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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/10/25 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term “the support platform” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering this term to refer the same component(s) as “an upper support platform” in claim 1.
Claims 2-8 & 10 are indefinite due to dependence upon an indefinite base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-15, 17-18, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikawa (JPS60175028) in view of Cook (3948190).
Regarding claims 1 & 11, Kamikawa teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a pallet (Figs. 1-2) with product self-centering feature comprising: an upper support platform (2) having a generally rectangular (Fig. 1) top support surface (i.e., upper surface of 2) having a first side (A in Fig. 1 Annotated) and an opposing second side (B), a first end (C) perpendicular to the first side and the second side (Fig. 1) and a second opposing end (D) perpendicular to the first side and the second side; a plurality of legs (1a-1b) extending downward from the upper support platform; and, wherein the first side of the upper support platform has a first height (Figs. 3-4), the second side of the upper support platform has the first height (Fig. 4), and a middle portion (i.e., portion of the upper support platform (2) above the center leg (1a) - labeled “E” in Fig. 1 Annotated) of the upper support platform approximately mid-way between the first side and the second side has a second height less than the first height (Figs. 3-4). Kamikawa fail(s) to teach making a pallet from plastic; or channels.
PNG
media_image1.png
334
477
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Cook teaches making the upper support platform (i.e., planar portion of 10) and legs (18, 20, 22) from plastic (col. 1, line 6; col. 1, line 68 to col. 2, line 5; & col. 2, line 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the upper support platform & legs of Kamikawa from plastic, as taught by Cook, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce their cost & weight.
Additionally, Cook further teaches the inclusion, in an upper support platform (i.e., planar portion of 10), of a plurality of channels (L in Fig. 5 Annotated) extending downward from a top support surface (M). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add channels, as taught by Cook, to the upper support platform of Kamikawa as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide structural reinforcement to the pallet (as suggested by col. 1, line 25 of Cook).
PNG
media_image2.png
155
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kamikawa teaches a top surface (i.e., upper surface of 2) that slopes downward (Figs. 3-4) from the first side (A) to the middle portion (E).
Regarding claim 3, Kamikawa teaches a top surface (i.e., upper surface of 2) that slopes downward (Figs. 3-4) from the second side (B) to the middle portion (E).
Regarding claim 4, Kamikawa teaches a top surface (i.e., upper surface of 2) that has an upwardly concave contour (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, Kamikawa teaches a plurality of runners (5 - see Figs. 2-4) extending between (Figs. 3-4) the plurality of legs (1a-1b).
Regarding claim 11, Kamikawa as modified teaches a plastic (see par. 9 above) pallet (Fig. 1 of Kamikawa) with a self-centering structure for supporting a plurality of trays comprising: an upper platform (2 of Kamikawa) having a generally rectangular (Fig. 1 of Kamikawa) top support surface (i.e., upper surface of 2 of Kamikawa) for supporting a plurality of trays (implied by Fig. 4 of Kamikawa - note that a pallet capable of supporting boxes would obviously be capable of supporting trays as well), the top support surface having a middle portion (E of Kamikawa) lower than an outer portion (i.e., portions of the upper surface of 2 of Kamikawa at the first (A of Kamikawa) & second (B of Kamikawa) sides) of the top support surface, the upper platform including a plurality of channels (M of Cook) extending downward from the top surface (as in Fig. 5 of Cook); and, a lower support structure (1a-1b & 5 of Kamikawa) for supporting the upper platform (Figs. 3-4 of Kamikawa).
Regarding claim 12, Kamikawa teaches a top support surface (i.e., upper surface of 2) that slopes at a downward angle from a first side (A) of the top support surface toward the middle portion (E) of the top support surface (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 13, Kamikawa teaches a top support surface (i.e., upper surface of 2) that slopes at a downward angle from a second side (B) of the top support surface toward the middle portion (E) of the top support surface (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 14, Kamikawa teaches a top support surface (i.e., upper surface of 2) that has an upwardly concave shape (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 15, Kamikawa teaches a lower support structure (1a-1b & 5) that includes a plurality of legs (1a-1b) extending downward (Figs. 3-4) from the upper platform (2).
Regarding claim 17, Kamikawa teaches a middle portion (E) of a top support surface (i.e., upper surface of 2) that is an unspecified distance lower than the outer portion (i.e., portions of the upper surface of 2 at the first (A) & second (B) sides) of the top support surface (upper surface of 2). However, altering the size & shape of a component has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pallet of Kamikawa as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by resizing & reshaping the upper support platform such that the middle portion 0.18” is lower than the outer portion, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the pallet (e.g., intended use of the pallet, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Regarding claim 18, Kamikawa teaches a top support surface (i.e., upper surface of 2) that is configured to require sets of trays stacked on the top surface to lean into each other (implied by inwardly-leaning configuration of the boxes (6) shown in Fig. 4) proximate the middle portion (E).
Regarding claim 20, Kamikawa teaches a plurality (Fig. 2) of runners (5) extending between (Fig. 4) the plurality of legs (1a-1b).
Claims 5, 16, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikawa (JPS60175028) & Cook (3948190) in view of Morrison (5052307).
Regarding claims 5 & 16, Kamikawa as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a plurality of legs (1a-1b of Kamikawa); but fail(s) to teach first, second, & third sets of legs. However, Morrison teaches forming openings (26A-B) in pallet legs (18A-18C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add openings, as taught by Morrison, to each of the legs of Kamikawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate the entry of forklift tines underneath the legs, thereby allowing the pallet to be lifted from more than one direction. Hence, Kamikawa as modified would teach a plurality of legs (1a-1b of Kamikawa & 26A-B of Morrison) that includes a first set of legs (i.e., portions of 1b of Kamikawa to either side of 26A & 26B of Morrison) proximate the first side (A of Kamikawa) of the upper support platform (2 of Kamikawa), a second set of legs (i.e., portions of 1b of Kamikawa to either side of 26A & 26B of Morrison) proximate the second side (B of Kamikawa) of the upper support platform and a third set of legs (i.e., portions of 1a of Kamikawa to either side of 26A & 26B of Morrison) proximate the middle portion (E of Kamikawa) of the upper support platform, wherein the third set of legs are smaller than the first set of legs and the second set of legs (implied by Figs. 3-4 of Kamikawa, showing 1a to be shorter than 1b).
Regarding claim 16, Kamikawa as modified teaches a plurality of legs (1a-1b of Kamikawa & 26A-B of Morrison) that includes a first set of legs (i.e., portions of 1b of Kamikawa to either side of 26A & 26B of Morrison) proximate the first side (A of Kamikawa), a second set of legs (i.e., portions of 1b of Kamikawa to either side of 26A & 26B of Morrison) proximate the second side (B of Kamikawa), and a third set of legs (i.e., portions of 1a of Kamikawa to either side of 26A & 26B of Morrison) proximate the middle portion (E of Kamikawa).
Regarding claim 19, Kamikawa as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including an upper platform (2) that has a width and a length (Fig. 1), and a lower support structure (1a-1b & 5) that has a width and a length equal to the width and the length of the upper platform (Figs. 1-2 & 4). Kamikawa as modified fail(s) to teach making an upper platform wider & longer than a lower support structure. However, Morrison teaches making an upper platform (20) wider (Fig. 2) and longer (Fig. 4) than a lower support structure (16A-C, 18A-C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the upper platform of Kamikawa as modified wider and longer than the lower support structure, as taught by Morrison, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional storage capacity. Hence, Kamikawa as modified would teach an upper platform (2 of Kamikawa) that has a width and a length (Fig. 1 of Kamikawa), and the lower support structure (1a-1b & 5 of Kamikawa) that has a width and a length less than the width and the length of the upper platform (as in Figs. 2 & 4 of Morrison).
Claims 7-8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamikawa (JPS60175028) & Cook (3948190) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
PNG
media_image3.png
344
589
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kamikawa as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including an upper support platform (2) having a top support surface (i.e., upper surface of 2), a first side (A), a second side (B), and a middle portion (E); but fail(s) to teach first & second trays or first & second pluralities of trays. However, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), in Fig. 3 of the drawings filed 3/27/24 in the instant application,1 teaches a first tray (F in Fig. 3 Annotated) supported on a top surface of an upper support platform (G) and extending from the first side of the upper support platform to the middle portion of the upper support platform (Fig. 3), and a second tray (H) supported on the top surface of the upper support platform and extending from the second side of the upper support platform to the middle portion of the upper support platform (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add first & second trays, as taught by AAPA, to the pallet of Kamikawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional storage capacity, and to facilitate the organization & transportation of goods upon the pallet. Hence, Kamikawa as modified would teach a structure wherein a portion of the first tray (F of AAPA) that contacts (as with the boxes (6) in Fig. 4 of Kamikawa) a portion of the second tray (H of AAPA) proximate the middle portion (E of Kamikawa) of the upper support platform (2 of Kamikawa).
Regarding claim 8, AAPA further teaches a first plurality of trays (J) stacked on a first tray (F), and a second plurality of trays (K) stacked on a second tray (H). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to stack first & second pluralities of trays, as taught by AAPA, on the first & second trays, respectively, of Kamikawa as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional storage capacity, and to facilitate the organization & transportation of goods upon the pallet. Hence, Kamikawa as modified would teach a structure wherein each one of the first plurality of trays (J of AAPA) contacts (as with the boxes (6) in Fig. 4 of Kamikawa) one of the second plurality of trays (K of AAPA) at the middle portion (E of Kamikawa) of the upper support platform (2 of Kamikawa).
Regarding claim 10, Kamikawa as modified teaches a middle portion (E of Kamikawa) that is an unspecified distance lower than the first side (A of Kamikawa) and the second side (B of Kamikawa) and forms a gap (implied by Fig. 3 of AAPA, showing a gap between the upper surface of the upper support platform (G) and the first (F) & second (H) trays) between the upper surface (i.e., upper surface of 2 of Kamikawa) and first tray (F of AAPA) and the second tray (H of AAPA). Additionally, altering the size & shape of a component has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pallet of Kamikawa as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by resizing & reshaping the upper support platform such that the middle portion 0.18” is lower than the first & second sides, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the pallet (e.g., intended use of the pallet, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Said arguments have been addressed in the prior art rejection above.
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 MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. 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.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
1 Fig. 3 of 3/27/24 drawings of the instant application is captioned “Prior Art”. Moreover, in the written description of the instant application, par. 22 states that “FIG. 3 is a front perspective view of a known pallet with stacks of trays forming a gap between the tops of the stacks” (emphasis added); and par. 32 states that “prior pallets 22 . . . . would result in stacks of trays on the pallet leaning outward – away from the middle of the pallet 22. This was evident in a gap 24 forming between the upper portions of two stacks of trays 20, such as that shown in Figure 3” (emphasis added). Given these admissions, the examiner submits that the structure shown in Fig. 3 is therefore admitted prior art. See MPEP 2129(I).