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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In page 11, line 31, the word “foot” is misspelled. The term “foot” is written as “food”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “ribs forming a grid”, as required in claim 13; and “a raised peripheral rim” as required in claim 25, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “raised peripheral rim” raises a new matter issue because it is not described in the specification, therefore it is unclear from the specification to what feature applicant is referring and/or claiming.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, 15, 19-21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt (US 2011/0179978) in view of Vinke (EP 3,564,145).
PNG
media_image1.png
240
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 19, 20 and 21
Schmitt discloses a pallet base comprising a deck structure (12) with a top surface (20) and a bottom surface (22), the top surface defining a load area (16) capable to support an IBC container; at least one foot structure (18) extending from the bottom surface; at least one runner structure (14) configured to engage with the at least one-foot structure, preferably using a snap-fit mechanism (see figures 8a-9b). Schmitt discloses the runner structure comprising snap features (54 including hooks 58) engaging with the foot when inserted through aperture (40) (see [0076] and [0096]). Schmitt further discloses the at least one runner structure defines at least one engagement region (defined by area where foot 18 is inserted into the runner structure) on a runner top surface, wherein the at least one engagement region is adapted to at least partially contact the at least one-foot structure (see figures 8a-9b), wherein the at least one runner structure comprises at least one hook (58) extending out of the runner top surface, the hook being adapted to engage with a protrusion (defined by end of wall pointed by 40 in figure 9a) on the inside of the at least one-foot structure (see figures 9a and 9b). Schmidt appears to have draining holes in the at least one runner (see figure above). However, from the argument that Schmidt does not explicitly discloses the at least one runner comprising a de-watering hole arranged in the engagement region, Vinke discloses a pallet (10) comprising runner structures (16) comprising drain holes (26) (see figures 1, 6 and page 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the runners of the pallet from Schmitt having drain holes as taught by Vinke for draining purposes of water flowing through the pallet.
Claim 2
Schmitt further discloses the at least one-foot structure is configured as an at least substantially hollow structure such that a second foot structure of a second pallet base stacked on top of the pallet base may engage into the at least one-foot structure, wherein the at least one-foot structure is in particular shaped tapered away from the bottom surface (see figure 4 and [0077]).
Claim 3
Schmitt further discloses the at least one-foot structure defines an opening (56) in the deck structure, such that a second foot structure of a second pallet base may be inserted into the at least one-foot structure (see figures 4, 8a, 9a and [0077]).
Claim 4
Schmitt further discloses the at least one-foot structure and the deck structure are manufactured in an integral construction (see figures 1d, 8a and 9a).
Claim 7
PNG
media_image2.png
661
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Schmitt further discloses the at least one engagement region comprises at least one restraining wall adapted to prevent a lateral movement of the at least one runner structure relative to the at least one-foot structure (see figures 9a and 9b above).
Claim 8
Schmidt as modified by Vinke discloses the de-watering hole is adapted as a through hole through the runner structure.
Claim 9
Schmitt further discloses the at least one runner structure has a tapered shape with a top runner surface and a bottom runner surface, wherein the top runner surface is narrower than the bottom runner surface. Schmitt discloses protuberance (50) inserted into aperture (40) in figure 8a and 8b having a top portion narrower than a bottom portion.
Claim 10
Schmitt further discloses the engagement region (as defined by area where foot is inserted into the runner) is arranged on the top runner surface, the engagement region extending beyond an edge of the top runner surface and being configured narrower than a width of the bottom runner surface. Figures 8a and 9a shows area 48, defined as W1, where the foot is inserted being narrower than a bottom extension (defined by W2) of the runner (see figure above).
Claim 13
PNG
media_image3.png
685
517
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Schmitt further discloses the deck structure comprises a plurality of ribs forming a grid along the top surface and bottom surface, wherein the grid comprises a plurality of through holes (defined by 24 and/or 26) from the top surface to the bottom surface (see figures above and [0075]).
Claim 15
Schmitt further discloses the at least one runner structure runs substantially straight in parallel to the bottom surface of the deck structure when engaged with the at least one-foot structure (see figures 1 and 1b).
Claim 23
Schmitt further discloses the at least one hook is configured to elastically deform during engagement with the protrusion and return to a locked position to retain the runner structure in engagement with the at least one foot structure (see figures 9a and 9b).
Claim 24
Schmidt discloses the foot structure is hollow in the interior (see figures 6 and 8a-9b), while the runner is also a hollow structure (see figure 14a), therefore together define a fluid path. In addition, Vinke discloses the runner structure comprising a hollow structure including the draining holes (see figure 8). After Schmidt is modified by Vinke, the at least one foot structure and the runner structure together will define a drainage path fluidly connected to the de-watering hole.
Claim 25
Schmidt further discloses the deck structure comprises a raised peripheral rim (74) adapted to confine the IBC (see figures 17, 18 and [0113]).
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt (US 2011/0179978) and Vinke (EP 3,564,145) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thompson (WO 2018144861).
Claims 11 and 22
Schmitt does not disclose at least one reinforcement structure and a recess adapted to receive the reinforcement structure, as required. However, Thompson discloses a pallet comprising openings receiving reinforcement structures (38) to provide strength against deck deflections (see figure 10 and [0045] - [0047]). Thompson further discloses the reinforcement structure extending along an entire width, at least 60%, of the pallet (see figures 10 and 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pallet of Schmitt including openings with the reinforcement structure to provide strength to the pallet against deck deflections.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt (US 2011/0179978) and Vinke (EP 3,564,145) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schütz (US 2012/0279885).
Claim 14
Schmitt further discloses the pallet is used for transport and handling of goods (see abstract and [0001]). Schitt does not disclose the deck structure has a plurality of cage connection regions adapted to be attached to a cage, as required. However, Schütz discloses a storage container (20) comprising a pallet (defined by combination of 33 and 34) and an outer jacket (38) used to protect the load/inner container (21) disposed over the pallet (see figure 1 and [0040]), wherein the outer jacket is attached to the pallet by the uses of fasteners/screws (66) inserted into openings (62, 63, 64) (see [0040] and [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pallet of Schmitt including an outer jacket attached with fasteners inserted into openings in the pallet as taught by Schütz for protecting the items/goods stored and transported over by the pallets.
Claim 16
Schmitt further discloses the plurality of foot structure together with the runner structure form at least three runner rows on the bottom surface of the deck structure, wherein the rows are distanced such that a fork, for example of a forklift or a low lift pallet truck, is insertable between the rows and lift the pallet base (see [0106], figures 1a, 1d and 5). Schmitt does not disclose the runner structure comprising plurality of runner structures. However, Schütz discloses a pallet (defined by combination of 33 and 34) comprising plurality of runner structures/skids (35, 36, and 37) connected together along a skid bridge (43) for joining the runner structures/skids and provide support to the floor of the pallet (see figure 3 and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pallet of Schmitt having separated runner structures as taught by Schütz for easy and cheaper replacement of a runner structure in case of breakage of a portion of the runner structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument of the drawing objection, the examiner disagrees. No figure shows the required structure of claim 13. Regarding applicant’s argument that Schmidt does not disclose draining holes in the at least one runner, the examiner disagrees. As shown in the figure provided in the rejection of claim 1, it appears that Schmidt discloses the at least one runner including draining holes. However, from the argument that Schmidt does not discloses the draining holes, the examiner provided as an alternative a new ground of rejection. The new ground of rejection is provided by the fact that the examiner in the previous rejection never considered the combined limitations of claims 5, 6, and 8 together in combination with claim 1, especially the combination of limitations from claims 1, 6, and 8 together in a single claim.
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 RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736