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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 10, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0072459 to Davey et al. (Davey) in view of JP 11301632 to Hirayama.
Regarding claim 1, Davey discloses a multi-compartment tray (1) comprising first and second compartments (2a, 2b) having first and second terminal edges (8 attached to 7a, 8 attached to 7b), respectively, that extend towards one another in a first plane (A, Fig 21 below), a wave-shaped perforation region (8) having a series of undulating crests (D, Fig 21 below) and troughs (E, Fig 21 below) that extend in series with respective tangents that extend in second (B, Fig 21 below) and third planes (C, Fig 21 below) respectively, and are parallel to and laterally offset from the first plane and from each other, wherein at least some of the undulating crests and troughs comprise a perforation tab (11) formed thereon that connect the first and second compartments, the sole attachment between the first and second compartments is achieved through connection of the perforation tabs at the crests and troughs (Fig 11). Davey does not teach the perforation tabs to be only one at each of the crests or troughs. Hirayama discloses a multicompartment tray (Fig 1) and in particular discloses compartments (2) attached through the sole connection of perforation tabs (6), only one perforation tab (6) at each of the crests and troughs (Figs 2, 11). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to reduce the number of perforation tabs such that there was a single one at each of the crests or troughs as suggested by Hirayama in order to facilitate bending (Hirayama, abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
757
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Davey further discloses bending the compartments relative to one another can cause them to snap and break the tab forming the connection between compartments since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 3, Davey further discloses the compartments (2a, 2b) shaped as a polygon (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 6, Davey further discloses at least four sets of undulating crests and troughs (Fig 21).
Regarding claim 7, Davey further discloses at least five sets of undulating crests and troughs (Fig 21).
Regarding claim 10, Davey further discloses wave-shaped perforation region (8) having a wave thickness greater than tab thickness of each of the tabs (11) since the tabs are located within the perforation region (Fig 21).
Regarding claim 13, Davey further discloses the tray composed of polypropylene (€0020).
Regarding claim 14, Davey further discloses first and second compartments (2a, 2b) comprising first and second flanges (7a, 7b).
Regarding claim 15, Davey further discloses first flange (7a) comprising first terminal edge (8) and second flange comprising second terminal edge (8).
Regarding claim 16, Davey further discloses first terminal edge (8) adjacent to second terminal edge (Fig 1).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Hirayama, and US Patent No. 5,938,068 to Atkins et al. (Atkins) or EP 1092344 to Fernholz.
Regarding claim 11, Davey teaches the tray of claim 1 but does not teach the wave-shaped perforation substantially sinusoidal. However, Atkins discloses a multi-compartment container (Fig 1) comprising compartments (10, 12) separated by a perforation (16) that is substantially sinusoidal with crests and troughs (col. 2, ll. 10-20). Fernholz also discloses a multi-compartment container (Fig 1) where the compartments (2) are separated by a sinusoidal perforation (8) that facilitate separation of the container so that each compartment can be used as a separate sale unit (¶0014). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the perforation region (8) of Davey also sinusoidal as suggested by either Atkins or Fernholz in order to facilitate separation of the compartments.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Hirayama and US 2007/0228039 to Tyberghein.
Regarding claim 17, Davey teaches the tray of claim 15 but does not explicitly teach first and second terminal edge separated by a gap. However, Tyberghein discloses a multi-compartment tray (10, Fig 1) and in particular discloses the trays having first and second terminal edges separated by a gap (101B, Fig 9). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate gaps between the terminal edges of each compartment as suggested by Tyberghein in order to facilitate separation.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Davey further teaches gap (101b, Tyberghein) is notched (Fig 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs 1-3 of remarks, filed 6/17/2026, with respect to the objection to specification and priority have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs 4-6 of remarks, filed 6/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 10, 13-16 under 35 USC 102a1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2018/0072459 to Davey in view of JP 11301632 to Hirayama.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm.
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.
/ROBERT POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights