (Manizza; fig. 4).
Claim 8, 20. Bevier-Manizza discloses the tray of claim 3, wherein the plurality of locking flaps is a first plurality of locking flaps at least partially positioned in a respective panel of the plurality of panels, and the locking features comprise a second plurality of locking flaps at least partially positioned in a respective panel of the plurality of panels (Manizza; fig. 4).
Claims 9, 21. Bevier-Manizza discloses the tray of claim 3, wherein the first plurality of locking flaps is longitudinally spaced apart from the second plurality of locking flaps along the respective panel of the plurality of panels (Manizza; see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
169
205
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 15, 17. Bevier-Manizza discloses the tray of claim 13, wherein the plurality of locking flaps comprises a first locking flap at least partially separable from the respective panel of the plurality of panels, a second locking flap at least partially separable from the respective panel of the plurality of panels, and a third locking flap at least partially separable from the respective panel of the plurality of panels (Manizza; see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
169
205
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 37. Bevier-Manizza discloses the tray of claim 1, wherein the rim is generally parallel and planar relationship with respect to the bottom panel (Bevier; fig. 2-3).
Claim 38. Bevier-Manizza discloses the tray of claim 1, wherein the locking tab 72 extends inwardly toward the interior of the tray (Bevier; fig. 1).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevier (US 11,370,576) in view of Manizza (US 4,114,797) in view of McGlynn et al. (US 3,883,067).
Claim 11, 23. Bevier-Manizza-McGlynn discloses the tray of claim 10, wherein the at least one side panel 46 is a first side panel foldably connected to the bottom panel 17 and the plurality of panels further comprises a second side panel 47 foldably connected to the bottom panel (Manizza; fig. 1-2, 4). Manizza discloses the claimed invention except for the locking flaps being formed in a side panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the tabs in the side panel from the crease line. McGlynn performs the same function whether located in the side panel or top end flap. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 12, 24. Bevier-Manizza-McGlynn discloses the tray of claim 11, wherein the at least one side end flap is a first side end flap foldably connected to one of the front panel and the back panel and the locking end flap is a first locking end flap foldably connected to the first side end flap, the locking tab of the first locking end flap at least partially received between respective locking flaps of the first plurality of locking flaps, the plurality of side end flaps further comprises a second side end flap foldably connected to the other of the front panel and the back panel, the locking features further comprise a second locking end flap foldably connected to the second side end flap and having a locking tab extending therefrom at least partially received between respective locking flaps of the second plurality of locking flaps (Manizza; fig. 1-2, 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but in view of the amendment the search has been updated, new prior art has been identified and applied, and a new rejection has been made.
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 RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/RAVEN COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights