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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A in the reply filed on May 25, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 12 – 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 25, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first limiting member” recited in claim 7
“second limiting member” recited in claim 7
“third limiting member” recited in claim 7
“fourth limiting member” recited in claim 7
“supporting member” recited in claim 17
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The limitation “first limiting member” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“member”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“limiting” or ‘configured for limiting’)
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “first limiting member” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a plurality of first sub-blocks disposed sequentially along the second direction, wherein the plurality of first sub-blocks have gradually increasing sizes in the first direction,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 21), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “second limiting member” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“member”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“limiting” or ‘configured for limiting’)
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “second limiting member” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a plurality of second sub-blocks disposed sequentially along the second direction, wherein the plurality of second sub-blocks have gradually increasing sizes in the first direction,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 25), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “third limiting member” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“member”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“limiting” or ‘configured for limiting’)
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “third limiting member” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a plurality of third sub-blocks disposed sequentially along the third direction, wherein the plurality of first sub-blocks have gradually increasing sizes in the first direction,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 29), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “fourth limiting member” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“member”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“limiting” or ‘configured for limiting’)
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “fourth limiting member” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a plurality of fourth sub-blocks disposed sequentially along the third direction, wherein the plurality of first sub-blocks have gradually increasing sizes in the first direction,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 21), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “supporting member” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“member”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“supporting” or ‘configured for supporting’ and “configured to support the workpiece along the first direction”)
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “supporting member” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a sub-block comprising a flexible or elastic material,’ as taught by the Specification (figures 2, 3, and 5, element 22; paragraphs 226, 243, and 246).
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 – 11 and 17 – 20 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 recites the limitation “wherein the limiting spaces ... are used for limiting workpieces” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards “a pallet.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘limiting workpieces in the limiting spaces,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of loading a workpiece onto a pallet,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘limiting spaces,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘pallet’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the limiting spaces ... are configured to limit workpieces.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “projections.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘projections’ previously set forth in claim 1 or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second set of ‘projections’ which are separate and independent from the ‘projections’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to the ‘projections’ previously set forth.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “size of the first limiting space.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the “size of the first limiting space” previously set forth in claim 5, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second ‘size of the first limiting space’ which is separate and independent from the ‘size’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to the “size of the first limiting space” previously set forth.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “size of the second limiting space.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the “size of the second limiting space” previously set forth in claim 5, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second ‘size of the second limiting space’ which is separate and independent from the ‘size’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to the “size of the second limiting space” previously set forth.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the limiting space.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the limiting spaces.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the limiting space.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the limiting spaces.”
Claim 9 further recites the limitation “the corresponding first sub-block.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a corresponding first sub-block of the plurality of first sub-blocks.”
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations such that they are not positively required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 19, claim 19 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Regarding claim 20, claim 20 does not further limit the subject matter of either of claims 1 or claim 19. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 11 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peng (Chinese Patent Number CN 202464505 U, cited in IDS).
As to claim 1, Peng teaches a pallet (figures 1 – 3, element 2 being the ‘pallet’; machine translation, page 3, last paragraph), comprising: a bottom support (figures 2 and 3, element 20 being the ‘bottom support’; machine translation, page 3, last paragraph); and a limiting structure disposed on the bottom support and enclosing a plurality of limiting spaces (figures 2 and 3, elements 9 being the ‘limiting structure,’ see below; machine translation, page 3, last paragraph – page 4, first paragraph); wherein the limiting spaces are located on a side of the bottom support in a first direction and are configured to limit workpieces (figure 3, vertical direction being the ‘first direction’; see below); and the plurality of limiting spaces have different projections in the first direction (figure 3, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
283
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Peng teaches that the limiting spaces are located on a same side of the bottom support in the first direction and the projections in the first direction partially overlap (figure 3, see above).
As to claim 3, Peng teaches that two of the limiting spaces partially overlap in a cross section parallel to the first direction (figure 3, see above).
As to claim 4, Peng teaches that two of the limiting spaces partially overlap in a cross section parallel to the first direction (figure 3, see above).
As to claim 5, Peng teaches that two of the limiting spaces are respectively a first limiting space and a second limiting space (figure 3, see below); in a second direction, a size of the first limiting space is smaller than a size of the second limiting space; and the second direction intersects with the first direction (figure 3, see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
282
1076
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, Peng teaches that in a third direction, the size of the first limiting space is smaller than the size of the second limiting space (figure 2, see below); and the third direction intersects with both the first direction and the second direction (figure 2, see below), and the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction are all not in the same plane (figure 2, see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
410
837
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7, Peng further teaches that the limiting structure comprises at least one set of limiting assemblies (figures 2 – 4, each of elements 9 being a ‘set of limiting assemblies’; machine translation, page 3, last paragraph – page 4, first paragraph), and the sets of limiting assemblies comprise a first limiting member, the first limiting member comprising, wherein the first limiting member comprises a plurality of first sub-blocks disposed sequentially along the second direction, wherein the plurality of first sub-blocks have gradually increasing sizes in the first direction and a second limiting member spaced apart on the bottom support along the second direction, and the second limiting member comprises a plurality of second sub-blocks disposed sequentially along the second direction, wherein the plurality of second sub-blocks have gradually increasing sizes in the first direction (figures 2 and 4, elements 9, see below; machine translation, page 3, last paragraph – page 4, first paragraph), and a third limiting member and a fourth limiting member spaced apart on the bottom support along the direction, wherein the third limiting member comprises a plurality of third sub-blocks disposed sequentially along the third direction, wherein the plurality of first sub-blocks have gradually increasing sizes in the first direction and the fourth limiting member comprises a plurality of fourth sub-blocks disposed sequentially along the third direction, wherein the plurality of first sub-blocks have gradually increasing sizes in the first direction (figures 2 and 4, elements 9, see below; machine translation, page 3, last paragraph – page 4, first paragraph). Examiner recognizes that the first and third limiting members and the second and fourth limiting members are integrally formed (figure 2, see below). However, Examiner notes that the limitations of the claims do not require the limiting members to be separate and independent from each other. Examiner further notes that Applicant’s Specification teaches the first and third limiting member and the second and fourth limiting members being integrally formed (figure 5, elements 211, 213, 212, and 214).
PNG
media_image4.png
497
1119
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Peng further teaches that the first limiting member, the second limiting member, the third limiting member, and the fourth limiting member enclose the plurality of limiting spaces (figure 2, see above); and the first direction intersects with the second direction, the first direction intersects with the third direction, the second direction intersects with the third direction, and the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction are not all located in a same plane (figure 2, see above).
As to claim 8, Peng taches that the first limiting member comprises a plurality of first sub-blocks disposed sequentially along the second direction, and in a direction of the first sub-blocks leaving the second limiting member in the second direction, the plurality of first sub-blocks have gradually increasing sizes in the first direction; and each of the first sub-blocks is used to enclose the limiting space together with the second limiting member, and the limiting spaces corresponding to the plurality of first sub-blocks are sequentially arranged in communication along the first direction (figures 2 – 4, see above).
As to claim 9, Peng teaches that the plurality of first sub-blocks are sequentially connected along the second direction to form a stepped structure (figures 2 – 4, see above).
As to claim 10, Peng teaches that the second limiting member comprises a plurality of second sub-blocks distributed sequentially along the second direction, wherein in a direction of the second sub-blocks leaving the first sub-blocks along the second direction, the plurality of second sub-blocks have gradually increasing sized in the first direction, and each of the second sub-blocks is used to enclose the limiting spaces together with a corresponding first sub-block of the plurality of first sub-blocks (figures 2 – 4, see above).
As to claim 11, Peng teaches that the plurality of second sub-blocks are sequentially connected along the second direction to form a stepped structure (figure 2, see above).
As to claim 17, Peng further teaches a supporting member comprising, a sub-block comprising an elastic material, disposed on the bottom support, and the supporting member being configured to support the workpiece along the first direction (figure 2, element 21 being the ‘supporting member’ and ‘sub-block’; machine translation, page 3, last paragraph – page 4, second paragraph).
As to claim 18, Peng teaches that the limiting structure is an elastic material member (figure 2, elements 21 – 23; page 3, last paragraph – page 4, second paragraph). Examiner notes that this can be found because Examiner is reasonably interpreting Peng such that the ‘left side plate,’ ‘rear side plate,’ and ‘right side plate’ are part of the ‘limiting structure’ (figure 2, elements 21 – 23; machine translation, page 3, last paragraph) and Peng expressly teaches that each of the ‘left side plate,’ ‘rear side plate,’ and ‘right side plate’ comprise elastic material (machine translation, page 4, second paragraph).
As to claims 19 and 20, the discussion of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights