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 .
The following correspondence is a Final Office Action for application no. 18/671,734 for MODULAR LOAD PADS AND METHODS OF USE, filed on 5/22/2024. This correspondence is in response to applicant’s reply filed on 9/17/2025. Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 13-19 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 14-19 contain an incorrect status identifier. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 20-21 are not included in the claim set. 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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 contains the limitation regarding “wherein the series of center apparatus engagement features are configured to engage with a series of bottom engagement features of the second load pad when the second load pad is aligned with respect to the first load pad” but claim 18 contains the limitation regarding “when the second load pad is offset with respect to the first load pad.” It is unclear how the second load pad can be simultaneously aligned and offset with respect to the first load pad. Appropriate clarification s requested.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Chou (U.S. Pat. 7,490,561) in view of Du Toit et al. (U.S. 2013/0032507).
Regarding claim 1, Chou teaches a load pad for distributing a load, the load pad comprising: a top apparatus with a substantially flat upper surface and a bottom surface with a series of top apparatus engagement features; a center apparatus configured to removably connect to a bottom surface of the top apparatus via a series of center apparatus engagement features; and a bottom apparatus connected to the center apparatus, but do not teach that the top and bottom apparatuses are formed of an elastomer, wherein the center apparatus is formed of a material that has a higher rigidity than the top apparatus and the bottom apparatus. Du Toit teaches a pallet comprising both a thermoplastic elastomer in order to absorb shocks and protect the pallet and a reinforced polymeric material in order to provide a suitably light, strong and durable material. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to construct the top and bottom apparatus formed of an elastomer, wherein the center apparatus is formed of a material that has a higher rigidity than the top apparatus and the bottom apparatus in order to provide a pallet with sufficient strength and durability that can absorb shocks and vibrations.
[AltContent: textbox (Flat upper surface)]
[AltContent: textbox (Top apparatus)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
316
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (center apparatus engagement features)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (top apparatus engagement features)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Engagement openings)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Center apparatus)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Bottom apparatus)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 2, Chou and Du Toit teach the pad of claim 1, wherein the bottom apparatus is removably connected to the center apparatus.
Regarding claim 10, Chou and Du Toit teach the pad of claim 1, wherein the bottom apparatus is removably connected to the center apparatus via a plurality of engagement protrusions (33).
Regarding claims 11, Chou and Du Toit teach the pad of claim 10, wherein the plurality of engagement protrusions protrude from a top surface of the bottom apparatus and wherein the plurality of engagement protrusions are configured to be captively engaged with corresponding engagement openings of the center apparatus.
Regarding claim 13, Chou and Du Toit teach a load pad comprising: a top apparatus with a substantially flat upper surface and a bottom surface with a series of top apparatus engagement features; a center apparatus configured to removably connect to a bottom surface of the top apparatus via a series of center apparatus engagement features; and a bottom apparatus connected to the center apparatus, but do not teach that the load pad is a part of a plurality of load pads in a load pad system, and wherein a top and bottom apparatus are formed of an elastomer, wherein the center apparatus is formed of a material that has a higher rigidity than the top apparatus and the bottom apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to construct the load pad as a part of a plurality of load pads in a load pad system in order to provide support for multiple members , and further, since the mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Further, Du Toit teaches a pallet comprising both a thermoplastic elastomer in order to absorb shocks and protect the pallet and a reinforced polymeric material in order to provide a suitably light, strong and durable material. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to construct the top and bottom apparatus formed of an elastomer, wherein the center apparatus is formed of a material that has a higher rigidity than the top apparatus and the bottom apparatus in order to provide a pallet with sufficient strength and durability that can absorb shocks and vibrations.
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Chou and Du Toit teach the pad of claims 1 and 10, but do not teach that the center apparatus is formed of at least one of a Polycarbonate, ABS Plastic, High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), or Polypropylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, however, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to construct the center apparatus formed of at least one of a Polycarbonate, ABS Plastic, High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), or Polypropylene in order to provide a strong and durable material, and further, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chou (U.S. Pat. 7,490,561) in view of Du Toit et al. (U.S. 2013/0032507) in further view of Apps et al. (U.S. Pub. 2004/0134390).
Regarding claim 3, Chou and Du Toit teach the pad of claim 1, but do not teach a handle opening passing through the top apparatus, the center apparatus, and the bottom apparatus. Apps, however, teaches a pallet (Figs. 8, 9) comprising a handle opening (125) passing through a top apparatus and a bottom apparatus in order to form a handle for carrying the pallet sections. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to construct a handle opening passing through the top apparatus, the center apparatus, and the bottom apparatus in order to form a space for easily carrying the load pad, and further, in order to reduce the weight of the load pad by removal of material, in view of Apps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 15, 16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 December 26, 2025