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 .
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 2/20/2026, wherein claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 4-5, 8-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kidd et al. (US 2011/0180446).
Regarding claim 1, Kidd discloses an egg tray (tray at 100 in Fig. 1 is capable of holding eggs therein) comprising: a base (at 102) comprising: a plurality of cells (twelve cells 108); a plurality of posts (at 114/116 in Fig. 1) surrounded by the plurality of cells (as shown in Fig. 1); and a rim (at 102a/102b/102c,102d in Fig. 1) extending around an upper perimeter of the base; and a lid (at 104 in Fig. 1) configured to be releasably engaged on the base by snapping the lid onto the base, so that the lid is snapped onto at least one of the plurality of posts so that the at least one of the plurality of posts extends through the lid (portion 116 of the six center posts extends through openings 122 in the lid 102) and the lid is snapped under the rim of the base (potions 128 of the lid 104 are snapped into openings 126 in the base 102, wherein the top surface of 128 are positioned under the upper surface of the rim, when the lid is in the closed position).
Regarding claim 2, Kidd discloses the plurality of posts includes a first post (at left-most 112 in Fig. 1) having a first height (height extending from the top of portion 116) and a second post (at right-most 112 in Fig. 1) having a second height (height extending from the top of portion 114), wherein the first height is greater than the second height (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Kidd discloses the first post has a chamfer (See angled upper portion at 116 in Fig. 1) formed along a circumference of a top end of the first post, wherein the chamfer is capable of guiding the lid onto the first post when the lid is placed on the base.
Regarding claim 5, Kidd discloses the lid (portion 120 in Fig. 2) is configured to rest upon a top surface (at 114) of the second post when the lid is placed on the base, and wherein the second post has a flat support surface (at 114) formed on a top of the second post.
Regarding claim 8, Kidd discloses the base further comprises: a rib (See Fig. 1 labeled below) extending between adjacent cells of the plurality of cells; and a ledge (See Fig. 1 labeled below) that forms a top of the rib, wherein the lid is configured to rest upon the ledge when the lid is placed on the base.
PNG
media_image1.png
730
1200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Kidd discloses the rim of the base further comprises: a ridge (at 124 at the bottom left of 102 in Fig. 1) extending inwards from an outer edge of the rim; and an undercut (intersection between 124 and the rim of the base) formed on a bottom of the ridge, wherein the undercut is configured to engage the lid when the lid is placed on the base.
Regarding claim 10, Kidd discloses a support member extending between adjacent cells of the plurality of cells.
PNG
media_image2.png
730
1200
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Kidd discloses a vent (See Fig. 5 labeled below) extending outward from a side of the base, wherein the vent is configured to allow moisture to escape from the egg tray when the lid is placed on the base; and a gap (See Fig. 5 labeled below) formed between the base and the lid in the area adjacent the vent.
PNG
media_image3.png
666
1016
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Kidd discloses a stacking column (at 332) extending outwards from a side or an end of the base, wherein a bottom of the stacking column extends lower than bottoms of the plurality of cells of the base.
Regarding claim 13, Kidd discloses the lid further comprises: a cutout (at 434) formed in the lid, wherein the cutout of the egg tray is configured to receive a bottom of a stacking column of an adjacent egg tray.
Regarding claim 14, Kidd discloses a divider (See Fig. 1 labeled below) separating a first subset (left-most three cells) of the plurality of cells from a second subset (right-most nine cells) of the plurality of cells.
PNG
media_image4.png
730
1200
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 17-18, Kidd discloses the base and lid are made from polyethylene terephthalate ([0031]).
Regarding claim 19, Kidd discloses the base is capable of receiving eggs so that the entirety of the eggs sit in the base (depending on the size of the eggs placed therein).
Regarding claim 20, Kidd discloses the tray is made from a polyethylene terephthalate material, which is well known in the art as being a recycled material.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidd et al. (US 2011/0180446) as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Belden, Jr. et al. (US 6,354,435). Kidd discloses
the first post is configured to extend through the lid when the lid is placed on the base, but does not disclose the first post has an undercut formed at a top end of the first post to engage the lid when the lid is placed on the base. However, Belden teaches a tray (at 12) comprising a post (at 30 in Fig. 5) having an undercut (at 92 in Fig. 5) formed near the top end for the purpose of providing a strong retention force to hold the item in place relative to the post (See column 8, lines 20-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first post of Kidd with an undercut as taught by Belden in order to more securely hold the lid in place.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidd et al. (US 2011/0180446) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hall (US 3,462,020). Kidd discloses the lid further comprises: an opening (at 122) extending through the lid, but does not disclose a set of slits that extend through the lid and surround the opening. However, Hall teaches it is well known in the art for a receiving opening (opening formed when element 39 is folded inward - as shown in Fig. 5 wherein the opening accommodates element 54) to include a set of slits (at 36) that extend through the device and surround the opening, for the purpose of forming tongue elements between the slits for providing rigidity to the article received within the opening (See column 2, lines 23-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the openings (at 122) of Kidd with slits extending therefrom as taught by Hall in order to provide rigidity to the first post received within the opening.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidd et al. (US 2011/0180446) as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Belden, Jr. et al. (US 6,354,435).
Regarding claim 7, Kidd discloses the plurality of posts includes a first post (at left-most 112 in Fig. 1) having a first height (height extending from the top of portion 116) and a second post (at right-most 112 in Fig. 1) having a second height (height extending from the top of portion 114), wherein the first height is greater than the second height (as shown in Fig. 2); the first post (portion 116) is configured to extend through the opening (at 122) in the lid when the lid is placed on the base; and the first post has a chamfer (See angled upper portion at 116 in Fig. 1) formed along a circumference of a top end of the first post, wherein the chamfer is configured to guide the opening in the lid onto the first post when the lid is placed on the base. Kidd discloses the claimed invention except for the first post has an undercut formed at a top end of the first post to engage the lid when the lid is placed on the base. However, Belden teaches a tray (at 12) comprising a post (at 30 in Fig. 5) having an undercut (at 92 in Fig. 5) formed near the top end for the purpose of providing a strong retention force to hold the item in place relative to the post (See column 8, lines 20-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first post of Kidd with an undercut as taught by Belden in order to more securely hold the lid in place.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidd et al. (US 2011/0180446) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Schein et al. (US 2020/0198879).
Regarding claim 15, as described above, Kidd discloses the claimed invention except for the set of projections. However, Schein teaches an egg container (as shown in Figs. 13-14) comprising a plurality oof cells for holding eggs, wherein the cells include a set of projections (circular protrusions formed at the bottom of the cells at 40) formed in a bottom end of the cells and projecting inwards, wherein the set of projections are configured to support an egg placed in the base, for the purpose of providing added safety for eggs placed in the cells (See [0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cells of Kidd with projections as taught by Schein in order to provide more protection for the eggs.
Regarding claim 16, as described above, Kidd discloses the claimed invention except for the dimple. However, Schein teaches an egg container (as shown in Figs. 13-14) comprising a plurality oof cells for holding eggs, wherein the cells include a dimple (at 40) formed on a bottom of the cells, wherein the dimple extends upwards into the one cell of the plurality of cells, and wherein the dimple is configured to cushion the bottom of an egg placed in the base, for the purpose of providing added safety for eggs placed in the cells (See [0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cells of Kidd with dimples as taught by Schein in order to provide more protection for the eggs.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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).
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 STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735