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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 45 objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 7 to page 5, line 2 claim 45 recites the method of “…and non-detachably connecting a plurality of reinforcement elements, at least one reinforcement element of which has an omega-shaped cross section and is positioned at least partially in a runner of the runner arrangement for reinforcing the pallet arrangement and the pallet arrangement to another, wherein …” which lacks clarity and grammatical structure, and does not properly convey the idea of non-detachably connecting a plurality of reinforcement element and the pallet arrangement to one another.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 23, 25-28, 30-33, 36-38, and 41-48 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.
Claims 23 and 45 recite the structure of the omega-shaped reinforcement element as includes “first and second straight end legs that extend in a parallel and coplanar relationship, a first side intermediate leg extending perpendicularly from an end of the first straight end leg and a second side intermediate leg extending perpendicularly from an end of the second straight end leg, and only one connecting leg between the first side intermediate leg and the second side intermediate leg, the connecting leg extending from another end of the first straight end leg to another end of the second straight end leg”. Figure 7 clearly shows the connecting leg 14 extends from an end of the first side intermediate leg 15 to an end of the second side intermediate leg 15, not from any end of the first or second straight legs.
Claims 25-28, 30-33, 36-38, and 41-44 are rejected for depending from claim 23.
Claims 46-48 are rejected for depending from claim 45.
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoogland (U.S. Pat. No. 20060013991) in view of Weiss (U.S. Pat. No. 3616766).
With respect to claim 23, Hoogland discloses a pallet comprising: a) a pallet arrangement (Fig. 1, pallet 1) which i) includes a carrier arrangement (top deck 2) for carrying at least one item, ii) a runner arrangement (stringers 6) connected to the carrier arrangement for providing support with respect to a support surface (stringers 6, supporting part 7), and iii) is made of a pallet arrangement material (plastic); and b) a plurality of reinforcement elements (Figs. 3 and 3 show a plurality of first and second supporting elements 14 and 21), at least one reinforcement element (first supporting element 14) is positioned at least partially in a runner of the runner arrangement and is further non-detachably connected to the pallet arrangement (Paragraph 0040, “supporting elements 14 can… be inserted into a mold whereupon plastic is injected all around so that a one-piece, fixed construction is obtained”) for reinforcing the pallet arrangement (Paragraph 0040, “through suitable profiling of the supporting elements 14, 21, the load bearing capacity can be further enhanced”), and wherein adjacent to the at least one reinforcement element (first supporting element 14) the pallet arrangement (pallet 1) has a cross section corresponding to the cross section of the at least one reinforcement element (Paragraph 0040, “the first supporting elements 14 can, for instance, in a simple manner, be inserted into a mold whereupon plastic is injected all around so that a one-piece, fixed construction is obtained” therefore, an inner cross section of the stringer 6 would have a cross section corresponding to the first supporting element 14 since the plastic is molded over the shape of the element).
Hoogland fails to disclose the at least one reinforcement element has an omega-shaped cross section wherein the at least one omega-profile reinforcement element includes first and second straight end legs that extend in a parallel and coplanar relationship, a first side intermediate leg extending perpendicularly from an end of the first straight end leg and a second side intermediate leg extending perpendicularly from an end of the second straight end leg, and only one connecting leg between the first side intermediate leg and the second side intermediate leg, the connecting leg extending from another end of the first straight end leg to another end of the second straight end leg.
Weiss discloses an omega-shaped reinforcement element (Figs. 2 and 3, channels 13) wherein the at least one reinforcement element includes first and second straight end legs that extend in a parallel and coplanar relationship (see modified Fig. 2, first and second end legs), a first side intermediate leg extending perpendicularly from an end of the first straight end leg (see modified Fig. 2, first intermediate leg) and a second side intermediate leg extending perpendicularly from an end of the second straight end leg (see modified Fig. 2, second intermediate leg), and only one connecting leg between the first side intermediate leg and the second side intermediate leg (see modified Fig. 2, connecting leg), the connecting leg extending from another end of the first straight end leg to another end of the second straight end leg (note that the relationship between the connecting leg and “another end” of the first/second straight end leg is described incorrectly, as explained in the 112 rejection above, however the structure of the channel 13 of Weiss is identical to the claimed omega-shaped reinforcement element. See modified Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
230
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified. Fig. 2
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pallet of Hoogland by replacing the first supporting element with an omega-shaped channel such as taught by Weiss in order to provide greater rigidity of the stringers (Col. 2, lines 18-19), preventing unwanted flexing of the support elements by providing rigid support in both a horizontal direction (via the straight connecting leg and the straight end legs) and a vertical direction (via the straight intermediate legs), and to further provide additional surface area along the entire length of the support element for the connection between the plastic material of the pallet and the metal insert.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoogland (U.S. Pat. No. 20060013991) in view of Weiss (U.S. Pat. No. 3616766) in further view of Hallowell (U.S. Pat. No. 1832773).
With respect to claim 30, Hoogland in view of Weiss discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses a plurality of reinforcement elements include an omega-shaped reinforcement element (Weiss, channel 13) and an L-shaped reinforcement element (Hoogland, second supporting element 21 has a straight vertical leg and a horizontal flange located at the top of the vertical leg, which extends perpendicularly away from the vertical leg).
The combination fails to disclose wherein at least one reinforcement element of the plurality of reinforcement elements has a Z-shaped profile.
Hallowell discloses wherein at least one reinforcement element (Fig. 7, Z-bar 6a) of the plurality of reinforcement elements has a Z-shaped profile (Z-bar 6a has vertical web 10a has two flanges extending perpendicularly from the vertical web to form a Z-shaped profile).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the L-shaped supporting element of Hoogland such that it has an additional horizontal flange located at the bottom of the vertical leg such as taught by Hallowell, in order to evenly distribute the weight of a load across the length of the top deck and to further provide a greater surface area for contact between the top deck and the supporting element. It is further noted that routine optimization involving only change of form (L-shaped element of Hoogland in view of Weiss to z-shaped element of Hallowell), proportions, or degree or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention (distributing weight), by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
With respect to claim 31, Hoogland in view of Weiss in further view of Hallowell discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the Z-shaped reinforcement element (Hoogland, second supporting element 21, as modified by Weiss) is at least partially arranged in the carrier arrangement (Hoogland, Fig. 3 shows second supporting elements 21 arranged in the top deck 2).
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoogland (U.S. Pat. No. 20060013991) and Weiss (U.S. Pat. No. 3616766) in view of Hallowell (U.S. Pat. No. 1832773) in further view of Lenz (U.S. Pat. No. 10399739).
With respect to claim 32, Hoogland in view of Weiss in further view of Hallowell discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein at least one fixing opening is arranged in an intermediate leg of the Z-shaped reinforcement element.
Lenz (‘739) discloses wherein at least one fixing opening (Fig. 3A, through-holes 12) is arranged in an intermediate leg (rung 8) of the reinforcement element (Fig. 3A, aluminum profile 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vertical leg of the second supporting element of Hoogland in view of Weiss in further view of Hallowell to include through-holes such as taught by Lenz (‘739) in order to create a firm connection between the metal insert and the plastic material of the pallet (Col. 11, lines 4-7).
With respect to claim 33, Hoogland and Weiss in view of Hallowell in further view of Lenz (‘739) discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the intermediate leg (Hoogland, vertical leg of second supporting element 21, as modified by Weiss) extends perpendicularly to a carrier surface of the carrier arrangement (Hoogland, Fig. 3 shows vertical leg of L-shaped supporting element 21 extends along a plane that is perpendicular to the surface of top deck 2).
Claims 23, 25, 27, 28, 36, and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenz (WO2011035833) in view of Weiss (U.S. Pat. No. 3616766).
With respect to claim 23, Lenz discloses A pallet comprising: a) a pallet arrangement (Fig. 1, transport pallet 1) which i) includes a carrier arrangement for carrying at least one item (Abstract, “a large pallet… compositing a pallet cover plate 10 arranged on support elements 30”), ii) includes a runner arrangement (support member 30 with vertically oriented feet of transport pallet 1) connected to the carrier arrangement (cover plate 10) for providing support with respect to a support surface (Translated specification, page 4, “support members 30 and support skids for supporting the cover plate 10”), and iii) is made of a pallet arrangement material (Abstract, plastic); and b) a plurality of reinforcement elements (Abstract, “wherein at least some of the support elements 30 are reinforced by means of an elongated metal insert 31”), at least one reinforcement element (metal insert 31) of which has an omega-shaped cross-section (Translated specification, page 3, “the steel profile may preferably be provided as a U, C, E, Ω or box profile”) and is positioned at least partially in a runner of the runner arrangement (Fig. 2, metal insert 31 is located within support member 30) and is further non-detachably connected to the pallet arrangement for reinforcing the pallet arrangement (Abstract, “metal insert 31, which is overmolded by the plastic of the support element 30 and thus enclosed by a plastic casing 21”), and wherein adjacent to the at least one reinforcement element (metal insert 31) the pallet arrangement (transport pallet 1) has a cross section corresponding to the cross section of the at least one reinforcement element (Abstract, “metal insert 31, which is overmolded by the plastic of the support element 30 and thus enclosed by a plastic casing 21” therefore, an inner cross section of the support element 30 would have a cross section corresponding to the metal insert 31 since the plastic is molded over the shape of the metal insert).
Lenz is silent to the features of the omega-profile reinforcement element (metal insert 31 “preferably be provided as a… Ω …profile”), and fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one omega-profile reinforcement element includes first and second straight end legs that extend in a parallel and coplanar relationship, a first side intermediate leg extending perpendicularly from an end of the first straight end leg and a second side intermediate leg extending perpendicularly from an end of the second straight end leg, and only one connecting leg between the first side intermediate leg and the second side intermediate leg, the connecting leg extending from another end of the first straight end leg to another end of the second straight end leg.
Weiss discloses wherein the at least one reinforcement element (Figs. 2 and 3, channels 13) includes first and second straight end legs that extend in a parallel and coplanar relationship (see modified Fig. 2, first and second end legs), a first side intermediate leg extending perpendicularly from an end of the first straight end leg (see modified Fig. 2, first intermediate leg) and a second side intermediate leg extending perpendicularly from an end of the second straight end leg (see modified Fig. 2, second intermediate leg), and only one connecting leg between the first side intermediate leg and the second side intermediate leg (see modified Fig. 2, connecting leg), the connecting leg extending from another end of the first straight end leg to another end of the second straight end leg (note that the relationship between the connecting leg and “another end” of the first/second straight end leg is described incorrectly, as explained in the 112 rejection above, however the structure of the channel 13 of Weiss is identical to the claimed omega-shaped reinforcement element. See modified Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
230
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified. Fig. 2
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when selecting the Ω-profile metal insert of Lenz, to select a profile consisting of straight legs that extend perpendicularly from each adjacent leg as taught by Weiss in order to provide greater surface area for the connection between the plastic material of the pallet and the metal insert, and to further prevent unwanted flexing of the support elements by providing rigid support in both a horizontal direction (via the straight connecting leg and the straight end legs) and a vertical direction (via the straight intermediate legs).
The examiner takes Official Notice that, although Lenz does not explicitly define the Ω-profile metal insert, the claimed “omega-shaped” reinforcement is known in the art (often referred to as a “hat-shaped” profile/reinforcement/beam/channel) as evidenced by US3882796 (Fig. 2, reinforcing stringers 7 are described as having a “top-hat” cross section) and US5211117 (Figs. 3 and 7, “hat-shaped” web 40) which consist of the same structure as the claimed reinforcement element including two straight coplanar end legs, two straight intermediate legs extending perpendicularly from those end legs, and a connecting leg extending between the intermediate legs. The only difference between Lenz’s U-shaped metal insert (shown in the Figures), and a “hat-shaped” or “Ω-profile” reinforcement is the addition of two coplanar “end legs” extending perpendicularly from the vertically-oriented “intermediate legs”. Therefore, when selecting the Ω-profile metal insert of Lenz, one of ordinary skill in the art would select a metal insert with the “hat-shape” of Weiss.
With respect to claim 25, Lenz in view of Weiss discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Lenz) further discloses wherein the pallet arrangement engages at least in part into the at least one reinforcement element (Abstract, “metal insert 31, which is overmolded by the plastic of the support element 30 and thus enclosed by a plastic casing 21,” therefore the plastic of the pallet engages within the inner channel of the metal insert 31, of Lenz in view of Weiss).
With respect to claim 27, Lenz in view of Weiss discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Lenz) further discloses wherein the at least one reinforcement element (metal insert 31 of Lenz in view of Weiss) is made of metal (Abstract, “an elongated metal insert 31”).
With respect to claim 28, Lenz in view of Weiss discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Lenz) further discloses wherein the at least one reinforcement element (metal insert 31 of Lenz in view of Weiss) is at least partially overmoulded with the pallet arrangement material (Abstract, “metal insert 31, which is overmolded by the plastic of the support element 30 and thus enclosed by a plastic casing 21”).
With respect to claim 36, Lenz in view of Weiss discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Lenz) further discloses wherein the at least one reinforcement element having the omega-shaped cross-section (metal insert 31 of Lenz in view of Weiss) is positioned completely in the runner of the runner arrangement (Abstract, “metal insert 31, which is overmolded by the plastic of the support element 30 and thus enclosed by a plastic casing 21”, therefore the metal insert is positioned completely in support element 30. Fig. 2 shows metal insert 31 positioned in the horizontally extending support element 30).
With respect to claim 42, Lenz in view of Weiss discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Lenz) further discloses wherein the pallet arrangement (transport pallet 1) includes at least one expansion means (layer 32 is described as a “compensation layer” for compensating “different material behavior (stresses, strains in the materials due to different expansion coefficients, shrinkage of the plastic 21 after the injection process during the cooling phase)” Translated specification, page 5).
With respect to claim 43, Lenz in view of Weiss discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Lenz) further discloses wherein the at least one expansion means (layer 32) is arranged adjacent to the at least one reinforcement element (Figs. 4-7, the layer 32 is adjacent to metal insert 31).
With respect to claim 45, Lenz discloses a method for producing a pallet, the method comprising the steps of: producing a pallet arrangement (Fig. 1, transport pallet 1) from a pallet arrangement material (Translated specification, page 4, “plastic is injected into the mold cavity to form the transport pallet and/or the support runner(s)”), wherein the pallet arrangement (transport pallet 1) includes a carrier arrangement for carrying at least one item (Abstract, “a large pallet… compositing a pallet cover plate 10 arranged on support elements 30”), and a runner arrangement (support member 30 with vertically oriented feet of transport pallet 1) connected to the carrier arrangement (cover plate 10) for providing support with respect to a support surface (Translated specification, page 4, “support members 30 and support skids for supporting the cover plate 10”); and non-detachably connecting a plurality of reinforcement elements (Abstract, “wherein at least some of the support elements 30 are reinforced by means of an elongated metal insert 31, which is overmolded by the plastic of the support element 30 and thus enclosed by a plastic casing 21”), at least one reinforcement element (metal insert 31) of which has an omega-shaped cross section (Translated specification, page 3, “the steel profile may preferably be provided as a U, C, E, Ω or box profile”) and is positioned at least partially in a runner of the runner arrangement (Fig. 2, metal insert 31 is located within support member 30) for reinforcing the pallet arrangement and the pallet arrangement to one another (Abstract, “metal insert 31, which is overmolded by the plastic of the support element 30 and thus enclosed by a plastic casing 21”), and wherein adjacent to the at least one reinforcement element (metal insert 31) the pallet arrangement (transport pallet 1) has a cross section corresponding to the cross section of the at least one reinforcement element (Abstract, “metal insert 31, which is overmolded by the plastic of the support element 30 and thus enclosed by a plastic casing 21” therefore, an inner cross section of the support element 30 would have a cross section corresponding to the metal insert 31 since the plastic is molded over the shape of the metal insert).
Lenz is silent to the features of the omega-profile reinforcement element (metal insert 31 “preferably be provided as a… Ω …profile”), and fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one omega-profile reinforcement element includes first and second straight end legs that extend in a parallel and coplanar relationship, a first side intermediate leg extending perpendicularly from an end of the first straight end leg and a second side intermediate leg extending perpendicularly from an end of the second straight end leg, and only one connecting leg between the first side intermediate leg and the second side intermediate leg, the connecting leg extending from another end of the first straight end leg to another end of the second straight end leg.
Weiss discloses wherein the at least one reinforcement element (Figs. 2 and 3, channels 13) includes first and second straight end legs that extend in a parallel and coplanar relationship (see modified Fig. 2, first and second end legs), a first side intermediate leg extending perpendicularly from an end of the first straight end leg (see modified Fig. 2, first intermediate leg) and a second side intermediate leg extending perpendicularly from an end of the second straight end leg (see modified Fig. 2, second intermediate leg), and only one connecting leg between the first side intermediate leg and the second side intermediate leg (see modified Fig. 2, connecting leg), the connecting leg extending from another end of the first straight end leg to another end of the second straight end leg (note that the relationship between the connecting leg and “another end” of the first/second straight end leg is described incorrectly, as explained in the 112 rejection above, however the structure of the channel 13 of Weiss is identical to the claimed omega-shaped reinforcement element. See modified Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
230
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified. Fig. 2
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when selecting the Ω-profile metal insert of Lenz, to select a profile consisting of straight legs that extend perpendicularly from each adjacent leg as taught by Weiss in order to provide greater surface area for the connection between the plastic material of the pallet and the metal insert, and to further prevent unwanted flexing of the support elements by providing rigid support in both a horizontal direction (via the straight connecting leg and the straight end legs) and a vertical direction (via the straight intermediate legs).
The examiner takes Official Notice that, although Lenz does not explicitly define the Ω-profile metal insert, the claimed “omega-shaped” reinforcement is known in the art (often referred to as a “hat-shaped” profile/reinforcement/beam/channel) as evidenced by US3882796 (Fig. 2, reinforcing stringers 7 are described as having a “top-hat” cross section) and US5211117 (Figs. 3 and 7, “hat-shaped” web 40) which consist of the same structure as the claimed reinforcement element including two straight coplanar end legs, two straight intermediate legs extending perpendicularly from those end legs, and a connecting leg extending between the intermediate legs. The only difference between Lenz’s U-shaped metal insert (shown in the Figures), and a “hat-shaped” or “Ω-profile” reinforcement is the addition of two coplanar “end legs” extending perpendicularly from the vertically-oriented “intermediate legs”. Therefore, when selecting the Ω-profile metal insert of Lenz, one of ordinary skill in the art would select a metal insert with the “hat-shape” of Weiss.
With respect to claim 46, Lenz in view of Weiss discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Lenz) further discloses wherein the at least one reinforcement element (metal insert 31 of Lenz in view of Weiss) is overmoulded and is non-detachably connected to the pallet arrangement (Abstract, “metal insert 31, which is overmolded by the plastic of the support element 30 and thus enclosed by a plastic casing 21”).
With respect to claim 47, Lenz in view of Weiss discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Lenz) further discloses wherein the at least one reinforcement element (metal insert 31 of Lenz in view of Weiss) is overmolded in a single injection-moulding process (Translated specification, page 4, “the metal insert is surrounded by an intermediate layer, which is inserted into the mold cavity as described above, i.e., into a tool that is used, for example, in injection molding. Finally, plastic is injected into the mold cavity to form the transport pallet and/or the support runner(s)”).
With respect to claim 48, Lenz in view of Weiss discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Lenz) further discloses wherein the at least one reinforcement member (metal insert 31 of Lenz in view of Weiss) is at least partially overmould upon forming the pallet arrangement (Abstract, “metal insert 31, which is overmolded by the plastic of the support element 30 and thus enclosed by a plastic casing 21”).
Claims 26, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenz (WO2011035833) in view of Weiss (U.S. Pat. No. 3616766) in further view of Lenz (U.S. Pat. No. 10399739).
With respect to claim 26, Lenz (‘833) in view of Weiss discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein the at least one reinforcement includes at least one fixing opening for fixing the at least one reinforcement element in position relative to the pallet arrangement, the pallet arrangement engaging at least in part into the fixing opening.
Lenz (‘739) discloses wherein the at least one reinforcement (Fig. 3A, aluminum profile 10) includes at least one fixing opening (through-holes 12) for fixing the at least one reinforcement element (aluminum profile 10) in position relative to the pallet arrangement, the pallet arrangement engaging at least in part into the fixing opening (Col. 11, lines 4-7, “through-holes 12 are optionally arranged, through which, during manufacture in the case of a one-piece pallet, plastic can pass, in order to ensure a firm connection between the stiffening structure and the plastic pallet”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metal insert of Lenz (‘833) in view of Weiss to include through-holes such as taught by Lenz (‘739) in order to create a firm connection between the metal insert and the plastic material of the pallet (Col. 11, lines 4-7).
With respect to claim 37, Lenz (‘833) in view of Weiss discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein at least one fixing opening is arranged in the at least one side intermediate leg of the omega-shaped reinforcement element.
Lenz (‘739) discloses wherein at least one fixing opening (Fig. 3A, through-hole 12) is arranged in the at least one vertically extending leg (rung 8) of the reinforcement element (aluminum profile 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a vertically oriented (side intermediate) leg of the omega-shaped metal insert of Lenz (‘833) in view of Weiss to include to include through-holes such as taught by Lenz (‘739) in order to create a firm connection between the metal insert and the plastic material of the pallet (Col. 11, lines 4-7).
With respect to claim 38, Lenz (‘833) in view of Weiss in further view of Lenz (‘739) discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the at least one side intermediate leg (Weiss, see modified Fig. 2 above, side intermediate leg) extends perpendicularly to a carrier surface of the carrier arrangement (Lenz ‘833, Fig. 2 show vertically-extending “intermediate legs” extend along a plane that is perpendicular to a surface of cover plate 10).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenz (WO2011035833) in view of Weiss (U.S. Pat. No. 3616766) in further view of Berman (U.S. Pat. No. 11312534).
With respect to claim 41, Lenz in view of Weiss discloses the limitation set forth above except at least one monitoring unit arranged on the pallet arrangement for at least temporarily monitoring at least one of an environment of the pallet and the at least one item.
Berman discloses at least one monitoring unit (Fig. 7, tracking device 48) arranged on the pallet arrangement (pallet assembly 45) for at least temporarily monitoring at least one of an environment of the pallet and the at least one item (Col. 8, lines 24-27, “to allow the tracking device 48 to measure humidity, temperature, and the presence of light”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pallet of Lenz in view of Weiss to include a tracking device such as taught by Berman in order to easily monitor the environmental conditions and to further ensure the proper conditions for an item that is being carried by the pallet.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenz (WO2011035833) in view of Weiss (U.S. Pat. No. 3616766) in further view of Andreini (U.S. Pat. No. 3822796).
With respect to claim 44, Lenz in view of Weiss discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein the at least one reinforcing element includes at least one flanged edge.
Andreini discloses wherein at least one reinforcing element (Fig. 2, stringers 7) includes at least one flanged edge (flange 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ω-profile metal insert of Lenz in view of Weiss to include flanges such as taught by Andreini in order to increase structural strength and stiffness of the insert.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections
Amended limitations
1) Independent claims 23 and 45 have been amended to include the following limitation:
“wherein the at least one reinforcement element includes first and second straight end legs that extend in a parallel and coplanar relationship, a first side intermediate leg extending perpendicularly from an end of the first straight end leg and a second side intermediate leg extending perpendicularly from an end of the second straight end leg, and only one connecting leg between the first side intermediate leg and the second side intermediate leg, the connecting leg extending from another end of the first straight end leg to another end of the second straight end leg”
For this reason, the amended claim overcomes the final rejection (dated 9/16/2025) made on the grounds of Hoogland (U.S. Pub. No. 20060013991) in view of Weeks (U.S. Pat. No. 11021295) for describing a structural relationship of the end legs, intermediate legs, and connecting leg. The omega shaped member 17a of Weeks discloses a second connecting leg, failing to disclose the omega-shaped reinforcement element as claimed.
However, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Hoogland (U.S. Pub. No. 20060013991) in view of Weiss (U.S. Pat. No. 3616766). Weiss discloses an omega-shaped reinforcement element (channel 13) with the structure as claimed, see modified Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
230
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified. Fig. 2
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pallet of Hoogland by replacing the first supporting element with an omega-shaped channel such as taught by Weiss in order to provide greater rigidity of the stringers (Col. 2, lines 18-19), preventing unwanted flexing of the support elements by providing rigid support in both a horizontal direction (via the straight connecting leg and the straight end legs) and a vertical direction (via the straight intermediate legs), and to further provide additional surface area along the entire length of the support element for the connection between the plastic material of the pallet and the metal insert.
2) Independent claims 23 and 45 have been further amended to incorporate the limitation of claim 39 as follows:
“wherein adjacent to the at least one reinforcement element the pallet arrangement has a cross section corresponding to the cross section of the at least one reinforcement element.”
The examiner notes that the now-cancelled claim 39 previously depended from independent claim 23 and not from independent claim 45.
Hoogland in view of Weeks discloses wherein adjacent to the at least one reinforcement element (Weeks, member 17) the pallet arrangement (Weeks, pallet 1) has a cross section corresponding to the cross section of the at least one reinforcement element (Hoogland, Paragraph 0040, “When manufacturing a bearing construction 3, the first supporting elements 14 can, for instance, in a simple manner, be inserted into a mold whereupon plastic is injected all around so that a one-piece, fixed construction is obtained”) therefore, when the member 17 of Weeks is incorporated into a pallet mold, as described by Hoogland, an inner cross section of the plastic is produced around member 17 of Weeks. This inner cross section would correspond to the cross section of member 17. While the inner cross section surrounding member 17 would not be identical to the cross section of member 17, the cross sections would match, or fit together.
The new grounds of rejection in view of Hoogland in view of Weiss as described in the rejection above similarly discloses this limitation. Weiss discloses an omega-shaped channel 13 as claimed. When the omega-shaped channel 13 of Weiss is incorporated into a pallet mold (in place of Hoogland’s first supporting element 14), the plastic injected into the mold would completely surround the channel 13, therefore an inner cross section of the molded plastic would correspond to the shape of the channel 13.
Argument regarding the replacement of Hoogland’s supporting element
1) Applicant argues that since Hoogland’s stringers 6 with supporting parts 7 (and supporting element 14) achieves an even distribution of weight of a load across the entire length of the pallet without any change necessary, and no suggestion to make such a change, and that the examiner has not shown how member 17 of Weeks corresponds to an optimization with the overall pallet structure of Hoogland.
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, both Hoogland and Weeks disclose stiffening elements which are permanently fused within a load bearing pallet for the purpose of strengthening the overall structure (Hoogland, Paragraph 0040, lines 27-29, “through suitable profiling of the supporting elements 14, 21, the load bearing capacity can be further enhanced.” Weeks, Col. 30, lines 27-29, “the feature or member 17 may also include wing-like features, for example 17a as shown in FIGS. 3a-3d, 4a-4f, for enhancing rigidity/strength”. It would be obvious to modify the supporting element 14 of Hoogland to be omega-shape such as taught by Weeks through routine optimization only involving a change in form or shape, and doing the same thing as the original invention (increase load bearing capacity by evenly distributing weight across the pallet). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Further, the examiner notes that the supporting member 14 of Hoogland is essentially a U-shaped profile, as shown in Fig. 4. Paragraph describes “supporting elements 14 can, for instance, be folded plate work” with the flat, horizontally extending portion (flat part 15) acting as a “connecting leg” for the two vertically extending portions (left and right folded edges 15A) acting as “intermediate legs”. Through routine optimization, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that providing the bottom of the left and right folded edges 15A with horizontal flanges (as taught by Weeks) acting as “end legs” would provide additional rigidity to the supporting members 14, therefore increasing the overall strength of the pallet. Since the supporting member 14 is a folded plate, there are several areas where the supporting member may bend. For instance, between a lip of the flat part 15 as shown in modified Fig. 3 below. The flat part 15 is much wider than the folded edges 15A are long, which may cause unwanted flexing or bending at the indicated area. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide “wing-like features” such as taught by Weeks member 17 along the bottom of the folded edges 15A of Hoogland to increase the rigidity of the supporting member, especially in weaker “folded” areas, and further distribute the weight of a load more evenly across the length of the pallet.
PNG
media_image2.png
461
781
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 3
The Examiner notes that simple substitution to obtain predictable results is not a motivation relied upon in the previous office action (dated 9/16/2025), rather the Examiner notes that through routine optimization only involving a change in form or shape (a generally U-shaped, folded plate supporting member of Hoogland for an omega-shaped member of Weeks) and doing the same thing as the original invention (increase load bearing capacity by evenly distributing weight across a pallet), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to replace one stiffening element (Hoogland, supporting member 14) with another (Weeks member 17).
2) Similarly, a new ground of rejection has been made above in view of Lenz ‘833 in view of Weiss. Lenz ‘833 shows a U-shaped metal insert 31 in the Figures, but discloses the metal insert may be “Ω-shaped”. Weiss discloses a channel 13, used to reinforce the supporting structure of a pallet, which is identical to the claimed omega-shaped reinforcement element. The channel 13 is further a well-known reinforcement structure often referred to as “hat-shaped” as evidenced by US3882796 and US5211117.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when selecting the Ω-profile metal insert of Lenz, to select a profile consisting of straight legs that extend perpendicularly from each adjacent leg as taught by Weiss in order to provide greater surface area for the connection between the plastic material of the pallet and the metal insert, and to further prevent unwanted flexing of the support elements by providing rigid support in both a horizontal direction (via the straight connecting leg and the straight end legs) and a vertical direction (via the straight intermediate legs).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH IRENE ARTALEJO whose telephone number is (571)272-4292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6.
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, Daniel 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.
/E.I.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3637 /DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637