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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on July 1, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-7, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mehta et al. (10,384,827). Mehta et al. disclose a combination of a tray blank (forming 40, see column 7, lines 9-27) and a covering blank (forming 30, see column 7, lines 9-27) for forming a package, the covering blank comprising a top panel (308) and a pair of foldable flaps (301 and 302, or 303 and 304) hingedly connected to respective ones of opposed edges (lateral edges of 30) of the top panel, each of the foldable flaps extending to a free end, wherein the free end of a first one of the foldable flaps is disposed at a first distance (approximately the length or width of 30) from the free end of a second one of the foldable flaps when the covering blank is in an erected form (Figures 3 and 4) in which the foldable flaps are folded out of a plane of the top panel and wherein the first distance is equal to or less than a first linear dimension (length or width of 40) of a tray (40) erected from the tray blank.
As to claim 9, the tray blank forms a tray and the covering blank forms a covering together defining a package.
As to claims 2 and 10-11, Mehta et al. disclose the tray blank (forming 40, see column 7, lines 9-27) or tray (40) comprises a base panel (400) and a pair of opposing panels (401 and 402, or 403 and 404) hinged to the base panel and wherein the linear dimension of the tray is defined between a pair of opposing edges (connecting the opposing panels 401 and 402, or 403 and 404) of the base panel.
As to claim 3, Mehta et al. disclose the tray blank (forming 40, see column 7, lines 9-27) comprises a base panel (400) and a pair of opposing panels (401 and 402, or 403 and 404) hinged to the base panel and wherein the linear dimension of the tray is defined between the opposing panels when the tray blank is in an erected form (Figures 3 and 4) in which the opposing panels are folded out of a plane of the base panel.
As to claim 4, Mehta et al. disclose the covering blank (forming 30, see column 7, lines 9-27) is in the erected form (Figures 3 and 4) when the package is formed wherein the foldable flaps (301 and 302, or 303 and 304) are arranged at least partially to enclose opposed ends or sides of the package, the tray blank comprising a base panel (400) and a pair of opposing panels (401 and 402, or 403 and 404) hinged to the base panel, and wherein the linear dimension of the tray is defined between the opposing panels when the tray blank is in an erected form (Figures 3 and 4) in which the opposing panels are folded out of a plane of the base panel, and wherein the tray blank is in the erected form when the package is formed in which the opposing panels partially enclose the opposed ends or sides of the package.
As to claim 5, Mehta et al. disclose the linear dimension (length or width of 40) extends parallel to the first distance (the length or width of 30).
As to claim 6, Mehta et al. discloses the linear dimension (width of 40) and the first distance (the width of 30) extends transversely of the package.
As to claim 7, Mehta et al. disclose the linear dimension (the length of 40) and the first distance (the length of 30) each extend longitudinally of the package.
As to claim 13, Mehta et al. disclose the tray (40) comprises a base panel (400) and a respective end flap (401 and 402) hingedly connected to each end of the base panel and wherein the linear dimension (length of 40) of the tray is defined between an outer surface of the end flap at a first end of the base panel and an outer surface of the end flap at a second opposing end of the base panel.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al. in view of Tumminia (6,978,895). Mehta et al. do not disclose the foldable flaps each comprising a corner-forming panel. However, Tumminia discloses a similar tray blank wherein each of foldable flaps (20 and 20) further comprise a corner-forming panel (28) for forming a beveled corner and wherein a first distance (length of 20) is defined between a first corner-forming panel (28) forming part of a first one of a pair of foldable flaps (28 and 30) and a second corner-forming panel (28) forming part of a second pair of foldable flaps (28 and 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tray of Mehta et al. with a beveled corner in the manner of Tumminia as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a tighter receipt of content within the tray.
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 1, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-11 and 13 under 102 in view of Hartness and Dreyfus have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the original art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Mehta et al. as explained above. The 112 grounds of rejection have also been overcome.
This action has been made non-final in view of the new grounds of rejection not being necessitated by amendment.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the additional references listed on the attached PTO-892, which, while not relied upon for the claim rejection, these references are deemed relevant to the claimed invention as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON P GEHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4555. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday through Thursday from 7:30 am to 5:00 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 Aviles-Bosques, 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 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.
/BRYON P GEHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Bryon P. Gehman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
BPG
Prosecution Insights