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 1/16/26 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taub (4694962) in view of Poldervaart (DE102004010237).
PNG
media_image1.png
453
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Taub teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a product transfer system comprising: a first base member (A in Fig. 3 Annotated) having a first upper surface (i.e., top surface of one of 32); a separate1 second base member (B) having a second upper surface (i.e., top surface of other of 32) positioned next to the first base member (Fig. 3). Taub fail(s) to teach first & second sleeves. However, Poldervaart teaches containment means (14a-14b) comprising a first sleeve (14a) having a back wall (C in Fig. 4 Annotated), a first side wall (D) extending from a first side of the back wall and a second side wall (E) extending from a second side of the back wall; and second sleeve (14b) having a back wall (F), a first side wall (H) extending from a first side of the back wall and a second side wall (G) extending from a second side of the back wall, wherein the back wall of the second sleeve is positioned adjacent2 the back wall of the first sleeve (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add containment means, as taught by Poldervaart, to the first & second base members of Taub, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow better retention of objects on the pallet. Hence, Taub as modified would teach a first sleeve (14a of Poldervaart) supported on the first upper surface (as in Fig. 1 of Poldervaart) of a first base member (A of Taub); a second sleeve (14b of Poldervaart) supported on the second upper surface (as in Fig. 1 of Poldervaart) of the second base member (B of Taub); and a first connector (40, 42 of Taub) connecting the first base member and first sleeve to the second base member and second sleeve (as in Figs. 3-4 of Taub).
Regarding claim 2, Taub teaches a first base member (A) that is a pallet (A) having an upper portion (32) and a plurality of legs (34) extending downward from the upper portion.
Regarding claim 18, Taub teaches pallets (32, 34) made of an unspecified material. Additionally, applicant has not traversed the examiner’s assertion that making a pallet from plastic is well known in the art (see Admissions of Prior Art (APA), below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make each of the pallets of Taub as modified from plastic, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce their cost & weight. Moreover, it is noted that the pallet does not depend on the process of making it; and the product-by-process limitation “molded” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the pallet. Therefore, the claimed pallet is not a different and unobvious pallet from that of Taub as modified.
Claims 3 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taub (4694962) & Poldervaart (DE102004010237) in view of Ozyurt (DE202008004550).
Regarding claim 3, Taub as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including an upper portion (32); but fail(s) to teach wheels. However, Ozyurt teaches rolling means (1-8) comprising a wheel (5) extending downward from an upper portion (Fig. 1). Additionally, mere duplication of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add wheels, as taught by Ozyurt, to each of the pallets of Taub as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the pallets to be more easily moved without the need for additional equipment (as suggested by par. 4 of Ozyurt). Hence, Taub as modified would teach a first base member (A of Taub) that is a dolly having an upper portion (32 of Taub) and a plurality of wheels (5 of Ozyurt) extending downward from the upper portion (as in Fig. 1 of Ozyurt).
Regarding claim 19, Taub teaches a pallet (32, 34) comprising an upper portion (32) made of an unspecified material. Additionally, applicant has not traversed the examiner’s assertion that making a pallet from plastic is well known in the art (see Admissions of Prior Art (APA), below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make each of the pallets of Taub as modified from plastic, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce their cost & weight. Moreover, it is noted that the pallet does not depend on the process of making it; and the product-by-process limitation “molded” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the pallet. Therefore, the claimed pallet is not a different and unobvious pallet from that of Taub as modified. Hence, Taub as modified would teach an upper portion (32 of Taub) of the dolly (A of Taub) that is a molded plastic.
Claims 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taub (4694962) & Poldervaart (DE102004010237) in view of Vroon (20070108203).
Regarding claim 4, Taub as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first (14a of Poldervaart) & second (14b of Poldervaart) sleeves each having a top portion (i.e., upper edges of D, E, G, & H of Poldervaart); but fail(s) to teach a first bar. However, Vroon teaches connecting means (166, 192) comprising a first horizontal bar (192) connected (Figs. 11-12) to a top portion of a first sleeve (154) and a second sleeve (154). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add connecting means, as taught by Vroon, to the first & second side walls of the first & second sleeves of Taub as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further stabilize the container formed by the sleeves (as suggested by par. 101 of Vroon). Hence, Taub as modified would teach a first connector (192) that is a first horizontal bar (192) connected to a top portion (as in Figs. 11-12) of a first sleeve (14a) and a second sleeve (14b).
Regarding claim 5, Taub as modified teaches a first vertical rod (168 of Vroon) connected (as in Figs. 10-11 of Vroon) to a first side wall (D of Poldervaart) of the first sleeve (14a of Poldervaart) and a second vertical rod (168 of Vroon) connected (as in Figs. 10-11 of Vroon) to a second side wall (G of Poldervaart) of the second sleeve (14b of Poldervaart).
Regarding claim 6, Taub as modified teaches a first bar (192 of Vroon) that is connected (as in par. 101 & Fig. 12 of Vroon) to the first rod (168 of Vroon) and to the second rod (168 of Vroon).
Regarding claim 7, Taub as modified teaches a first rod (168 of Vroon) that is embedded (as in Fig. 10 of Vroon) in the first side wall (D of Poldervaart) of the first sleeve (14a of Poldervaart) and the second rod (168 of Vroon) that is embedded (as in Fig. 10 of Vroon) in the second side wall (G of Poldervaart) of the second sleeve (14b of Poldervaart).
Regarding claim 8, Taub as modified teaches a portion (174 of Vroon) of the first rod (168 of Vroon) that extends upward above a top edge (as in Figs. 10-11 of Vroon) of the first side wall (D of Poldervaart) of the first sleeve (14a of Poldervaart) and a portion (174 of Vroon) of the second rod (168 of Vroon) that extends upward above a top edge (as in Figs. 10-11 of Vroon) of the second side wall (G of Poldervaart) of the second sleeve (14b of Poldervaart).
Regarding claim 9, Taub as modified teaches a first bar (192 of Vroon) that includes a first opening (198 of Vroon) for receiving the portion (174 of Vroon) of the first rod (168 of Vroon) that extends upward above the top edge of the first side wall (D of Poldervaart) of the first sleeve (14a of Poldervaart) and a second opening (198 of Vroon) for receiving the portion (174 of Vroon) of the second rod (168 of Vroon) that extends upward above the top edge of the second side wall (G of Poldervaart) of the second sleeve (14b of Poldervaart).
Regarding claim 10, Poldervaart teaches a second side wall (E) of a first sleeve (14a) and a first side wall (H) of a second sleeve (14b); and Vroon teaches connecting means (166, 192) comprising a first bar (192) connected (Figs. 11-12) to a top portion of a first sleeve (154) and a second sleeve (154). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add connecting means, as taught by Vroon, to the second & first side walls of the first & second sleeves of Taub as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further stabilize the container formed by the sleeves (as suggested by par. 101 of Vroon). Hence, Taub as modified would teach a third rod (168 of Vroon) connected to the second side wall (E of Poldervaart) of the first sleeve (14a of Poldervaart) and a fourth rod (168 of Vroon) connected to the first side wall (H of Poldervaart) of the second sleeve (14b of Poldervaart).
Regarding claim 11, Taub as modified teaches a third rod (168 of Vroon) that is embedded (as in Fig. 10 of Vroon) in the second side wall (E of Poldervaart) of the first sleeve (14a of Poldervaart) and the fourth rod is embedded (as in Fig. 10 of Vroon) in the first side wall (H of Poldervaart) of the second sleeve (14b of Poldervaart).
Regarding claim 12, Taub as modified teaches a second bar (192 of Vroon) connected (as in par. 101 & Fig. 12 of Vroon) to the third rod (168 of Vroon) and the fourth rod (168 of Vroon).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taub (4694962) & Poldervaart (DE102004010237) in view of Lato (20160251155).
Regarding claim 13, Taub as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first (14a of Poldervaart) & second (14b of Poldervaart) sleeves; but fail(s) to teach a first netting. However, Lato teaches a first netting (100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a first netting, as taught by Lato, to the system of Taub as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to better retain articles upon the pallets. Hence, Taub as modified would teach a first netting (100 of Lato) connected (as in Figs. 3-4 of Lato) to a first sleeve (14a of Poldervaart).
Regarding claim 14, Taub as modified teaches a first netting (100 of Lato) that is utilized as a first connector (100 of Lato) and is further connected (as in Figs. 3-4 of Lato) to a second sleeve (14b of Poldervaart).
Regarding claim 15, Taub as modified teaches a first netting (100 of Lato) that is connected (as in Figs. 3-4 of Lato) to the first side wall (D of Poldervaart) of the first sleeve (14a of Poldervaart) and the second side wall (G of Poldervaart) of the second sleeve (14b of Poldervaart) by hooks (as in par. 43 of Lato).
Regarding claim 16, Taub as modified teaches a first netting (100 of Lato) that extends (as in Figs. 3-4 of Lato) from the first side wall (D of Poldervaart) of the first sleeve (14a of Poldervaart) to the second side wall (E of Poldervaart) of the first sleeve.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taub (4694962), Poldervaart (DE102004010237) & Lato (20160251155) in view of Vroon (20070108203). Taub as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first (14a of Poldervaart) & second (14b of Poldervaart) sleeves comprising first (D, H of Poldervaart) & second (E, G of Poldervaart) side walls; but fail(s) to teach first & second top caps. However, Vroon teaches connecting means (166, 192) connecting first & second side walls of first & second sleeves (154). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add connecting means, as taught by Vroon, between the first & second side walls of Taub as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further stabilize the container formed by the sleeves (as suggested by par. 101 of Vroon). Hence, Taub as modified would teach a first top cap (192 of Vroon) on a first sleeve (14a of Poldervaart) and a second top cap (192 of Vroon) on the second sleeve (14b of Poldervaart).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taub (4694962) & Poldervaart (DE102004010237) in view of Brown (5829595). Taub as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first & second sleeves (14a-14b of Poldervaart) and first & second base members (A-B of Taub); but fail(s) to teach first & second latches. However, Brown teaches securing means (32, 48, 50) comprising a first latch (32, 48, 50) that secures a first sleeve (26) to a base member (22) and a second latch that (32, 48, 50) secures a second sleeve (26) to the base member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add securing means, as taught by Brown, to the system of Taub as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to selectively secure the sleeves to the base members. Hence, Taub as modified would teach a first sleeve (14a of Poldervaart) that is secured to the first base member (A of Taub) by a first latch (32, 48, 50 of Brown) and the second sleeve (14b of Poldervaart) that is secured to the second base member (B of Taub) by a second latch (32, 48, 50 of Brown).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Taub’s first (A) & second (B) base members are not “separate” from each other because “In Taub, the pallet segments 32 are meant to be connected to form a single pallet assembly 30” (Remarks at 7). In the instant application, however, the first & second base members (14 - see par. 43 of the written description) are also “coupled to each other by a first connector in the form of a first bar 24” (par. 44 of the written description; see also Fig. 1. Hence, the examiner submits that, when the term “separate” is read in light of the written description of the instant application, Taub’s first (A) & second (B) base members can be reasonably characterized as “separate” from each other, even though those base members are also connected to each other.
The remainder of applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the prior art rejection above.
Admissions of Prior Art (APA): Applicant has not traversed the examiner's taking of Official Notice that the practice(s) of making a pallet from plastic is well known in the art. As such, said practice(s) is therefore viewed as being admitted prior art (APA). See MPEP 2144.03.
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 The Oxford English Dictionary defines “separate” to mean “divided from something else so as to have an independent existence by itself”. See Reference U. In Taub, the second base member (B) is divided from, and exists independently from, the first base member (A). See Fig. 4. Hence, the examiner submits that Taub’s Second base member (B) can be reasonably characterized as a separate second base member.
2 It is noted that the term “adjacent” does not require absolute contact, merely relatively close position. Since the back wall (F) of the second sleeve (14b) is closer to the back wall (C) of the first sleeve (14a) than objects outside Poldervaart’s containment means, the examiner submits that Poldervaart’s two back walls (C & F) are adjacent to each other.