DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 4/7/26 is acknowledged. Claims 14-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 fiber layer reinforcing the upper or lower deck surface (cl. 10); the fiber layer at an interface between the base layer and the one or more pallet legs (cl. 11); and the fiber layer at an interface between the lower deck surface and the one or more pallet legs (cl. 12) 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 § 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 4-5 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 4, the term “the angle” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the term “near” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim; and the specification does not provide a standard for measuring the scope of the term or ascertaining the requisite degree. Hence one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
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 & 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (20090114129).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a reinforced plastic (par. 56, 91) pallet (71-73) comprising a pallet deck (71) having a lower deck surface (A in Fig. 13 Annotated) and an opposing upper deck surface (B), the upper deck surface configured for contacting goods (Fig. 7); one or more pallet legs (73) extending between the lower deck surface and a base layer (72), wherein the base layer is reinforced with a fiber layer (50 - see par. 112).
PNG
media_image1.png
360
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Smith teaches a fiber layer (50) positioned near a lower surface (62) of the base layer (72).
Regarding claim 6, Smith teaches a fiber layer (50) positioned in a central region (i.e., space occupied by 50 & 51) between an upper (C) and lower surface (62) of the base layer (72).
Regarding claim 7, Smith teaches a base layer (72) that comprises a plurality of stringers (35-36 - see Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 8, Smith teaches a fiber layer (50) that comprises a fiber-reinforced composite sheet (50 - see par. 76, 82, 112, & Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 9, Smith teaches a fiber layer (50) that comprises an aramid fiber or a glass fiber (par. 74).
Regarding claim 10, Smith teaches an upper deck surface (B) and a lower deck surface (A) that are reinforced with one or more fiber layers (50 - see Fig. 13 & par. 112).
Regarding claim 11, Smith teaches another fiber layer (D) positioned at an interface (Fig. 13) between the base layer (72) and the one or more pallet legs (73).
Regarding claim 12, Smith teaches another fiber layer (50) positioned at an interface (76) between the lower deck surface (A) and the one or more pallet legs (73). See Fig. 13.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (20090114129) in view of DE202014003053. Smith teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a fiber layer (50) having a first fiber layer (par. 81); but fail(s) to teach a fiber layer having second fiber layers. However, DE202014003053 teaches and a plurality of second fiber layers (par. 12 of the English Translation of DE202014003053, which mentions “two adjacent layers”) overlapped over or under a first fiber layer (i.e., the “at least one further layer” - see par. 12 of the English Translation of DE202014003053) in a single, parallel direction (see par. 12 of the English Translation of DE202014003053, which notes that these second fiber layers are “arranged parallel to each other”), and wherein each of the plurality of second fiber layers are overlapped over or under the first fiber layer at a respective angle relative to the first fiber layer (see par. 12 of the English Translation of DE202014003053, which mentions “at least one further layer of polyolefin fiber filaments is arranged at an angle of 45° to 90° to the at least two adjacent layers mentioned above”), wherein the angle is between 0 and 90 degrees (par. 12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add second fiber layers, as taught by DE202014003053, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional structural reinforcement to the pallet. Hence, Smith as modified would teach a fiber layer (50 of Smith) that is a multilayered composite fiber.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (20090114129) in view of Linares (20110303128). Smith teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including an upper deck surface (B); but fail(s) to teach antimicrobial material. However, Linares teaches the inclusion, on an upper deck surface, of antimicrobial material (46 - see par. 34-35 & 43 and Fig. 10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add antimicrobial material, as taught by Linares, to the upper deck surface of Smith, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide increased fire resistance (as suggested by par. 34-35 & 43 of Linares).
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