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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 02/30768 to Rousseau in view of US Patent 293,726 to Fancher.
Rousseau teaches
1. A pallet comprising: a top deck (16) comprising: a top frame portion (12), an encasement (14) encasing the top frame portion; a support section comprising: a plurality of columns (19) connected to the top frame portion of the top deck, the connections between the plurality of columns and the top frame portion being encased within the encasement; and a bottom deck (18) comprising: a bottom frame portion (13) including decking arranged with two parallel decks (Figure 1) having two other decks (Figure 1 and 3) disposed perpendicularly to the two parallel decks and to which are connected to each one of the plurality of columns in the pallet, the two parallel decks and the two other decks disposed perpendicularly to the two parallel decks being disposed continuously about the outside of the pallet to form apertures (as best seen in figures 1 and 2) in the pallet between the top deck and the bottom frame portion, wherein the top frame portion, the plurality of columns
The column is a screw or counter sunk screw attached to the first frame.
Rousseau discloses every element as claimed and discussed above except the connection between the column and the first frame being entirely encased.
Fancher teaches a plug for the opening above the screw as best seen in figure 1 and 3. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pallet of Rousseau by adding plugs to the screws as taught by Fancher to better protect the joint against moisture. The examiner considers that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select an appropriate material for the plug and glue to provide the seal as described in Fancher.
Rosseau in view of Fancher is silent to the material of the frame and screws and therefore does not expressly disclose the material is the same. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the screws and frame from the same metal to prevent potential galvanic corrosion and, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (steel, stainless steel, galvanized, aluminum, etc.) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (weight, strength, cost, corrosion resistance, ability to hold threads, ease welding, etc.) as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 2, Rousseau teaches
2. wherein the top frame portion further comprises: one or more beams (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Rousseau teaches
3. wherein the top frame portion further comprises: one or more joists (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Rousseau teaches
5. wherein the plurality of columns are encased with an encasement (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Rousseau teaches
6. wherein the encasement encasing the top frame portion comprises the same material as the encasement encasing the plurality of columns (Rousseau, page 2).
Regarding claim 8, Rousseau teaches
8. wherein the support section includes one or more runners (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Rousseau teaches
10. wherein the encasement further comprises: recycled material (Rousseau, page 2).
Regarding claim 11, Rousseau teaches
11. wherein the encasement further comprises: synthetic rubber (Rousseau, page 2).
Regarding claim 12, Rousseau teaches
12. wherein the encasement further comprises: natural rubber (Rousseau, page 2).
Regarding claim 13, Rousseau teaches
13. wherein the encasement further comprises: natural and synthetic rubber (Rousseau, page 2).
Regarding claim 16, Rousseau teaches
16. wherein the third bottom frame portion further comprises: one or more deck boards (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Rousseau teaches
17. wherein the bottom frame portion further comprises: one or more bottom stringer supports (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, Rousseau teaches
18. wherein the bottom frame portion is encased with encasement (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Rousseau teaches
19. wherein the encasement encasing the bottom frame portion comprises the same material as the encasement encasing the plurality of columns (Rousseau, page 2).
For further clarification regarding claims 7 and 20, Rousseau in view of Fancher discloses every element as claimed and discussed above except that the encasement material around frame portions are different. Rousseau teaches an embodiment where the top deck, bottom deck, and support blocks are molded separately and teaches varying formulations of rubber. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use different material (formulations, density, etc.) for the different parts of pallet due to each part having different requirements (strength, weight, etc.) and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (varying formulations of rubber, etc.) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (strength, weight, durability, cost, etc.) as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3,880,092 to Seeber in view of WO 02/30768 to Rousseau
Seeber teaches
1. A pallet comprising: a top deck (22) comprising: a top frame portion (28,30,32), an encasement (polystyrene, Seeber ‘092, Col 1, lines 29-54 and Col 2, lines 12-22) encasing the top frame portion; a support section comprising: a plurality of columns (36 as part of the a runner structure) connected to the top frame portion of the top deck, the connection between the plurality of columns and the top frame portion being entirely encased within the encasement; and a bottom frame portion (34), wherein the top frame portion, the plurality of columns, and the bottom frame are formed from the same frame material (Col 2, lines 19-22).
Seeber does not expressly disclose a bottom deck and alternative materials
Rousseau teaches
1. A pallet comprising: a top deck (16) comprising: a top frame portion (12), an encasement (14) encasing the top frame portion; a support section comprising: a plurality of columns (19) connected to the top frame portion of the top deck, the connection between the plurality of columns and the top frame portion being encased within the encasement; and a bottom deck (18) comprising: a bottom frame portion (13) including decking arranged with two parallel decks (Figure 1) having two other decks (Figure 13) disposed perpendicularly to the two parallel decks and to which are connected to each one of the plurality of columns in the pallet, wherein the top frame portion, the plurality of columns, and
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary to modify the pallet of Seeber into the configuration/layout with a bottom deck as taught by Rousseau as functional equivalent pallet layout selected on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (cost, weight, strength, similarity with existing pallets in a warehouse, stackabilty, etc.). The layout of Rousseau includes decks forming apertures in the pallet about the outside.
Regarding claim 2, Seeber teaches
2. wherein the top frame portion further comprises: one or more beams (32).
Regarding claim 3, Seeber teaches
3. wherein the top frame portion further comprises: one or more joists (28,30).
Regarding claim 5, Seeber teaches
5. wherein the plurality of columns are encased with an encasement (as best seen in figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, Seeber teaches
6. wherein the encasement encasing the top frame portion comprises the same material as the encasement encasing the plurality of columns (Col 2, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 8, Seeber teaches
8. wherein the support section one or more runners (24).
For further clarification regarding claims 7 and 20, Seeber in view of Rousseau discloses every element as claimed and discussed above except that the encasement material around frame portions are different. Rousseau teaches an embodiment where the top deck, bottom deck, and support blocks are molded separately and teaches varying formulations of rubber. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use different material (formulations, density, etc.) for the different parts of pallet since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (varying formulations of rubber, etc.) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (strength, weight, durability, cost, etc.) as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
For further clarification regarding claims 10-13, Seeber in view of Rousseau discloses every element as claimed and discussed above except the particular encasement material around frame portions. Rousseau teaches varying formulations of rubber encasement material. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the encasement material , recycled, synthetic, or natural rubber or combination since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (varying formulations of rubber, etc.) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (strength, weight, durability, cost, etc.) as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the “plug” of Fancher fails to remedy the deficiencies of Rousseau since the “plug” is not the “encasement that is encasing the top frame portion”. The examiner disagrees since the claims do not require the encasement to be a single continuous and unitary molded structure (integrally formed). Therefore, the plug when combined with the body material forms a structure that entirely encases (fully surrounds) the top frame. In addition, the examiner considers that since the plug is attached via adhesive, it would make the structure an integral structure.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The addition of the plug to the pallet provides the benefits of protecting and sealing the metal along with aesthetics of a consistent and flush appearance.
The applicant argues that neither Seeber nor Rousseau disclose two parallel decks being disposed continuously about the outside of the pallet to form apertures. The examiner disagrees since the layout of the pallet of Rousseau teaches a continuous outside of the decks that form apertures. The rejection uses the combination of the structure material and type of the Pallet used in Seeber, but in the configuration of the pallet of Rousseau. The applicant argues that the material of Seeber (foamed plastic) would be contrary to adding lower deck boards. The examiner disagrees since foamed plastic is a common material used in pallets and Seeber does not specifically mention that a configuration with a lower deck would be undesirable or teach away. While the materials are different the examiner considers the materials to be similar enough to not drastically change performance by swapping materials. The addition of the lower deck would add span strength also adds other features (such helping prevent tipping when on fork lift tines in the air, better stacking, etc.). Furthermore, there are numerous (more than a dozen) styles/configurations of pallets with each having pros and cons that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to select the appropriate configuration for the desired situation.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOTHY MICHAEL AYRES whose telephone number is (571)272-8299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30-8.
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, Dan Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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.
/T.M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 3637 /DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights