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 § 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 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riley (5,424,048).
Claim 1
Riley discloses a mesh tray lid (22) capable to be used with a mesh sterilizing tray having a substantially rectangular grid-like basic form which defines an outer side which, when being placed onto the mesh sterilizing tray, faces away from the mesh sterilizing tray, wherein a respective detent and/or snap-in device (26), which is provided and configured for receiving a rod-shaped bar positively and/or in a force-fit manner from a direction substantially perpendicular to the outer side, is formed or arranged on two opposite edge portions on the outer side of the mesh tray lid (see figure 1 and column 3 lines 44-52 and lines 64-65).
Claim 7
Riley further discloses the mesh tray lid includes, at each of the two opposite edge portions, a cut-out/groove (26a) which is formed to be substantially rectangular and extends along the respective edge portion. Riley discloses the detent/snap-in device comprises grooves (26a) extending along the length of the detent/snap-in device for receiving handles (28), therefore the cut-out/groove at each detent/snap-in device is rectangular (see figure 1 and column 3 lines 64-64-68).
Claim 8
Riley further discloses the mesh tray lid comprises, in the area of each of the opposite edge portions, an indentation/groove (26a) in a direction perpendicular to the outer side, thus causing a stepping (defined by transition between the indentation and surface pointed by 26) to be formed, wherein a cut-out is formed in the indentation (see figure 1 and column 3 lines 64-64-68).
Claim 9
Riley further discloses the indentation has a trapezoid/rectangular shape, wherein a transition (defined by edge area between the indentation/groove 26a and surface of 26) from the indentation to the non-indented outer side has a planar, closed surface in order to stiffen the transition (see figure 1 and 1a).
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reinauer (DE 102010050919).
Claim 1
Reinauer discloses a mesh tray lid (3) for a mesh sterilizing tray having a substantially rectangular grid-like basic form (see abstract) which defines an outer side which, when being placed onto the mesh sterilizing tray, faces away from the mesh sterilizing tray, wherein a respective detent and/or snap-in device/locking element (6), which is provided and configured for receiving a rod-shaped bar positively and/or in a force-fit manner from a direction substantially perpendicular to the outer side, is formed or arranged on two opposite edge portions on the outer side of the mesh tray lid. Reinauer discloses the detent and/or snap-in device/locking element (6) is used to attach the lid to container (2) with help of locking bar (5) (see figure 1 and abstract).
Claim 7
Reinauer further discloses the mesh tray lid includes, at each of the two opposite edge portions (defined by areas where side panels 13 are provided), a cut-out which is formed to be substantially rectangular and extends along the respective edge portion (see figure 2).
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.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley (5,424,048) or Reinauer (DE 102010050919) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baker (US 7,905,353).
Claims 2-4
None of Riley or Reinauer or disclose the detent and/or snap-in device is formed to be at least partially, elastic in order to receive the rod-shaped bar in a force-fit manner and/or positively by clamping. However, Baker discloses a sterilizable containment tray (20) comprising a snap-fit device/brackets (37) disposed on ends of a tray portion for receiving a rod-shaped portion of a handle (39), so that multiple trays can be attached to each other, in a stack fashion (see column 6 lines 9-14). Baker further discloses the snap-fit device/brackets comprises an elastic detent portion (defined by combination of structures 66 and 67) including elastic clip/detent tabs (67) and a shelf for resiliently receiving the rod-shaped portion of the handle from a deflection permitted by the elastic clip/detent tabs (see column 6 lines 9-33). The snap-fit device/brackets (37) disclosed by Baker comprises two gripping surfaces (defined by tabs 67 and shelf 66) which faces away from each other and extend perpendicularly to the outer side, or comprises a manually greppable open handle (see figure 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riley or Reinauer replacing the detent/snap-in device for the snap-fit device/brackets as disclosed by Baker since both structures are equivalent snap-fit devices for holding a rod-shaped portion of a handle and would perform the function of attaching the rod-shaped portion of the handle and the lid in closed position equally well.
Claim 6
Riley discloses the detent and/or snap-in device (26) disposed at both ends of the lid (see column 3 lines 44-45). Reinauer discloses the detent and/or snap in device at both ends of the lid (see figures 1 and 10). After any of Riley or Reinauer are modified by Baker, the snap-fit device/brackets will be at opposite sides of the lid. Baker further discloses the snap-fit device/brackets (37) made from plastic material (see column 4 lines 14-15). It is known that plastic has some degree of elasticity. Baker discloses the permit deformation when the rod-shaped portion of the handle (39) is inserted (see column 6 lines 25-33).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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 10 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument that Riley does not disclose a grid-like basic form defined in the outer side, the examiner disagrees. Riley discloses a lid (22) to be used in top of a box/tray (10), wherein the box/tray has a grid-like basic form by the fact that the box/tray (10) comprises holes (16). Further, the claim also could be interpreted as the mesh tray lid (22) of Riley has a grid-like form by holes (24), wherein the mesh tray lid defines an outer side (defined by surface of the lid including structure 26).
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 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 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
Prosecution Insights