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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/8/26 has been entered.
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.
Claims 21-22 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 21, this claim is indefinite because it recites a configuration inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2173.03(⁋ 2). In particular, the claim recites “the first opening is defined between the first support and the second support”; but in Fig. 4 of the drawings & par. 51 of the written description of the instant application, the first opening (132) is shown and described as being between the first (400(1)) and third (400(3)) supports, while the third opening (152) is between the first (400(1)) and second (400(2)) supports. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering the above limitation to mean “the first opening is defined between the first support and the [third] support”.
Claim 22 is indefinite due to dependence upon an indefinite base claim.
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, 4, 6-12, & 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau (WO0230768) in view of Frederick (FR2709286).
Regarding claims 1, 15, 18, & 21-23, Rousseau teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a pallet (10) for welding equipment, the pallet being engageable by both a forklift that has a pair of forks and a pallet jack that has its own pair of forks (via spaces between 20), the pallet comprising: a top plate (16); a bottom plate (18); and a plurality of supports (20) positioned between and coupled to the top plate and the bottom plate, the plurality of supports including a first support (20 - labeled “A” in Fig. 4 Annotated), a second support (20 labeled “B”), a third support (20 labeled “C”), a fourth support (20 labeled “D”), and a center support (20 in center, labeled “J” - see Fig. 2 & p. 6, lines 19-22), the top plate, the bottom plate (18), and the plurality of supports collectively having a top side (i.e., upper surface of 16), a bottom side (i.e., lower surface of 18) opposite the top side, a first side (at E in Fig. 4 Annotated), a second side (at F) opposite the first side, a third side (at G), and a fourth side (at H) opposite the third side (Figs. 1-2), each of the first side, the second side, the third side, and the fourth side being disposed between the top side and the bottom side (Figs. 1-2), the first side defining a first opening (i.e., space between 20 - labeled “E” in Fig. 4 Annotated), the second side defining a second opening (F), the third side defining a third opening (G), and the fourth side defining a fourth opening (H), wherein the first opening, the second opening, the third opening, and the fourth opening are sized so that a pair of forks of a forklift engages the same one of the first opening, the second opening, the third opening, and the fourth opening when a forklift engages the pallet (Figs. 1-2), and sized so that a pair of forks of a pallet jack engages different ones of the first opening, the second opening, the third opening, and the fourth opening when a pallet jack engages the pallet (Figs. 1-2). Rousseau fail(s) to teach a center support having sides facing towards the first, second, third, & fourth supports.
PNG
media_image1.png
315
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Frederick teaches reshaping a center support (3) to have angled sides (3a), said center support having its own first side (W in Fig. 2 Annotated), its own second side (X), its own third side (Y), and its own fourth side (Z), the center support being rotated at an angle relative to a first support (AA), a second support (BB), a third support (CC), and a fourth support (DD) such that the first side (W) of the center support faces toward (Fig. 2) the first support (AA), the second side (X) of the center support faces toward (Fig. 2) the second support (BB), the third side (Y) of the center support faces toward (Fig. 2) the third support (CC), and the fourth side (Z) of the center support faces toward (Fig. 2) the fourth support (DD). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reshape the center support of Rousseau to have angled sides, as taught by Frederick, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the center support to deflect inserted forklift forks, thereby ensuring that the forks will avoid the center support during insertion, while simultaneously ensuring both engagement of the pallet by said forks and automatic & correct repositioning of the pallet (as suggested by p. 3, lines 1-12 & p. 4, lines 4-11 of Frederick).
PNG
media_image2.png
369
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hence, Rousseau as modified would teach a center support (J of Rousseau, as modified) having its own first side (W of Frederick), its own second side (X of Frederick), its own third side (Y of Frederick), and its own fourth side (Z of Frederick), the center support being rotated at an angle (as in Figs. 2-3 of Frederick) relative to the first support (A of Rousseau), the second support (B of Rousseau), the third support (C of Rousseau), and the fourth support (D of Rousseau) such that the first side (W of Frederick) of the center support faces toward the first support (A of Rousseau), the second side (X of Frederick) of the center support faces toward the second support (B of Rousseau), the third side (Y of Frederick) of the center support faces toward the third support (C of Rousseau), and the fourth side (Z of Frederick) of the center support faces toward the fourth support (D of Rousseau) (as in Fig. 2-3 of Frederick).
Additionally, Rousseau as modified would further teach the first opening (E of Rousseau) that is defined between a first support (A of Rousseau) and a third support (C of Rousseau), and has an unspecified width dimension; the first support (A of Rousseau) and a face (W of Frederick) of the center support (J of Rousseau) having an unspecified dimension therebetween; and a first pathway (K of Rousseau) and a second pathway (L of Rousseau) that each start at the first opening and form a clearance spacing that has an unspecified width. Additionally, altering the size 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 Rousseau as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making each of the first, second, third, & fourth openings 420 mm wide; making the dimension between each of the faces (i.e., the first, second, third, and fourth sides) of the center support and the first, second, third, and fourth supports 252 mm; and by making the clearance spacings of each of the first, second, third, and fourth pathways 146 mm wide, 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.). Hence, even assuming arguendo that Rousseau does not teach first, second, third, & fourth openings sized for engagement by both forklift forks and pallet jack forks, Rousseau as modified would teach first (E of Rousseau), second (F of Rousseau), third (G of Rousseau), and fourth (H of Rousseau) openings that are sized so that a pair of forks of a forklift engages the same one of the first opening, the second opening, the third opening, and the fourth opening when a forklift engages the pallet, and sized so that a pair of forks of a pallet jack engages different ones of the first opening, the second opening, the third opening, and the fourth opening when a pallet jack engages the pallet.
Regarding claim 2, Rousseau teaches a first opening (E) opposite a second opening (F), and the pallet further comprises: a first pathway (i.e., along line “K” in Fig. 4 Annotated) extending from the first side to the second side, the first pathway extending proximate to the first support (A), the second support (B), and the center support (J); and a second pathway (i.e., along line “L”) extending from the first side to the second side, the second pathway extending proximate to the third support (C), the fourth support (D), and the center support (J), wherein the first pathway extends in a direction parallel to the direction in which the second pathway extends (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Rousseau teaches a third opening (G) opposite a fourth opening (H), and the pallet further comprises: a third pathway (i.e., along line “M”) extending from the third side to the fourth side, the third pathway extending proximate to the first support (A), the third support (C), and the center support (J); and a fourth pathway (i.e., along line “N”) extending from the third side to the fourth side, the fourth pathway extending proximate to the second support (B), the fourth support (D), and the center support (J), wherein the third pathway extends in a direction parallel to the direction in which the fourth pathway extends (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Rousseau teaches a fifth pathway (P) proximate to the first support (A), the second support (B), the third support (C), and the center support (J), wherein the fifth pathway extends between the first opening (E) and the third opening (G).
Regarding claim 7, Rousseau teaches a sixth pathway (Q) proximate to the first support (A), the second support (B), the fourth support (D), and the center support (J), wherein the sixth pathway extends between the third opening (G) and the second opening (F).
Regarding claim 8, Rousseau teaches a seventh pathway (R) proximate to the first support (A), the third support (C), the fourth support (D), and the center support (J), wherein the seventh pathway extends between the first opening (E) and the fourth opening (H).
Regarding claim 9, Rousseau teaches an eighth pathway (S) proximate to the second support (B), the third support (C), the fourth support (D), and the center support (J), wherein the eighth pathway extends between the second opening (F) and the fourth opening (H).
Regarding claim 10, Rousseau teaches a first pathway (K), a second pathway (L), a third pathway (M), and a fourth pathway (N) that are each sized to receive one of a pair of forks of a forklift (implied by Figs. 1-2), and each of the fifth pathway (P), the sixth pathway (Q), the seventh pathway (R), and the eighth pathway (S) is configured to receive one of a pair of forks of a pallet jack (implied by Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Rousseau teaches a first pathway (K), a second pathway (L), a third pathway (M), and a fourth pathway (N) each having a first width (i.e., distance along line “T”), each of the fifth pathway (P), the sixth pathway (Q), the seventh pathway (R), and the eighth pathway (S) has a second width (i.e., distance along line “V”), and the second width is different than the first width (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Rousseau teaches a first pathway (K), a second pathway (L), a third pathway (M), and a fourth pathway (N) that each extend perpendicularly (Fig. 4) relative to one of the first side (at E), the second side (at F), the third side (at G), and the fourth side (at H).
Regarding claim 14, Rousseau teaches a fifth pathway (P), a sixth pathway (Q), a seventh pathway (R), and an eighth pathway (S) that each intersect with at least one of a first pathway (K), a second pathway (L), a third pathway (M), and a fourth pathway (N).
Regarding claim 15, Rousseau teaches a pallet (10), comprising: a top plate (16); a bottom plate (18); and a plurality of supports (20) positioned between and coupled to the top plate and the bottom plate, the plurality of supports including a first support (A), a second support (B), a third support (C), a fourth support (D), and a center support (J), the top plate, the bottom plate, and the plurality of supports (20) collectively having a top side (i.e., upper surface of 16), a bottom side (i.e., lower surface of 18) opposite the top side, a first side (at E), a second side (at F), a third side (at G), and a fourth side (at H), wherein the first side includes a first opening (E) and is opposite the second side which has a second opening (F), the third side includes a third opening (G) and is opposite the fourth side which has a fourth opening (H), and the plurality of supports define: a first pathway (K) and a second pathway (L), each of the first pathway and second pathway extending between the first opening (E) and the second opening (F), a third pathway (M) and a fourth pathway (N), each of the third pathway and fourth pathway extending between the third opening (G) and the fourth opening (H), a fifth pathway (P) extending between the first opening (E) and the third opening (G), a sixth pathway (Q) extending between the second opening (F) and the third opening (G), a seventh pathway (R) extending between the first opening (E) and the fourth opening (H), and an eighth pathway (S) extending between the second opening (F) and the fourth opening (H).
Regarding claim 16, Rousseau teaches a first pathway (K) and a second pathway (L) extend perpendicularly to and between the first opening (E) and the second opening (F), and the third pathway (M) and the fourth pathway (N) extend perpendicularly to and between (Figs. 1-2 & 4) the third opening (G) and the fourth opening (H).
Regarding claim 17, Rousseau teaches a fifth pathway (P), a sixth pathway (Q), a seventh pathway (R), and an eighth pathway (S) that each extend diagonally (Figs. 1-2 & 4) relative to the first opening (E), the second opening (F), the third opening (G), and the fourth opening (H).
Regarding claim 18, Rousseau teaches a pallet (10), comprising: a top plate (16); a bottom plate (18); and a plurality of supports (20) positioned between and coupled to the top plate and the bottom plate (Figs. 1-2), the top plate, the bottom plate, and the plurality of supports collectively having a top side (i.e., upper surface of 16), a bottom side (i.e., lower surface of 18) opposite the top side, a first side (at E), a second side (at F), a third side (at G), and a fourth side (at H), the first side being opposite the second side (Fig. 4), and the third side being opposite the fourth side (Fig. 4), wherein the plurality of supports define a first set of pathways (K-N) between the plurality of supports, the top plate, and the bottom plate (Figs. 1-2 & 4), and a second set of pathways (P-S) between the plurality of supports, the top plate, and the bottom plate (Figs. 1-2 & 4), each pathway in the first set of pathways extending perpendicularly relative to at least one of the first side, the second side, the third side, and the fourth side (Fig. 4), and each pathway in the second set of pathways extending diagonally relative to the first side, the second side, the third side, and fourth side (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, Rousseau teaches a first set of pathways (K-N) that includes a first pathway (K), a second pathway (L), a third pathway (M), and a fourth pathway (N), the first pathway and second pathway extend parallel to each other (Fig. 4), and the third pathway and fourth pathway extend parallel to each other and extend perpendicularly to the first pathway and the second pathway (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, Rousseau teaches a second set of pathways (P-S) that includes a fifth pathway (P), a sixth pathway (Q), a seventh pathway (R), and an eighth pathway (S), the fifth pathway (P) and the eighth pathway (S) extend parallel to each other (Fig. 4), the sixth pathway (Q) and the seventh pathway (R) extend parallel to each other (Fig. 4), the fifth pathway and the eighth pathway extend perpendicularly to the direction in which the sixth pathway and the seventh pathway extend (Fig. 4), and each of the fifth pathway, the sixth pathway, the seventh pathway, and eighth pathway extending at an angle (Fig. 4) relative to at least one of the directions in which the first pathway (K), the second pathway (L), the third pathway (M), and the fourth pathway (N) extend.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, & 14-23 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau (WO0230768) in view of Love (20100107933) & Frederick (FR2709286). Rousseau teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including top (16) & bottom (18) members having openings (22, 32); but fail(s) to teach a center support having sides facing towards the first, second, third, & fourth supports; and arguably fail(s) to teach top & bottom members that are plates. However, Frederick teaches reshaping a center support (3) to have angled sides (W-Z) facing towards (Figs. 2-3) first, second, third, & fourth supports (AA-DD). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reshape the center support of Rousseau to have angled sides, as taught by Frederick, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the center support to deflect inserted forklift forks, thereby ensuring that the forks will avoid the center support during insertion, while simultaneously ensuring both engagement of the pallet by said forks and automatic & correct repositioning of the pallet (as suggested by p. 3, lines 1-12 & p. 4, lines 4-11 of Frederick). Additionally, Love teaches top (16) and bottom (17) members devoid of openings (Fig. 1a). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the top & bottom members of Rousseau solid by eliminating the openings therein, as taught by Love, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent objects from falling through said openings & off the pallet, thereby decreasing the chances of lost cargo. Hence, Rousseau as modified would teach top (16 of Rousseau) & bottom (18 of Rousseau) members that are plates devoid of openings (as in Fig. 1a of Love). Additionally, altering the size 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 Rousseau as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making each of the first, second, third, & fourth openings 420 mm wide; making the dimension between each of the faces (i.e., the first, second, third, and fourth sides) of the center support and the first, second, third, and fourth supports 252 mm; and by making the clearance spacings of each of the first, second, third, and fourth pathways 146 mm wide, 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.). For these reasons, and the reasons stated in par. 9-28 above, the structure of Rousseau as modified would read upon the limitations of these claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that “There is no disclosure in Rousseau addressing pallet jacks, pallet-jack fork spacing, forklift fork spacing, and relative dimensions that are chosen to force different engagement patterns” (Remarks at 8). However, Rousseau’s alleged silence concerning these matters is not dispositive. One of ordinary skill would recognize that Rousseau’s first, second, third, & fourth openings (E-H) were obviously capable of accommodating a pair of forklift forks both inserted into one opening, or a pair of pallet jack forks inserted one each into two adjacent openings. Moreover, for the reasons in the prior art rejection above, the structure of Rousseau as modified would indeed teach relative dimensions capable of forcing different engagement patterns for the forks of forklifts & pallet jacks.
Applicant also contends that Rousseau allegedly “fails to teach or suggest the use of a forklift and a pallet jack with the pallet”, and “does not disclose differentiated forklift versus pallet-jack operations using the pallet” (Remarks at 8). However, none of the pending claims in the instant application are method claims. Hence, even if Rousseau allegedly fails to teach any particular method of using a pallet, this alleged failure is not germane to the above rejections.
Applicant also contends that “Love . . . does not provide any sufficient motivation that one of skill in the art would consider to modify the proposed combination of Rousseau and Lubker” (Remarks at 10). However, KSR v. Teleflex forecloses the argument that a specific teaching, suggestion, or motivation must be found in the prior art.
Applicant further contends that “The proposed modification of the upper deckboard of Rousseau in view of Love is impermissible hindsight” (Remarks at 10). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
Applicant’s arguments the Lubker reference (Remarks at 9) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on this reference for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights