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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant's Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 11 November 2025.
Claims 1 – 12 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, the limitation, “the step of mounting to form the assembly group”, should read, “the step of mounting the assembly group”, referring to its antecedent basis, “a step of mounting the assembly group”, in claim 2, lines 1 – 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation, “the sub step of assembling the base”, in lines 10 – 11, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean, “a sub step of assembling the base”. Since claims 3 – 5 depend upon rejected claim 2, claims 3 – 5 are likewise rejection for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howard (US 11,547,231 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Howard discloses an assembly group for manufacturing a tray and comprising:
a base (250, fig. 1);
a container nest holder (240, fig. 1); and
a container nest (200, fig. 1);
wherein the base, the container nest holder, and the container nest are coupled together in a releasable way (As shown in figure 1 wherein an intermediate tray 240 and a bottom tray 250 can be pulled away from the carrier body 200 via tracks 224, 226 and tracks 220,222, respectively);
wherein, said container nest is configured to house a plurality of containers (900, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Howard discloses the container nest (200, fig. 1) has one or more first openings (212, fig. 1), each of which is configured to house at least partially, in use, a respective container (900, fig. 6);
wherein, the container nest holder (240, fig. 1) has one or more second openings (242, fig. 2), each of which is configured to house at least partially, in use, a respective container;
wherein, each first opening overlaps at least partially a respective second opening (As shown in figures 1 and 7); wherein said second openings are through a plate (The plain meaning of the term, “plate”, is “a smooth flat thin piece of material” – Merriam Webster, wherein figures 2 and 7 shows the intermediate tray 240 as a plate).
Regarding claim 9, Howard discloses said base (250, fig. 11) and said container nest holder (240, fig. 1) are made of a material mechanically resistant to pressures (The bottom tray 250 and the intermediate tray 240 are made of solid materials wherein solids generally resist compression far better compared to liquids and gases. Please note, the neither the claim nor the specification specifies the amount of pressure the material of the base and container nest holder is made to resist thus, the examiner interprets that if the material of the base and container nest holder is able to resist any amount of pressure, the claim is met. In the instant case, The bottom tray 250 and the intermediate tray 240 are made of solid materials that can at least maintain their definite shape and volume under normal atmospheric pressure).
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 1 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US 11,547,231 B1) in view of the Coates (US 2021/0214135 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Howard discloses a method for manufacturing a meal tray by means of an assembly group (apparatus of fig. 1) configured to house a plurality of containers (900, fig. 9) wherein said assembly group comprises a base (250, fig. 1), a container nest holder (240, fig. 1) and a container nest (200, fig. 1) that are coupled together in a releasable way (As shown in figure 1 wherein an intermediate tray 240 and a bottom tray 250 can be pulled away from the carrier body 200 via tracks 224, 226 and tracks 220,222, respectively) wherein, said container nest is configured to house the plurality of containers (As shown in figure 6).
Howard does not explicitly disclose a step of sealing comprising heat-sealing simultaneously a film or a rigid lid on each container housed in said container nest.
However, Coates, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, discloses a step of sealing comprising heat-sealing simultaneously a film (5, fig. 5) or a rigid lid on each container (2, fig. 5) ([0093] describes a paperboard laminate sealing lid 5 that is heat-welded to the lip to seal the cup 2) (One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that with the incorporation of the teachings of Coates with the invention of Howard, each cup 900 of Howard would comprise a paperboard laminate sealing lid 5 that is heat-welded to the lip to seal the cup 2 and that container would then be housed in the container nest/carrier body 200 of Howard).
Coates is evidence that the step of sealing comprising heat-sealing simultaneously the film on each container housed in the container nest was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the cups of Howard with the step of sealing which comprises heat-sealing simultaneously the film on each container housed in the container nest, as taught in Coates. Additionally, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the cups of Howard with the step of sealing which comprises heat-sealing simultaneously the film on each container housed in the container nest, as taught in Coates, in order to prevent leakage of product stored with in the container.
Regarding claim 2, Howard, as modified by Coates, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Howard discloses a step of mounting the assembly group;
wherein, the step of mounting comprises a sub step of providing the base (250, fig. 1), the container nest holder (240, fig. 1), and the container nest (200, fig. 1) (As shown in fig. 1);
wherein, the sub step of providing comprises choosing the base, the container nest holder, and the container nest coordinated with each other so as to be mounted together to form the assembly group (As shown in fig. 1);
wherein the sub step of providing further comprises choosing the base within a group of bases differing from each other in shape and/or size (Col. 6, ll. 21 – 29 describes that the components of the invention of Howard (i.e., base/the bottom tray 250, the container nest holder/intermediate tray 240, and the container nest/ carrier body 200) can be varied in size, shape, and form. Thus, the examiner interprets a group of base/the bottom tray 250 as a group of the different sizes, shapes, and forms of the base/the bottom tray 250 and that choosing the base/the bottom tray 250 is choosing one base/the bottom tray 250 from this group); the container nest holder within a group of container nest holders differing from each other in shape and/or size (Col. 6, ll. 21 – 29 describes that the components of the invention of Howard (i.e., base/the bottom tray 250, the container nest holder/intermediate tray 240, and the container nest/ carrier body 200) can be varied in size, shape, and form. Thus, the examiner interprets a group of the container nest holder/intermediate tray 240 as a group of the different sizes, shapes, and forms of the container nest holder/intermediate tray 240 and that choosing the container nest holder/intermediate tray 240 is choosing one the container nest holder/intermediate tray 240 from this group); choosing the container nest within a group of container nests differing from each other in shape and/or size (Col. 6, ll. 21 – 29 describes that the components of the invention of Howard (i.e., base/the bottom tray 250, the container nest holder/intermediate tray 240, and the container nest/ carrier body 200) can be varied in size, shape, and form. Thus, the examiner interprets a group of the container nest/carrier body 200 as a group of the different sizes, shapes, and forms of the container nest/carrier body 200 and that choosing the container nest/carrier body 200 is choosing one the container nest/carrier body 200 from this group);
wherein the step of mounting further comprises the sub step of assembling the base with the container nest holder so as to form a base unit (As shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Howard, as modified by Coates, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
Howard discloses the container nest (200, fig. 1) has one or more first openings (212, fig. 1), each of which is configured to house at least partially, in use, a respective container (900, fig. 6);
wherein, the container nest holder (240, fig. 1) has one or more second openings (242, fig. 2), each of which is configured to house at least partially, in use, a respective container;
wherein, each first opening overlaps at least partially a respective second opening (As shown in figures 1 and 7);
wherein, the sub step of providing further comprises choosing the container nest and the container nest holder as a function of one or more of the following parameters: a number, a shape, a size, and a position of each first opening and of each second opening (Col. 6, ll. 21 – 29 describes that the components of the invention of Howard (i.e., base/the bottom tray 250, the container nest holder/intermediate tray 240, and the container nest/ carrier body 200) can be varied in size, shape, and form. Thus, choosing the container nest holder/intermediate tray 240, and the container nest/ carrier body 200 is a function of the size, shape, and form of the assembled base unit).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US 11,547,231 B1), in view of the Coates (US 2021/0214135 A1), in further view of Zhang (CN 211933824 U).
Regarding claim 5, Howard, as modified by Coates, discloses the invention as recited in claim 3.
Howard discloses a step of inserting the container (900, fig. 6) inside the respective first opening (212, fig. 1) of the container nest (200, fig. 1) and inside the respective second opening (242, fig. 2) of the container nest holder (240, fig. 1);
wherein, the container has a cup-shaped body and comprises a bottom, which is configured to be placed, in use, on an horizontal plane, and lateral walls (As shown in figure 6);
wherein the bottom and the lateral walls delimit an inner cavity which faces outwards through an upper opening (As shown in figure 6);
The modified Howard does not explicitly disclose the container comprises a flange which protrudes radially outside from the lateral walls and surrounds the upper opening; wherein, in use, when the container is housed within the assembly group the flange of the container is placed on a gasket which radially surrounds said first opening of the container nest.
However, Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the container (1, fig. 1) comprising a flange (32, fig, 1) which protrudes radially outside from the lateral walls and surrounds the upper opening (12, fig. 1); wherein, in use, when the container is housed within a platform (21, fig. 1) the flange of the container is placed on a gasket (4, fig. 2) which radially surrounds said first opening of the container nest.
Zhang is evidence that having the container comprising the flange which protrudes radially outside from the lateral walls and surrounds the upper opening; wherein, in use, when the container is housed within the platform the flange of the container is placed on a gasket which radially surrounds said first opening of the container nest was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the cups of Howard with the container comprising the flange which protrudes radially outside from the lateral walls and surrounds the upper opening; wherein, in use, when the container is housed within the assembly group the flange of the container is placed on a gasket which radially surrounds said first opening of the container nest, as taught in Zhang. Additionally, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the cups of Howard with the container comprising the flange which protrudes radially outside from the lateral walls and surrounds the upper opening; wherein, in use, when the container is housed within the assembly group the flange of the container is placed on a gasket which radially surrounds said first opening of the container nest, as taught in Zhang, in order to reduce abrasion between the container and the container nest.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US 11,547,231 B1) in view of the Coates (US 2021/0214135 A1), in further view of Appelt (US 3,025,948 A)
Regarding claim 6, Howard, as modified by Coates, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Howard does not explicitly disclose a step of disassembling the assembly group comprising, in turn, to extract the container nest from the container nest holder; and a step of stacking a plurality of container nests on top of each other for storage and/or handling.
However, Appelt, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, teaches a step of disassembling the assembly group (assembly of fig. 4) comprising, in turn, to extract the container nest (13, fig. 4) from the container nest holder (11, fig. 1); and a step of stacking a plurality of container nests on top of each other for storage and/or handling (As shown in fig. 8).
Appelt is evidence that the step of disassembling the assembly group comprising, in turn, extracting the container nest from the container nest holder; and the step of stacking a plurality of container nests on top of each other for storage and/or handling was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the method for manufacturing a meal tray of Howard with the step of disassembling the assembly group comprising, in turn, extracting the container nest from the container nest holder; and the step of stacking a plurality of container nests on top of each other for storage and/or handling, as taught in Appelt. Additionally, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method for manufacturing a meal tray of Howard with the step of disassembling the assembly group comprising, in turn, extracting the container nest from the container nest holder; and the step of stacking a plurality of container nests on top of each other for storage and/or handling, as taught in Appelt, in order to perform preventive maintenance and cleaning of the assembly group and, when stacking the plurality of container nest, maximizing vertical storage space, enhancing inventory organization, and reducing product damage during storage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 – 12 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.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed , with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 8 and 10 – 11 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 102(a)(2) and claims 5 and 9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon given the amendments to independent claims 1 and 7, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Howard, Coates, and Zhang.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
17 February 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731