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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A5, B11, C14 and D8 and associated claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11-13 in the reply filed on July 9, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “…a search of all 13 claims would not result in undue burden of the Examiner…” Essentially no serious search burden (see election pg. 6).
This is not found persuasive because the species are in fact mutually exclusive and distinct features because one simply needs to observe the differences in each figure/embodiment(s) to see the mutual exclusivity. Such distinctions require a different keyword and class search for each disparate feature (i.e. different lid assemblies, different tray/cutting board assemblies, different bowls, and different latching or locking handles and so on) and therefore collectively impart a serious burden upon the Examiner. Furthermore the different types of inventions presented in the claims represent areas of art typically requiring examiners of different expertise. Therefore, the examination of all the species and claims is serious search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4 and 10 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 9, 2026.
In summary, claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11-13 are currently pending and will be examined on their merits herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because
reference character 2003 has been used to designate “tray” “bottom tray or tier” (see [0069])
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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: as noted in the drawing objections above. 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, 5-9 and 11-13 is/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.
In claim 1, ln. 2, the phrase, “…having an edge around the same…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to what structural limitation(s) or relationship(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required. An art rejection is provided below, as best understood by the examiner; emphasis added.
In claim 8, ln. 2-3, the phrase, “…having an edge….around the same…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to what structural limitation(s) or relationship(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required. An art rejection is provided below, as best understood by the examiner; emphasis added.
As for claims 2-3, 5-7, 9 and 11-13, due to their dependencies from claims 1 and 8, respectively, they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geelen (US 20090200324 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Geelen).
Regarding claim 1, Geelen discloses a food serving system comprising:
a board (i.e. in the form of a pan (104)) having a predetermined geometric shape having an edge around the same, the edge having at least one indentation (i.e. in the form of a respective recess or groove at each respective corner of the pan – as shown in annotated Geelen Fig. 9 below); and
a cover (i.e. in the form of a cover-base assembly (108)) having the same predetermined geometric shape as the board, and at least one dual stage locking handle (132A-D) configured to lock the board in both a first position (as shown in Figs. 2 and 9 - when covered by the cover), and a second position (as shown in Figs. 3 and 10 - when the board is nested within the cover turned upside down; Geelen [0021-0036] and Figs. 1-11).
PNG
media_image1.png
521
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Geelen further discloses wherein the board further comprises at least two indentations (i.e. the respective recess or groove at the respective corners of the pan) positioned opposite each other and the cover further comprises at least two dual stage locking handles (132A-D), each positioned and configured to engage one of the at least two indentations in the board (see Geelen Figs. 2-10).
Regarding claim 8, Geelen discloses a food serving system comprising:
a board (i.e. in the form of a pan (104)) having a predetermined geometric shape having an edge of a predetermined thickness around the same; and
a cover (i.e. in the form of a cover-base assembly (108)) having the same predetermined geometric shape as the board, and at least one dual stage locking handle (132A-D) configured to engage the edge and lock the board in both a first position (as shown in Figs. 2 and 9 - when covered by the cover), and a second position (as shown in Figs. 3 and 10 - when the board is nested within the cover turned upside down; Geelen [0021-0036] and Figs. 1-11).
Regarding claims 3, 7, 9 and 13, Geelen further discloses wherein the at least one dual stage locking handle is pivotally connected to the cover and comprises a lower end (620A-D) having a transverse extension extending there from and a snapping nub (i.e. the respective head (616A-D) of the respective latches (612A-D)) spaced from the transverse extension (Geelen [0031,0033-0034] and Figs. 9-10).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Geelen further discloses wherein the at least one dual stage locking handle is pivotally connected to the cover and comprises:
a pivot connection point having an inner surface;
a transverse extension extending from the inner surface; and
a snapping nub (i.e. the respective head (616A-D) of the respective latches (612A-D)) spaced from the transverse extension;
wherein when in the second nested position (as shown in Geelen Figs. 3 and 10), the edge of the board in the area of the at least one indentation fits between the transverse extension and the snapping nub thereby securing the board in the second nested position within the upside down cover (Geelen [0031,0033-0034] and Figs. 9-10).
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 of this title, 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 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20090200324 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Geelen) in view of Xiao (US D1052958 S; hereinafter Xiao).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Geelen as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 8 (respectively), except for wherein the board further comprises a plurality of compartments for receiving food items for serving.
Xiao is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a [compartmented] board having a latching cover. Xiao teaches a food serving system having a board having a predetermined geometric shape having an edge around the same, the edge having at least one edge;
a cover having the same predetermined geometric shape as the board; and
wherein the board further comprises a plurality of compartments for receiving food items for serving (see Xiao Fig. 9).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board (of Geelen) to have a plurality of compartments (as taught by Xiao) to allow the user to carry and transport multiple or distinct food content at once.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 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 ttps://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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights