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 1-10 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, in claim 1, line 4, “a container recess part whose center part is depressed is formed”. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claims with respect to the figures. However, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwertfeder (US 2,764,334) which in figures 1 and 2 below disclose the following claimed invention:
PNG
media_image1.png
685
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1: a container tray A capable of placing a plurality of contained objects 2 thereon, wherein in a placement region 1 corresponding to one contained object 2, a container recess part B whose center part is depressed is formed, and the container recess part B is composed of a plurality of placement surfaces C which are regionally separated from each other and have flexibility (see figures 1 and 2 above).
In re claim 2: a plurality of protrusion parts D provided from a tray bottom surface E upward are formed, and the placement surfaces C are included in the protrusion parts D (see figures 1 and 2 above).
In re claim 3: the placement surfaces C are an inclined surface which is low on an inner side and gradually heightens toward an outer side of the container recess part B (see figures 1 and 2 above).
In re claim 4: wherein in a center of the container recess part B, a non-placement part F is provided in which there is no placement surface (see figures 1 and 2 above).
In re claim 5: the plurality of placement surfaces C have identical shapes (see figures 1 and 2 above).
In re claim 7: an opening G is provided in the non-placement part (see figures 1 and 2 above).
In re claim 8: a plurality of support parts H which support lower parts of the plurality of placement surfaces C are provided (see figures 1 and 2 above).
In re claim 9: an upper part tray A which has the container recess part B and the support part H, and on which the contained object 3 is directly placed; and a lower part tray I which is arranged below the upper part tray A and has a base part J supporting the support part H from below (see figures 1 and 2 above).
In re claim 10: an inner tray A which has the container recess part B and on which the contained object 3 is directly placed; and an outer tray I which has a box-shape I with an upper surface K being opened (fig.3) and contains the inner tray A therein (see figures 1 and 2 above).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6 as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lehmann (US 3,447,731) which in figures 1-6 disclose the following claimed invention:
In re claim 1: a container tray 1 capable of placing a plurality of contained objects 17 thereon, wherein in a placement region (region defined by 5) corresponding to one contained object 17, a container recess part 5 whose center part 9 is depressed is formed, and the container recess part 5 is composed of a plurality of placement surfaces (inner surfaces of 5) which are regionally separated from each other (each recess) and have flexibility (made of plastic) (see figures 1-4).
In re claim 2: a plurality of protrusion parts 11 provided from a tray bottom surface 8 upward are formed, and the placement surfaces (inner surfaces of 5) are included in the protrusion parts 11 (see figures 1-4).
In re claim 6: an upper part tray (top 1) on which the contained object 17 is directly placed and which has the protrusion parts 11; and a lower part tray (bottom 1) which is arranged below the upper part tray (top 1), wherein the lower part tray (bottom 1) has a convex part (top 5) which contacts a top part of the protrusion parts 11 from below and does not contact the placement surfaces (inner surfaces of 5) of the protrusion parts 11 (see figures 5 and 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 for prior art that teaches and suggests structural limitations of the claimed and disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735