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 .
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassina (US 2008/0257230) in view of Weeks (CN 108860934), and providing Creighton (US 2006/0254473) as teaching evidence.
Claims 1, 5, 6 and 8
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]), therefore no reinforcement strip is made from metal. Cassina does not explicitly disclose the inner container is made from plastic material. Cassina does not disclose the reinforcing strip consists of a textile fabric made of a fiber composite material, woven or knit. Regarding the limitation for the inner container, 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. Regarding the limitation of the reinforcing strip, 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 and [0010]).
Claim 2
Cassina further discloses the reinforcing strip is attached to a lower side of the pallet body (see figures 5 and 6).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument that Cassina as modified by Weeks does not disclose the at least one reinforcing strip consists of textile fabric made of fiber composite material, the examiner disagrees. Cassina, paragraph [0026], clearly discloses the support member and the platform, both, could be made from plastic material. Cassina also discloses the support member and the platform could be made from metal, but metal and plastic are alternative materials for those structures. Further, Weeks discloses component or subassembly (17) consisting polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, or polyamide, wherein the teachings of Creighton are provided as a proof that polypropylene is a woven plastic material (see abstract and [0010]). The examiner also points out that nothing has to do the shape and/or surfaces of the component or subassembly disclosed by Weeks since the only modification of the disclosure of Cassina is the type of plastic used for the reinforcing strip. With respect to applicant’s argument of the reinforcement (40) of Cassina, the examiner points out hat the reinforcement structure used for purposes of the rejection of claim 1 is the support member (22). No limitation in the claims prevents the examiner of relying only on the disclosure of support member (22) as the required reinforcement for the pallet. Regarding applicant’s comments of the disclosure of Creighton, the examiner points out that Creighton is only used as teaching evidence that polypropylene is a woven plastic material. No structural feature in Creighton is used for the rejection of any of the claims. After further consideration of the prior art in view of the claimed limitations and applicant’s arguments, the examiner considers the rejection of the claims is still valid and proper.
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).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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