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 application number 18/806,947 filed 08/16/2024
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-12, drawn to a tray, classified in B65D 5/26.
II. Claims 13-24, drawn to a blank, classified in B65D 21/0233.
III. Claims 25-36, drawn to a method of forming a tray, classified in B31B 50/262.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the two products can be used separate from one another. The subcombination has separate utility such as for carrying food while the blank can be used to wrap glassware instead of a tray.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Inventions (I-II) and III are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the process can be used to construct cabinet drawers with interior reinforcement walls.
Claims 25-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group/invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/06/2026.
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 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manizza (US 4,114,797) in view of Sielski (US 8,590,707).
Claims 1, 13. Manizza discloses a tray/blank 10 for holding at least one food 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 46/47 (fig. 4);
a plurality of top end flaps 36/37 foldably connected to a respective panel of the plurality of panels and cooperating to form a rim extending outwardly from the plurality of panels (fig. 1);
a plurality of side end flaps 24-27 foldably connected to a respective panel of the plurality of panels; and
locking features including a locking tab 57 protruding from the locking end flap, and a plurality of locking flaps 65 at least partially positioned in a respective panel of the plurality of panels at least partially receiving a respective locking tab therebetween (col. 2, ll. 63-37 – col. 3, ll. 1-40; fig.2).
Manizza fails to disclose a foldably connected end flap. Sielski teaches including a locking end flap 44 foldably @38 connected to at least one side end flap 20 of the plurality of side end flaps (fig. 1). 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 locking end flap of Manizza to include the hinged locking end flap of Sielski to maintain both the design and structural integrity of the locking feature.
Claims 2, 14. Manizza-Sielski discloses the tray of claim 1, wherein each locking flap of the plurality of locking flaps is at least partially separated from a respective adjacent locking flap of the plurality of locking flaps at a cut 28 (Sielski; col. 3, ll. 41-55).
Claims 3, 5. Manizza-Sielski discloses the tray of claim 2, 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
Claims 4, 16. Manizza-Sielski 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. Manizza-Sielski 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. Manizza-Sielski 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. Manizza-Sielski 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(s) 10-12 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manizza (US 4,114,797) in view of Sielski (US 8,590,707) in view of McGlynn et al. (US 3,883,067).
Claim 10, 22. Manizza-Sielski discloses the tray of claim 3, but fails to disclose the locking flaps being formed in at least one side panel. Webster McGlynn teaches wherein the plurality of locking flaps 47/49 is at least partially positioned in the at least one side panel 40 of the plurality of panels (fig. 1). 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 locking flaps of Manizza-Sielski to be positioned in the side panel as taught by McGlynn to assist create a stronger and stable connection of the panels.
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.
Claim 11, 23. Manizza-Sielski- 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. Manizza-Sielski-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
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