DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 02/13/2025, 03/10/2025, and 11/20/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “slot” as used in claims 1, 7 and 9 is used in a manner that contradicts its ordinary and customary meaning, rendering the scope of the claims unclear to the public. The plain meaning of “slot” is a void, aperture, or slit – an absence of structure or material. However, the claims recite that the “slot” comprises positive structural elements including “guide parts,” “upper surfaces,” and “fastening parts” (claim 7) which are “inserted into” grooves. While the Applicant may act as their own lexicographer, the use of a term that typically denotes a “void” to claim a “solid structural insert” (which appears to be component labeled ‘200’ in the drawings) creates substantial confusion. A member of the public cannot readily determine if the claim is directed to a tray having apertures (slots) with features defined on the tray surface, or a tray having discrete solid inserts. To resolve this ambiguity, it is recommended that that Applicant amend the term to accurately describe the structural nature of the component without introducing new matter. For purposes of examination, the term will be interpreted as a solid structural insert.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitations "a first groove part" in line 5 and “a second groove part” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The claim recites, “…a plurality of groove parts…” but does not explicitly define a “first groove part” or a “second groove part” within that plurality. It is unclear if the “first” and “second” groove parts are new elements being introduced, or if they are specific members selected from the “plurality of groove parts.”
Regarding claim 9, the term “rough surface” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rough” is not defined by the claim to provide any objective standard, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While ¶ [0089] of the specification mentions that the fibers provide the roughness, the claim itself does not recite a sufficient standard for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the metes and bounds of the “rough” limitation. For purposes of examination, the claim limitation will be interpreted as any material satisfying the material composition as having the requisite “rough surface.”
Regarding claims 2-6, 8, and 10, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependence upon rejected claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
If the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are overcome, claims 1-10 would be found allowable for the following reasons:
Cheng (US 2020/0071052 A1) teaches a main body tray (figure 5) including a plurality of outer walls (shown in figure 5), a plurality of “slots” (figures 1-2, #100 & figure 5), where the slots include a first guide part parallel to one sidewall and a second guide part parallel to another side wall (first and second guide parts shown in figure 2, #12; wherein their incorporation into the main body tray is shown in figure 5). However, Cheng does not specifically teach wherein the slots include a plurality of alignment marks defined on upper surfaces, … and the alignment mark is defined on an upper surface of one of the first guide part and the second guide part, as recited in claim 1.
Lv (US 10,457,464), Nakamichi (US 2019/0300261 A1), Cheng (US 2016/0272411 A1), and Kuo (US 2014/0138377 A1) all teach relevant aspects of a packaging tray, including “slots” with many of the same features identified in Cheng above. However, none of these prior arts cure the deficiencies identified above.
Wortrich (US 6,874,629) teaches a tray including what appears to be an alignment mark on said tray (shown in figure 1). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would likely not be motivated to look to Wortrich to cure the deficiencies identified in Cheng above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731