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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/7/2025 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.
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(s) 1, 3-8, 7, 8, 18 & 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Moss, Jr. et al. (US patent 3,058,709) (hereinafter Van Moss, Jr.) in view of Stolzman (US patent 5,458,069).
Regarding claim 1, Van Moss, Jr. discloses a modular pallet comprising:(a) a plurality of elongated frame members (11, 12, 24) arranged in spaced-apart relation, wherein each of said frame members comprises an upper surface and a lower surface and wherein at least said upper surface has a plurality of spaced-apart channels (13) formed therein; and (b) a plurality of elongated interchangeable deck members (17) (the examiner notes this does not include 17a) positionable in said channels for coupling said frame members together, wherein each of said channels receives one of said deck members when said pallet is assembled (Fig. 1), wherein said pallet has a deck surface area for supporting a load defined by the multiple of a length of one of said frame members and a length of one of said deck members (Fig. 1), each of said deck members being substantially square in cross-section (Fig. 3) and comprising first, second, third and fourth outer surfaces, wherein each of said channels comprises a planar inner surface substantially free from slots or protruberances (Fig. 3) and wherein each of said deck members is snugly positionable within a corresponding one of said channels in an orientation wherein any one of said outer surfaces of said deck members contacts said inner surface of said channel (Fig. 3), wherein each of said deck members and each of said frame members is formed of plastic (Col. 2: 63-64).
Van Moss, Jr. does not disclose wherein said deck members are spaced within said channels such that upper surfaces of said frame members and said deck members comprise less than about 50% of said deck surface area; and wherein each of said deck members is coupled to corresponding ones of said frame members by heat welding when said pallet is assembled.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Van Moss, Jr. wherein said deck members are spaced within said channels such that upper surfaces of said frame members and said deck members comprise less than about 50% of said deck surface area. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Stolzman teaches a pallet wherein parts are welded together (abstract). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Van Moss, Jr. wherein each of said deck members is coupled to corresponding ones of said frame members by heat welding when said pallet is assembled in view of Stolzman’s teaching, because this arrangement would have replaced one known connection with another known connection yielding a predictable result.
Regarding claim 3, Van Moss, Jr. discloses a modular pallet comprising:(a) a plurality of elongated frame members (11, 12, 24) arranged in spaced-apart relation, wherein each of said frame members comprises an upper surface and a lower surface and wherein each of said upper surface and said lower surface has a plurality of spaced-apart channels (13, 15) formed therein; and (b) a plurality of elongated interchangeable deck members (17, 21) positionable in said channels for coupling said frame members together, wherein each of said deck members has a first planar surface and a second planar surface opposite said first planar surface (Fig. 3), wherein each of said deck members is positionable in said channels formed in said frame members in either a first configuration wherein said first surface extends outwardly co-planar with said upper surface of said frame members thereby forming part of a planar upper deck surface of said pallet or in a second configuration wherein said second surface extends outwardly co-planar with said upper surface of said frame members thereby forming part of a planar upper deck surface of said pallet (Fig. 1); wherein said pallet has a deck surface area for supporting a load defined by the multiple of a length of one of said frame members and length of one of said deck members (Fig. 1) and wherein each of said deck members and each of said frame members is formed of plastic (Col. 2: 63-64).
Van Moss, Jr. does not disclose wherein said deck members are spaced within said channels such that upper surfaces of said frame members and said deck members comprise less than about 50% of said deck surface area; and wherein each of said deck members is coupled to corresponding ones of said frame members by heat welding when said pallet is assembled.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Van Moss, Jr. wherein said deck members are spaced within said channels such that upper surfaces of said frame members and said deck members comprise less than about 50% of said deck surface area. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Stolzman teaches a pallet wherein parts are welded together (abstract). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Van Moss, Jr. wherein each of said deck members is coupled to corresponding ones of said frame members by heat welding when said pallet is assembled in view of Stolzman’s teaching, because this arrangement would have replaced one known connection with another known connection yielding a predictable result.
Regarding claim 4, Van Moss, Jr., as modified, teaches a kit for forming a pallet as defined in claim 1 comprising: (a) a plurality of elongated frame members (11, 12, 24) positionable in spaced-apart relation, each comprising an upper surface and a lower surface, wherein each of said upper surface and said lower surface has a plurality of spaced-apart channels (13) formed therein; and (b) a plurality of elongated deck members (17) positionable within said channels for coupling said frame members together without mechanical connectors, wherein each of said deck members has a uniform width, is rectangular in cross-section and comprises a first planar surface and a second planar surface opposite said first planar surface (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Van Moss, Jr., as modified, teaches a kit wherein each of said frame members has a longitudinal axis extending along a length thereof and wherein each of said channels extends transversely substantially perpendicular to said longitudinal axis (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Van Moss, Jr., as modified, a kit wherein each of said frame members is a stringer of unitary construction (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Van Moss, Jr., as modified, teaches a method of forming a pallet comprising:(a) providing a kit as defined in claim 4; (b) arranging said frame members in spaced-apart relation such that said channels in corresponding ones of said frame members are aligned; (c) inserting said deck members within said channels such that said deck members extend to connect said frame members together; and(d) integrally connecting said deck members to said frame members (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Van Moss, Jr. discloses a modular pallet comprising:(a) a plurality of elongated frame members (11, 12, 24) arranged in spaced-apart relation, wherein each of said frame members comprises an upper surface, a lower surface, and a plurality of spaced-apart channels (13) formed in at least said upper surface; and (b) a plurality of elongated deck members (17) positionable in said channels for extending between said frame members to form an upper deck of said pallet when said pallet is assembled, wherein said upper deck has a deck surface area for receiving a load (Fig. 1), and wherein each of said deck members is formed of plastic (Col. 2: 63-64).
Van Moss, Jr. does not disclose wherein said deck members are spaced within said channels such that said deck members comprise less than about 60% of said deck surface area; and wherein each of said deck members is coupled to corresponding ones of said frame members by heat welding when said pallet is assembled.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Van Moss, Jr. wherein said deck members are spaced within said channels such that upper surfaces of said frame members and said deck members comprise less than about 60% of said deck surface area. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Stolzman teaches a pallet wherein parts are welded together (abstract). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Van Moss, Jr. wherein each of said deck members is coupled to corresponding ones of said frame members by heat welding when said pallet is assembled in view of Stolzman’s teaching, because this arrangement would have replaced one known connection with another known connection yielding a predictable result.
Regarding claim 20, Van Moss, Jr., as modified, teaches the pallet as claimed. Van Moss, Jr., as modified, does not teach a pallet wherein said deck members are spaced within said channels such that said deck members comprise less than about 50% of said deck surface area. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Van Moss, Jr. wherein said deck members are spaced within said channels such that upper surfaces of said frame members and said deck members comprise less than about 50% of said deck surface area. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 21, Van Moss, Jr., as modified, teaches the pallet as claimed. Van Moss, Jr., as modified, does not teach a pallet wherein said deck members are spaced within said channels such that said deck members comprise less than about 35% of said deck surface area. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Van Moss, Jr. wherein said deck members are spaced within said channels such that upper surfaces of said frame members and said deck members comprise less than about 35% of said deck surface area. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 22, Van Moss, Jr., as modified, teaches the pallet as claimed. Van Moss, Jr., as modified, does not teach a pallet wherein the spacing between said channels formed in each of said frame members is non-uniform. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Van Moss, Jr. wherein the spacing between said channels formed in each of said frame members is non-uniform, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Van Moss teaches the outermost deck boards 17a are beveled at a top edge and thus not interchangeable with deck boards 17, the examiner agrees. However, in the current rejection of the claims the examiner is relying on deck boards 17, not outermost deck boards 17a, to teach the interchangeable elongated deck members.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the knowledge is generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art because Stolzman teaches heat welding and replacing one known method of assembly of a pallet with another known assembly method of a pallet will yield a predictable result.
Regarding applicant’s argument that a person considering Van Moss would have no motivation or incentive to experiment at all to arrive at the claimed invention; and In re Aller is different from the instant invention because the reference included experimental examples, the examiner disagrees.
The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Van Moss, Jr. because changing the spacing of the deck members would allow the pallet to be made from more or less material thus changing the cost; or allowing the pallet to carry lighter or heavier loads based on need; additionally, different spacing of the deck members would allow for varying the characteristics of the pallet. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could start with the pallets of Van Moss, Jr. and Stolzman and under routine experimentation change the spacing of the deck members to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J ROHRHOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-7624. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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.
/DANIEL J ROHRHOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637