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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/18/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 03/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the technical feature of the reinforcement strip is not disclosed in the prior art; the prior art does not disclose a plastic reinforcement strip; and the three groups share a plastic reinforcement strip as a common technical feature. This is not found persuasive because in the restriction requirement, the teachings of Przytulla, the examiner did not identify the reinforcement strip as the technical feature disclosed by the prior art. The examiner identifies the structure of a pallet container comprising a pallet and a mesh cage attached to the pallet, and wherein the mesh cage encloses an inner container, as the common technical feature shared between the group inventions disclosed by the teachings of Przytulla. In the restriction requirement never was intention to identify the reinforcement strip as the technical feature shared between the group inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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. Regarding claim 1, the limitation “and the IBC optionally has a corner and/or edge protection and the pallet (20) has at least one reinforcing strip (80) made of plastic” is indefinite because it is unclear if the portion of the limitation of the “the pallet has at least one reinforcing strip made of plastic” is part/portion or separate of the optional limitation of the IBC has corner and/or edge protection. Claims 2-8 carry the same issue because the claims are dependent on claim 1. Regarding claim 8, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1, 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassina (US 2008/0257230).
Claim 1
Cassina discloses an intermediate bulk container (1) having a pallet (10) which has a pallet body/platform (25) made of plastic (see [0026]) and a mesh cage (3), in particular a tubular mesh cage, made of metal which is attached to the pallet (see [0022]), wherein an inner container (2) made of dimensionally stable material is mounted in the mesh cage and the pallet (10) has at least one reinforcing strip (22) made of plastic (see [0026]). Cassina does not explicitly disclose the inner container is made from plastic material. However, Cassina discloses inner containers (103) made from plastic material are known and common in the art (see [0002] and figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intermediate bulk container of Cassina having the inner container formed from plastic material because it is well known and common the uses of plastic inner containers enclosed within a mesh cage of pallet containers.
Claim 2
Cassina further discloses the reinforcing strip is attached to a lower side of the pallet body (see figures 5 and 6).
Claim 8
Cassina further discloses the pallet has no reinforcements made of metal. Cassina discloses the reinforcement (22) is made from plastic (see [0026]).
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassina (US 2008/0257230) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weeks (CN 108860934), and providing Creighton (US 2006/0254473) as teaching evidence.
Claims 3 and 7
Cassina further discloses the reinforcement strip is attached to the pallet body by screw fastener (140a) (see [0030]). Cassina does not disclose the reinforcement strip bonded or welded to the pallet body. However, Weeks discloses a pallet comprising a plastic reinforcement/component or subassembly structure (17) which is bonded or welded to the pallet (see pages 25 and 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intermediate bulk container of Cassina having the reinforcement structure bonded or welded to the pallet body as taught by Weeks as an alternative attachment method of the reinforcement strip to the pallet body. Weeks further discloses the adhesive provided to the reinforcement strip could be adhesive, such as hot melt adhesive, double sided tape, or the like (see pages 17 and 18). After Cassina is modified having the reinforcement strip bonded to the pallet, then the reinforcement strip will have a self-adhesive surface.
Claims 4-6
Cassina discloses the reinforcement strip is made from plastic material (see [0026]). Cassina does not disclose the reinforcing strip (80) consists of a textile fabric made of a fiber composite material, woven or knit. However, Weeks discloses a pallet comprising a plastic reinforcement/component or subassembly structure (17) formed from a textile fabric made of a fiber composite material consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, or polyamide. Weeks discloses these materials provide a strong and rigid characteristic to the component or subassembly structure (see pages 30 and 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reinforcement strip made from any of the mentioned materials as taught by Weeks to provide a stronger and rigid configuration to the pallet. After Cassina is modified by Weeks, it is known that polypropylene is a woven fabric material. The teaching of Creighton (US 2006/0254473) is provided as evidence that polypropylene is a woven plastic material (see abstract).
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights