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 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.
Claims 7-10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are 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 claims 7-10, 11, 12, 14 language reciting “when the first tray is stacked on the second tray” is indefinite because it is unclear if applicant is positively claiming the second tray or not. In claim 2, it is clear that recited language of “configuring the first tray to be stackable on a second tray” does not require the second tray and the claim only requires the capability of the first tray to be stacked on a second tray. If this case, if the tray has a structure that allows one tray to be stacked over another, then the prior art meets the claimed limitation. The claim is only directed to the intended use of the tray to be capable to be stacked over another tray. However, the limitation recited in the claims appears that the second tray is positively recited as part of the claimed invention because positively claim the action of the first tray to be “stacked” over the second tray. Regarding claim 15, the claim is also rejected because it inherits the same issue of claim 14 because if its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 2-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (US 7,934,449).
PNG
media_image1.png
693
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2
Anderson discloses another first tray (216) with a first brim and a base, the base including a first upper surface with first sidewalls extending between the first upper surface and the first brim, the first brim radially extending from a first lower end of the base (see figure above); and configuring the first tray capable to be stack on a second tray that is identical to the first tray, the configuring including defining two or more first recesses in the first sidewalls and the first upper surface, a first inner surface (defined by surface on the interior of the tray) of the two or more first recesses being at least capable to be partially mate with a second outer surface of two or more second recesses of the second tray when stacked, the two or more first recesses being spaced equidistantly around a center-point of a top surface of the base (see figure above).
Claim 3
Anderson further discloses the establishing establishes such that the first
sidewalls are cylindrically shaped (see figure above).
Claim 4
Anderson further discloses the establishing establishes such that a dome extends
upwardly and away from the first upper surface, the first upper surface and the dome closing an upper end of the dome (see figure above).
Claim 5
Anderson further discloses the establishing establishes such that the dome is centrally positioned on the first upper surface, the dome having a horizontal cross-section that is
Circular (see figure 13).
Claim 6
Anderson further discloses the establishing establishes the dome to include an annular side surface, the annular side surface being inclined toward the center-point of the top
surface, the top surface being at a top of the dome (see figure above and figure 13).
Claim 13
Anderson further discloses the configuring configures such that two or more first petaloids (defined by the upward surface extending from the recesses as shown in the figure above) are defined between the two or more first recesses, the two or more first petaloids being defined by the first upper surface, the first sidewalls, and first side panels of each of the two or more first recesses (see figure above).
Claim 14
Anderson further discloses the configuring configures such that a second inner
surface of the two or more first petaloids is at least partially capable to mate with a second outer surface of two or more second petaloids of the second tray when the first tray is stacked on the second tray (see figure above).
Claim 15
Anderson further discloses the configuring configures such that the two or more first petaloids are spaced equidistantly around the center-point, and the side panels are on
either side of a back wall of each of the two or more first recesses (see figure above).
Claims 2, 3, 10-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Glaser (US 8,770,431).
PNG
media_image2.png
404
573
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2
Glaser discloses a first tray (60) with a first brim and a base, the base including a first upper surface (defined by top of the base) with first sidewalls extending between the first upper surface and the first brim, the first brim radially extending from a first lower end of the base (see figure above); and configuring the first tray capable to be stack on a second tray that is identical to the first tray, the configuring including defining two or more first recesses in the first sidewalls and the first upper surface, a first inner surface (defined by surface on the interior of the tray) of the two or more first recesses being at least capable to be partially mate with a second outer surface of two or more second recesses of the second tray when stacked, the two or more first recesses being spaced equidistantly around a center-point (defined by area where 62 is shown) of a top surface of the base (see figure above).
Claim 3
Glaser further discloses the establishing establishes such that the first
sidewalls are cylindrically shaped (see figure above).
Claim 10
Glaser further discloses the configuring configures such that the first brim defines a first set of depressions that extend below a lower major surface of the first brim, the lower
major surface being flat (see figure above).
Claim 11
Glaser further discloses the configuring configures such that a lower portion of each of the first set of depressions are capable to fit at least partially into an upper portion of a second set of depressions of the second tray when the first tray is stacked on the second tray (see figure above).
Claim 12
Glaser further discloses the configuring configures such that two or more
notches are defined along an upper periphery of the base, each of the two or more notches including a bottom surface (defined by surface pointed by 65a and 65b) that extends into an interior of the first tray capable to contact a second upper surface of the
second tray and maintain a separation between the first tray and the second tray when the first tray is stacked on the second tray.
Claim 16
Glaser further discloses setting a consumer product (such as food product) on top of a lid (20) of a tub (100) (see column 2 line 62 and column 3 lines 5-8); and connecting the first tray to the lid to form a first package, the first tray overlaying the consumer product (see figures 1, 4 and 4a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaser (US 8,770,431) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Fairchild (4,883,935).
Glaser does not disclose the connecting includes applying a shrink wrap over at least one first portion of the first tray and at least one second portion of the lid. However, Fairchild discloses a multi-part container (2) comprising a tray (6), and a container (4) sealed by a lid (22), and a shrink band/wrap (42) disposed over the tray and the container including the lid (see figure 3). Fairchild discloses the uses of the shrink band/wrap is for tamper evidence of the multi-part container (see column 3 lines 21-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Glaser including a shrink band/wrap as taught by Fairchild for tamper evidence of the package.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-21 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 RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736