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 4/22/2026, wherein claims 1 and 8 were amended; and claim 7 was canceled. Claims 1-6, 8-9 and 11-12 are pending. Examiner points out that the amendment to the end of claim 1 did not add the exact subject matter of previous claim 7 since it omitted the word “respective”. Therefore, it is proper for a new rejection to be applied to the claim(s).
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 1-6, 8-9 and 11-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rendered indefinite by the limitation “a fastening rod that extends in parallel or obliquely to the frame element” since it is unclear which “the frame element” is being referred to. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets “the frame element” in the last line of claim 1 to be referring to one of the plurality of interconnected frame elements.
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 1-6, 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westhovens et al. (US 8,528,732).
Regarding claim 1, Westhovens discloses a transport rack (container 1 – See Figs. 1-3) capable of fixing a receptacle in a transport container, the transport rack comprising a plurality of interconnected frame elements (four vertical frame elements at the four corners of container 1 – disposed below top elements 30/31/32/33 in Fig. 2 in combination with horizontal elements above 3 in Fig. 1 are the plurality of interconnected frame elements – See Fig. 2 labeled below) arranged in such a way as to form a receiving space capable of holding a receptacle disposed therein, the transport rack further comprising a movable fastening means (shown at the center of Figs. 2-3) capable of fastening the receptacle disposed in the receiving space, wherein the fastening means comprises a fastening arm (at 11 in Figs. 2-3) having at least one fastening element (at 17/18) that is displaceable and pivotable relative to the fastening arm (in direction A an direction B in Fig. 2), wherein the fastening element comprises two abutment elements (at 19/57 and 19/57) that are movable relative to the fastening element in a way that the fastening element is optimally capable of being adapted to different receptacle geometries, wherein the fastening means comprises a fastening rod (at 14/15) that extends in parallel to one of the frame elements (horizontal frame element labeled in Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
918
1004
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Westhovens discloses the transport rack further comprises a base element (at the bottom of container 1), wherein the plurality of interconnected frame elements comprises four vertical frame elements extending upwardly therefrom and horizontal frame elements (above 3 in Fig. 1) arranged in such a way as to connect the vertical frame elements.
Regarding claim 3, Westhovens discloses the base element comprises a closed surface (the base element is closed at at least the location of element 61 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Westhovens discloses the base element comprises a hollow profile (hollow opening shown at 3 in Fig. 1, between 36 and 37 in Fig. 2) extending over the entire width at each of two opposite side portions of the base element.
Regarding claim 5, Westhovens discloses the hollow profile comprises at least one first opening (at 3) capable of receiving a forklift tine at end portions, and wherein the hollow profile comprises at least one second opening (another opening 3) capable of receiving a tensioning strap at a longitudinal side located between the end portions of the hallow profile.
Regarding claim 6, Westhovens discloses the fastening means is arranged indirectly on one of the four vertical frame elements.
Regarding claim 8, Westhovens discloses the fastening arm is arranged displaceably on the fastening rod.
Regarding claim 9, Westhovens discloses the fastening element is capable of receiving a tensioning strap.
Regarding claim 12, Westhovens discloses stacking elements (at 30/31/32/33) capable of arranging two transport racks on top of each other.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westhovens et al. (US 8,528,732) as applied to claim 1 above. As described above, Westhovens discloses the claimed invention except for the specific number of fastening means. However, 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 transport rack of Westhovens to have four fastening means in order to better secure items therein by applying more distributed points of contact. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office Action points to elements 14-15 of Westhovens and claims that said elements are equal to the newly claimed fastening rod elements. The Examiner is attempting to equate the elements 14-15 of Westhovens (see blue arrows below) to Applicant's claimed fastening rod extending in parallel or obliquely to the respective frame element. However, Westhoven's fastening elements 14-15 are only securing bars. See col. 3 line 26. Westhovens does not disclose that the securing bars 14-15 extend in parallel or obliquely to the respective frame element, as claimed by Applicant.
Regarding Applicant’s argument, as described in the rejection above, Westhovens discloses the transport rack comprising a plurality of interconnected frame elements (four vertical frame elements at the four corners of container 1 – disposed below top elements 30/31/32/33 in Fig. 2 in combination with horizontal elements above 3 in Fig. 1 are the plurality of interconnected frame elements – See Fig. 2 labeled above) arranged in such a way as to form a receiving space capable of holding a receptacle disposed therein, the transport rack further comprising a movable fastening means (shown at the center of Figs. 2-3) capable of fastening the receptacle disposed in the receiving space, wherein the fastening means comprises a fastening arm (at 11 in Figs. 2-3) having at least one fastening element (at 17/18) that is displaceable and pivotable relative to the fastening arm (in direction A an direction B in Fig. 2), wherein the fastening element comprises two abutment elements (at 19/57 and 19/57) that are movable relative to the fastening element in a way that the fastening element is optimally capable of being adapted to different receptacle geometries, wherein the fastening means comprises a fastening rod (at 14/15) that extends in parallel to one of the frame element (horizontal frame element labeled in Fig. 2 above).
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment (i.e. omitting the word “respective” from previously presented claim 7 which was added into claim 1) 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
Prosecution Insights