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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the IDS filed 18 AUG 2025 has been crossed out as it refers to a different Application Number other than the instant application. Thus, the IDS filed 18 AUG 2025 has been crossed out. Clarification and/or correction are required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the rib components (12) must be shown having U-shapes facing the inner side of the pallet(claim 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugihara (20040134391). The reference to Sugihara teaches structure as claimed including a plastic pallet comprising: perpendicularly oriented cross ribs comprising an upper pallet deck (1) and a lower pallet deck (2); and a group of legs (3) separating the upper pallet deck and the lower pallet deck, each of the legs is parallel to the others and is perpendicular to the upper pallet deck and the lower pallet deck, one or more of the cross ribs include one or more holes (at least fig 2), thereby reducing the weight of the cross ribs, short- sided walls providing internal support and positioned parallel to the legs (at least figs 3-6), the group of legs comprises nine legs, the pallet is configured in the shape of a rectangle having four corners and the group of legs further comprises four similarly sized and shaped corner legs positioned at the corners of the pallet, the group of legs further comprises four middle legs, each positioned along a side of the pallet between two corners, the middle legs are positioned to form gaps between the middle legs and the adjacent corner legs, the gaps extending from a side of the pallet to the opposite side of the pallet, the group of legs further comprises a center leg positioned in the center of the pallet and connecting the upper pallet deck with the lower pallet deck.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugihara (20040134391) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Brand (3964400). The reference to Sugihara teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including reinforcing ribs the only difference being that the ribs are not organized as angularly offset slopes. However, the reference to Brand (at least fig 1) teaches the use of offset sloped ribs to provide reinforcement to be old. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Sugihara with a reasonable expectation of success, to include angularly offset ribs, as taught by Brand since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed. Further the use of different shaped ribs, including U-shaped structures are well known and to use such in the same intended purpose and environment would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference cited teach structure similar to applicant's including g plastic pallet structures with reinforcing structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE V CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6865. The examiner can normally be reached m-f, m-w 5:30-3:00, th5:30-2:00.
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.
/JOSE V CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637