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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-2, 4-7, and 9-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seliger et al. (US 8608050 B2; hereinafter Seliger) in view of Park (KR 102462022 B1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 7, and 10-11, Seliger discloses a re-usable, knock-down box comprising four side walls each defining a front (18), left (36a), right (36b), and rear direction (32); a bottom panel (26); a top lid (12) having an edge connected to the rear side wall and foldable away therefrom and having a front lip (16) configured to close a top of said box and comprises a foldable hinge (20) located across a center of the top lid. Seliger lacks a plurality of removable trays disposed within.
Park teaches a box for food delivery (including tacos; see Page 1) including a plurality of removable food trays (S; see Fig. 1) disposed within the box, each of the plurality of food trays dimensioned to contain a single food item (e.g. a taco); wherein each food tray comprises four upstanding side walls, a bottom, and an open top; and wherein the plurality of food trays have a total food tray perimeter and the total food tray perimeter is marginally less than an interior perimeter of the box in order to fit within said box (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Seliger’s container to be used to house a plurality of food trays within in order to safely and cost effectively transport a plurality of food items (Park; see Page 1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Seliger, as modified above, discloses a box wherein the box further comprises a first handle disposed on the left side wall and a second handle disposed on the right-side wall (Seliger; 38/40).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Seliger, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the food trays having an eccentric shape. However, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to modify the food trays to have any shape, including eccentric shapes, based on requirements of articles to be held within since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F 2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claims 13-16, Seliger, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the size of the food trays. However, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to modify the food trays to have any size based on requirements of articles to be held within since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 17-19, Seliger, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the number of food trays to be held within the box. However, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to modify the outer box to have any size based on requirements of articles to be held within since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seliger in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peruzzi (US 1609186 A).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Seliger, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for a cut-out in the lid center hinge. Peruzzi teaches a display carton wherein a lid center hinge is divided into two hinge components (23) that terminate into a cut-out (20; see Figures 2-4). Examiner considers the cut-out to be dome shaped. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to further modify Seliger’s container to include a cut-out in the lid center hinge in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing display configuration (Peruzzi; Page 1 lines 5-20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the internal food trays having a total perimeter that is marginally less than an interior perimeter of the outer box since the prior art teaches compartment S2 which is devoid of food trays.
-Examiner notes that the perimeter of S2 in Park is a minority of the total perimeter while the food trays occupy S1 which is a majority of the total perimeter; therefore, Examiner considers the space of S2 to be a marginal perimeter and the food trays indeed have a total perimeter that is “marginally less than an interior [total] perimeter of the box”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
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 J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights