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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 38.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 37a and 37b.
Figure 6 appears to have a reference number 60 where there should be reference number 50
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 currently states “The tray with lid of claim 1, wherein rigid plate is made of steel…” The Examiner believes the claim is intended to state “The tray with lid of claim 1, wherein the rigid plate is made of steel…”
Claims 3 and 4 currently state “first and second pairs of protrusions each having a securing endpiece and being formed on opposite one another on the outermost sidewalls of the bottom tray”. The Examiner believes the claims are intended to state “first and second pairs of protrusions each having a securing endpiece and being formed [[on]] opposite one another on the outermost sidewalls of the bottom tray”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, and 7 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.
Claims 1 and 7 state the top lid comprises a “generally planar sheet body” and then continues on to state the top lid has “recessed portions”. It appears as though the claiming of “recessed portion” appears to directly contradict the “generally planar sheet body” characterization of the lid. The claims have been examined below as best the Examiner can understand, however, further clarification is required.
Claim 1 currently states “the top lid includes a rigid plate in the form of a sheet body having an outer perimeter that is sized and shaped to fit over the bottom tray, wherein the sheet body includes cutouts that form recessed portions of the top lid; and wherein the rigid plate is molded within a resilient outer covering of the top lid, such that only the resilient outer covering extends over the recessed portions.” This language is unclear. The Examiner believes the Applicant intended to claim something along the lines of “the top lid includes a rigid plate in the form of a sheet body having an outer perimeter that is sized and shaped to fit over the bottom tray, wherein the sheet body includes cutouts [[that form recessed portions of the top lid]]; and wherein the rigid plate is molded within a resilient outer covering of the top lid, such that only the resilient outer covering extends over the cutouts, creating recessed portions.”
Claim 7 references “a top lid” in line 2. It is unclear if the “top lid” of claim 7 is intended to be the same as the “top lid” referenced in claim 4, which claim 7 depends from, or if it is supposed to be a different “top lid”. For purposes of further consideration, the claim is being interpreted as if they are the same “top lid” and claim 7 is being interpreted as stating “the [[a]] top lid”.
Claim 7 references “a rigid plate” in line 4. It is unclear if the “rigid plate” of claim 7 is intended to be the same as the “rigid plate” referenced in claim 6, which claim 7 depends from, or if it is supposed to be a different “rigid plate”. For purposes of further consideration, the claim is being interpreted as if they are the same “rigid plate” and claim 7 is being interpreted as stating “the [[a]] rigid plate”.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dege et al. (US 7114630) (hereinafter Dege).
Regarding Claim 1
Dege teaches a tray with lid (Fig. 1 and 7) comprising: a bottom tray (12) comprising a plurality of compartments (16) each having a bottom surface (18) and upwardly extending sidewalls (20) that extend upwardly from the bottom surface to a perimeter opening; a top surface (24) of the bottom tray that joins the plurality of compartments together and extends to a perimeter edge that extends outwardly past the outermost upwardly extending sidewalls to form an outer ledge (25) that surrounds the plurality of compartments; a top lid (14) comprising a generally planar sheet body (inasmuch as Applicant shows) having a top surface and a bottom surface that extend to a perimeter edge adapted to fit over the ledge of the bottom tray; wherein the top lid includes a rigid plate (34) in the form of a sheet body having an outer perimeter that is sized and shaped to fit over the bottom tray, wherein the sheet body includes cutouts that form recessed portions (32) of the top lid; and wherein the rigid plate is molded within a resilient outer covering of the top lid, such that only the resilient outer covering extends over the recessed portions (Col. 2, Ln. 58 – Col. 4, Ln. 19).
PNG
media_image1.png
553
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
251
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dege as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 6415947).
Regarding Claim 3
Dege teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Dege does not teach first and second pairs of protrusions each having a securing endpiece and being formed opposite one another on the outermost sidewalls of the bottom tray; and wherein the securing endpieces engage downwardly extending tabs that extend downwardly from the perimeter edge of the top lid.
Kim teaches a tray with lid (below – Fig. 1 and 3) comprising: a bottom tray comprising a compartment (3) having a bottom surface (19) and upwardly extending sidewalls (14) that extend upwardly from the bottom surface to a perimeter opening, and a perimeter edge (13); a top surface of the bottom tray; a top lid (2) comprising a generally planar sheet body having a top surface and a bottom surface that extend to a perimeter edge adapted to fit over the perimeter edge (13) of the bottom tray; first and second pairs of protrusions (10 and 10a/b) each having a securing endpiece and being formed opposite one another on the outermost sidewalls of the bottom tray; and wherein the securing endpieces engage downwardly extending tabs (5) that extend downwardly from the perimeter edge of the top lid, as can be seen in the figures below (Col. 3, Ln. 31 – 67).
PNG
media_image3.png
407
439
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
291
480
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Dege and Kim are analogous inventions in the field of trays having lids. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the tray and lid of Dege with the teachings of the protrusions and tabs of Kim in order to better secure the lid to the tray and provide tabs for leveraging the removal of the lid.
Claim(s) 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dege et al. (US 7114630) (hereinafter Dege), in view of Kim (US 6415947).
Regarding Claim 4
Dege teaches a tray with lid (Fig. 1 and 7) comprising: a bottom tray (12) comprising a plurality of compartments (16) each having a bottom surface (18) and upwardly extending sidewalls (20) that extend upwardly from the bottom surface to a perimeter opening; a top surface (24) of the bottom tray that joins the plurality of compartments together and extends to a perimeter edge that extends outwardly past the outermost upwardly extending sidewalls to form an outer ledge (25) that surrounds the plurality of compartments; a top lid (14) comprising a generally planar sheet body (inasmuch as Applicant shows) having a top surface and a bottom surface that extend to a perimeter edge adapted to fit over the ledge of the bottom tray (Col. 2, Ln. 58 – Col. 4, Ln. 19).
Dege does not teach first and second pairs of protrusions each having a securing endpiece and being formed opposite one another on the outermost sidewalls of the bottom tray; and wherein the securing endpieces engage downwardly extending tabs that extend downwardly from the perimeter edge of the top lid.
Kim teaches a tray with lid (Fig. 1 and 3) comprising: a bottom tray comprising a compartment (3) having a bottom surface (19) and upwardly extending sidewalls (14) that extend upwardly from the bottom surface to a perimeter opening, and a perimeter edge (13); a top surface of the bottom tray; a top lid (2) comprising a generally planar sheet body having a top surface and a bottom surface that extend to a perimeter edge adapted to fit over the perimeter edge (13) of the bottom tray; first and second pairs of protrusions (10 and 10a/b) each having a securing endpiece and being formed opposite one another on the outermost sidewalls of the bottom tray; and wherein the securing endpieces engage downwardly extending tabs (5) that extend downwardly from the perimeter edge of the top lid, as can be seen in the figures below (Col. 3, Ln. 31 – 67).
Dege and Kim are analogous inventions in the field of trays having lids. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the tray and lid of Dege with the teachings of the protrusions and tabs of Kim in order to better secure the lid to the tray and provide tabs for leveraging the removal of the lid.
Regarding Claim 5
Dege in view of Kim (hereinafter “modified Dege”) teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Dege further teaches the bottom tray (12) is constructed of a rigid material, and the top lid (14) is at least partially constructed of a resilient material (Col. 2, Ln. 67 – Col. 3, Ln. 2; and Col. 3, Ln. 38-40).
Regarding Claim 6
Modified Dege teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as stated above. Dege further teaches a rigid plate (34) positioned within the resilient material of the top lid.
Regarding Claim 7
Modified Dege teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Dege further teaches the top lid comprising a generally planar sheet body (inasmuch as Applicant shows) having a top surface and a bottom surface that extend to a perimeter edge adapted to fit over the ledge of the bottom tray; wherein the top lid includes the rigid plate (34) in the form of a sheet body having an outer perimeter that is sized and shaped to fit over the bottom tray, wherein the sheet body includes cutouts that form the recessed portions (32) of the top lid; and wherein the rigid plate is molded within a resilient outer covering of the top lid, such that only the resilient outer covering extends over the recessed portions, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9
Modified Dege teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Kim further teaches the securing endpieces of the first pair of protrusions (10a/b) are each in the form of a laterally extending tab, the downwardly extending tabs (5) are in the form of first and second pairs of downwardly extending tabs opposite one another, and the first pair of downwardly extending tabs each includes a laterally extending aperture that is shorter than the laterally extending tabs (10a/b) of the first pair of protrusions, so that the laterally extending tabs can pass through the laterally extending apertures and secure the first pair of downwardly extending tabs on the first pair of protrusions; and wherein the second pair of downwardly extending tabs each includes an aperture that is sized and adapted to receive the second pair of protrusions, as can be seen in Fig. 3.
Kim does not teach the securing endpieces of the second pair of protrusions are each in the form of a rounded head, and the second pair of downwardly extending tabs each includes an aperture that is sized and adapted to receive the rounded head of the second pair of protrusions.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the securing end pieces of the second pair of protrusions being in the form of a rounded head, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and (B). Further, Applicant has not disclosed that the securing end pieces of the second pair of protrusions being in the form of a rounded head provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the securing end pieces of the second pair of protrusions being in the form of a rounded head does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record. Further, based on the tab and protrusion configuration of Kim, it would further appear obvious that with the above modification, the second pair of downwardly extending tabs would each include an aperture that is sized and adapted to receive the rounded head of the modified second pair of protrusions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Closest prior art – Dege (cited above) – teaches a majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the closest prior art does not teach the rigid plate is made of steel, and the resilient outer covering is made of silicone.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 1 April 2026
Prosecution Insights