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 .
Response to Amendment
In the Amended Claims of July 12, 2026, Claims 1, and 3-10 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9 are amended. Claim 10 is new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dikselis (US 2011/005685).
Regarding Claim 1, Dikselis discloses a tray comprising a plurality of bumps (26, 50) distributed in a rectangular array with an accommodation space (58) defined by four bumps adjacent to one another in a peripheral direction. Each of the four bumps has a pyramidal/diamond shaped structure (Paragraph 0015, Claim 32) and are configured to contact a product piece (60) to fix a position of the product piece.
Dikselis discloses that the product pieces (60) may be any suitable shape (Paragraph 0021) and the bumps are dimensioned to ensure the most efficient packing, proper loading, and reduce the likelihood of the product piece being oriented on an edge (Paragraph 0022). Dikselis does not disclose that the product piece is a diamond or that the side surfaces of the four bumps are configured to contact a diamond. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that a diamond shaped piece may be used in the tray of Dikselis and that the pyramidal/diamond shaped bumps may be made to contact the diamond faces as taught by Dikselis in order to best suit a particular piece’s size and shape.
Regarding Claim 3, Dikselis discloses the tray is made of plastic (Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 10, as discussed above in Claim 1, Dikselis discloses a tray having a plurality of bumps distributed in a rectangular array and a plurality of accommodation spaces for accommodating pieces. Each of the plurality of bumps has a diamond/pyramidal-shaped structure with four side surfaces and each of the plurality of accommodation spaces is defined by a set of four accommodation space-defining surfaces. Each of the four accommodation space-defining surfaces of the set is one of the four side surfaces of a respective bump of a set of four adjacent bumps of the plurality of bumps; and the four accommodation space-defining surfaces face one another and are configured to contact a piece received in the respective accommodation space to fix a position of the piece. While Dikselis does not disclose the piece is a diamond, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the piece may be diamond shaped as discussed in Dikselis Paragraph 0021. Furthermore, each bump or protrusion may be dimensioned to accommodate such a diamond-shaped piece.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dikselis (US 2011/0056865) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ingram (US 2022/0340334).
Regarding Claim 4, while Dikselis discloses a tray cover (lid 30), Dikselis does not disclose that a discharge hole is formed in the tray or the tray cover. Ingram discloses a similar tray comprising positioning projections (18) and a discharge hole (14, 20) formed in the tray.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tray of Dikselis with the discharge hole of Ingram in order to pour the contents of the tray into another container while the cover is in place (Paragraph 0023-0024).
Regarding Claim 5, both Dikselis and Ingram disclose the tray is covered from above with the tray cover.
Regarding Claim 6, while Dikselis and Ingram do not disclose the discharge hole is formed in the top of the tray cover, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the discharge hole may be relocated to the cover as an obvious variation in the relocation of parts that would produce no unexpected results in the function of the container to discharge its contents.
Regarding Claim 7, Dikselis discloses tray is covered with the tray cover horizontally and slidably.
Regarding Claim 8, Ingram discloses the discharge hole is formed in a side surface of the tray.
Regarding Claim 9, Dikselis discloses two sliding chutes are formed in both sides of the tray cover at sidewalls (35) with the tray being inserted between the two sliding chutes to be slidably connected with the two sliding chutes at the rolled lip 39.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
