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 .
Figure 1A-1D should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. All or substantially all of the references to Figs 1A-1D in the specification of the subject application appear to indicate that Figs 1A-1D are prior art. See, for example only, specification [0058]. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6-16 is/are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehouse (4,776,146) in view of Bergeron et al. (2018/0215529) or Mello et al. (5,820,904). Whitehouse (as applied in the last Office action) discloses most of the features of the claims (see the last Office action). What Whitehouse is missing is that the tray therein does not have a plurality of cells, and the cells do not have a shape substantially matching a lower half of one of the fresh meat articles. On the other hand, these missing features are conventional and even notorious as shown by either Bergeron or Mello. It would have been obvious in view of either Bergeron or Mello to provide the tray in Whitehouse with the missing features, for the purpose of configuring the tray to package particular kinds of meat articles.
Features of the claims other than those discussed above that may not be disclosed in Whitehouse, appear to be conventional in the relevant art or well within the level of skill of one having ordinary skill in the art to provide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide these also in the invention of Whitehouse, for the purpose of more attractively or more economically packaging the meat products of Whitehouse or other meat products.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose tray cells that substantially match the shape of meat articles packaged in the trays. Accordingly, applicant has amended the independent claim to require this feature. On the other hand, the examiner has now cited and applied two new references to meet the claim requirements for the salient features. Coincidentally, the examiner notes that all of the 7 newly cited references show the features in question to be notorious in the art. Therefore, independent claim 6 as amended does not avoid the prior art.
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 JACOB K ACKUN whose telephone number is (571)272-4418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 11am-7pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JACOB K ACKUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights