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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 4-13, 17-21, & 26-29 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 claims 1 & 21, the term “short” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “short” 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).
Regarding claim 1, the term “snug” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “snug” 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).
Regarding claims 26 & 28, the term “snugly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “snugly” 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).
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites “the inner face includes a second vertically-elongated recess between a third vertically-elongated projection and the second vertically-elongated projection”; however, claim 15, from which this claim depends, recites “the inner face includes a plurality of vertical corrugations.” It is therefore unclear whether the “second vertically-elongated recess” & “third vertically-elongated projection” recited in claim 17 are each part of, or separate from, the “plurality of vertical corrugations” recited in claim 15. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering the “second vertically-elongated recess” & “third vertically-elongated projection” recited in claim 17 to each be part of the “plurality of vertical corrugations” recited in claim 15.
Claims 4-13, 18-20, & 26-29 are indefinite due to dependence upon an indefinite base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalinowski (20210039830) in view of Li (CN215098927).
PNG
media_image1.png
317
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
354
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Kalinowski teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a nestable (Fig. 19) a half (par. 44) pallet (110) comprising: a deck (112) having a plurality of openings (116) through an upper support surface thereof, wherein the deck includes at least one handle opening (M in Fig. 18 Annotated) therethrough (Figs. 12-13 & 17-18); a plurality of columns (114) extending downward from the deck, the plurality of columns aligned with the plurality of openings through the upper support surface of the deck (Figs. 12, 14, 17), the plurality of columns including a first corner column (one of N - designated “A” in Fig. 13 Annotated) and a second corner column (another of N) along a short end of the deck; and the first corner column including a front face (B), a rear face (C), an outer face (D) and an inner face (E) opposite the outer face; wherein the outer face (D) includes a plurality of corrugations (F-K) reinforced by a plurality of vertical ribs (128 - see par. 47) along interior surfaces thereof (Figs. 14 & 17) and a plurality of angled outer gussets (123) along exterior surfaces thereof (Figs. 13-14); wherein the deck (112) includes a plurality of intersecting ribs (130) and where each of the plurality of angled gussets (123, L) is contiguous with a different one of the plurality of intersecting ribs (Fig. 13). Kalinowski fail(s) to teach corrugations on the inner face.
PNG
media_image3.png
309
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Li teaches the inclusion, on an inner face of a column (12, 13), of a plurality of vertical corrugations (BB, CC in Fig. 3 Annotated) reinforced by a plurality of vertical inner ribs (18 - see Fig. 5) along interior surfaces thereof (Fig. 5) and a plurality of angled gussets (DD) along exterior surfaces thereof (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add vertical corrugations, as taught by Li, to the inner face of each of the columns of Kalinowski, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the stiffness and strength thereof (as suggested by par. 62 of Li). Hence, Kalinowski as modified would teach an inner face (E of Kalinowski) of a first corner column (A of Kalinowski) including a plurality of vertical corrugations (BB, CC of Li) reinforced by a plurality of vertical inner ribs (128 of Kalinowski - see par. 47 of Kalinowski) along interior surfaces thereof (as in Figs. 14 & 17 of Kalinowski and Fig. 5 of Li) and a plurality of angled gussets (L) along exterior surfaces thereof (as in Fig. 13 of Kalinowski & Fig. 3 of Li).
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalinowski (20210039830) & Li (CN215098927) in view of King (20170297881).
Regarding claim 26, Kalinowski as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first & second corner columns (N); but fail(s) to teach a pallet lift. However, King teaches a pallet lift/pallet jack (50) having a pair of tines (52, 54) received snugly (Figs. 6-7) between a first corner column (14 at one corner of 10) and the second corner column (14 at another corner of 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 a pallet lift/pallet jack, as taught by King, to the structure of Kalinowski as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate relocation of the half pallet.
Regarding claim 27, Kalinowski as modified teaches a structure wherein a distance between the angled gusset (L of Kalinowski) connecting the first corner column (A of Kalinowski) to the deck (112 of Kalinowski) and a second angled gusset (L of Kalinowski) connecting the second corner column (another of N of Kalinowski) to the deck is an unspecified distance greater (e.g., due to ordinary engineering tolerances) than a distance between outermost edges of the pair of tines (52, 54 of King). Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). 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 distance between the angled gussets connecting the first & second corner columns to the deck 1/4” greater than the distance between the outermost edges of the pair of tines, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate insertion & removal of the tines between the first & second corner columns.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalinowski (20210039830) in view of Frankenberg (6216609).
Regarding claim 1, Kalinowski teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a nestable (Fig. 19) half (par. 44) pallet (110) comprising: a deck (112) having a plurality of openings (116) through an upper support surface (118) thereof; a plurality of corner columns (N) extending downward from the deck, the plurality of corner columns aligned with the plurality of openings through the upper support surface of the deck (Figs. 12, 14, 17), the plurality of corner columns including a first corner column (A) and a second corner column (another of N) along a short end of the deck (Fig. 18), wherein the first corner column and the second corner column are spaced from one another (Fig. 18) to provide a snug fit for a pair of tines of a pallet jack or pallet lift therebetween (implied by par. 1); and the first corner column including a front face (B), a rear face (C), an outer face (D) and an inner face (E) opposite the outer face. Kalinowski fail(s) to teach an angled face.
PNG
media_image4.png
171
354
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Frankenberg teaches the inclusion, on a corner column (18), of an angled face (46) between the inner face (44) and a front face (Q in Fig. 1 Annotated), the angled face including a first vertically-elongated recess (R) between a first vertically-elongated projection (S) and a second vertically-elongated projection (T). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add an angled face, as taught by Frankenberg, to each of the corner columns of Kalinowski, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to guide forklift tines into the spaces between the corner columns (as suggested by col. 3, lines 41-45 of Frankenberg).
Regarding claim 1, Frankenberg further teaches the inclusion, on an inner face (44) of a corner column (18), of a second vertically-elongated recess (V) between a third vertically-elongated projection (W) and the second vertically-elongated projection (T). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a second vertically-elongated recess & a third vertically-elongated projection, as taught by Frankenberg, to each of the corner columns of Kalinowski as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide structural reinforcement thereto, thereby enhance the load carrying capacity of each corner column (as suggested by col. 3, lines 45-47 of Frankenberg).
Regarding claim 1, Kalinowski as modified teaches a first vertical interior rib (128 of Kalinowski) on an inner surface (implied by Fig. 17 of Kalinowski, which broadly teaches locating interior ribs (128) on inner surfaces of vertically-elongated recesses (G & J)) of the first vertically-elongated recess (R of Frankenberg).
Claims 4-15 & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalinowski (20210039830) & Frankenberg (6216609) in view of Li (CN215098927).
Regarding claim 4, Kalinowski as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a second vertically-elongated projection (T of Frankenberg) having an inner surface (as in Fig. 1 of Frankenberg); but fail(s) to teach a second vertical interior rib on an inner surface of the second vertically-elongated projection. However, Li teaches a second vertical interior rib (X in Fig. 5 Annotated) on an inner surface of a second vertically-elongated projection (Y). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a second vertical interior rib, as taught by Li, to each of the corner columns of Kalinowski as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide structural reinforcement thereto, thereby enhancing the load-bearing capacity of the corner columns (as suggested by par. 60 of Li).
Regarding claim 5, Kalinowski teaches a third vertical interior rib (128 of Kalinowski) on an inner surface (implied by Fig. 17 of Kalinowski, which broadly teaches locating interior ribs (128) on inner surfaces of vertically-elongated recesses (G & J)) of a second vertically-elongated recess (V of Frankenberg).
Regarding claim 6, Kalinowski teaches an outer face (D) that includes a plurality of corrugations (F-K).
Regarding claim 7, Kalinowski as modified teaches an angled gusset (L of Kalinowski) on outer surfaces (implied by Fig. 17 of Kalinowski, which broadly teaches locating gussets (123) on outer surfaces of vertically-elongated projections (F, H, K)) of each of the first vertically-elongated projection (S of Frankenberg), the second vertically-elongated projection (T of Frankenberg), and the third vertically-elongated projection (W of Frankenberg).
Regarding claim 8, Li further teaches an angled gusset (Z in Fig. 3 Annotated) on outer surfaces of first & second vertically-elongated recesses (AA). Additionally, Kalinowski broadly teaches ribs (130) contiguous with gussets (123 & L). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add angled gussets, as taught by Li, on outer surfaces of first & second vertically-elongated recesses of Kalinowski as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide structural reinforcement to the sides of the corner columns; and to add ribs contiguous with said gussets, as taught by Kalinowski, in order to provide structural reinforcement to the deck & the sides of the corner columns.
Regarding claim 9, Kalinowski teaches a deck (112 of Kalinowski) that includes a plurality of intersecting ribs (130 of Kalinowski) and where each of the angled gussets (L of Kalinowski & Z of Li) are contiguous with a different one of the plurality of intersecting ribs (as in Fig. 13 of Kalinowski).
Regarding claim 10, Kalinowski teaches a deck (112) that includes at least one handle opening (M) therethrough (Figs. 12-13 & 17-18).
Regarding claim 11, Kalinowski as modified teaches a plurality of corner columns (N) that further includes second, third, and fourth corner columns (N) and wherein the second, third, and fourth corner columns are mirror images of the first corner column (see par. 16, 17, & 21 above).
Regarding claim 12, Kalinowski teaches a pair of side columns (P) extending downward (Figs. 13-15) from the deck (112) between the plurality of corner columns (N).
Regarding claim 13, Kalinowski teaches a deck (112) that is 18-24” by 36-48” (implied by par. 2 & 44).
Regarding claims 14 & 19, Kalinowski as modified teaches a nestable (Fig. 19 of Kalinowski) half (par. 44 of Kalinowski) pallet (110 of Kalinowski) comprising: a deck (112 of Kalinowski) having a plurality of openings (116 of Kalinowski) through an upper support surface (118 of Kalinowski) thereof, the deck further including a plurality of intersecting ribs (130 of Kalinowski) extending downward (Fig. 14 of Kalinowski) from an upper support surface of the deck; a pair of side columns (P of Kalinowski) extending downward from side edges (120 of Kalinowski) of the deck; a plurality of corner columns (N of Kalinowski) extending downward from the deck, the plurality of corner columns and the pair of side columns aligned with the plurality of openings through the upper support surface of the deck (Figs. 12, 14, 17 of Kalinowski); and each of the plurality of corner columns including a front face (B of Kalinowski), a rear face (C of Kalinowski), an outer face (D of Kalinowski), an inner face (E of Kalinowski) opposite the outer face, and an angled face (46 of Frankenberg) between the inner face and the front face (as in Fig. 1 of Frankenberg), the angled face including a plurality of vertical corrugations (R-T of Frankenberg) including a first vertically-elongated recess (R of Frankenberg) between a first vertically-elongated projection (S of Frankenberg) and a second vertically-elongated projection (T of Frankenberg); and an angled gusset (L of Kalinowski) on outer surfaces (implied by Fig. 17 of Kalinowski, which broadly teaches locating gussets (123) on outer surfaces of vertically-elongated projections (F, H, K)) of each of the first vertically-elongated projection (S of Frankenberg), the second vertically-elongated projection (T of Frankenberg), and the third vertically-elongated projection (W of Frankenberg). Additionally, Li teaches an angled gusset (Z in Fig. 3 Annotated) on outer surfaces of first & second vertically-elongated recesses (AA); and Kalinowski broadly teaches ribs (130) contiguous with gussets (123 & L). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add angled gussets, as taught by Li, on outer surfaces of first & second vertically-elongated recesses of Kalinowski as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide structural reinforcement to the sides of the corner columns; and to add ribs contiguous with said gussets, as taught by Kalinowski, in order to provide structural reinforcement to the deck & the sides of the corner columns.
Regarding claim 15, Kalinowski as modified teaches an inner face (E of Kalinowski) that includes a plurality of vertical corrugations (V-W of Frankenberg).
Regarding claim 17, Kalinowski as modified teaches an inner face (E of Kalinowski) that includes a second vertically-elongated recess (V of Frankenberg) between a third vertically-elongated projection (W of Frankenberg) and the second vertically-elongated projection (T of Frankenberg).
Regarding claims 18-20, for the reasons stated in par. 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, & 26 above, the structure of Kalinowski as modified would read upon the limitations of this claim.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalinowski (20210039830) & Frankenberg (6216609) in view of King (20170297881).
Regarding claim 28, Kalinowski as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first & second corner columns (N); but fail(s) to teach a pallet lift. However, King teaches a pallet lift/pallet jack (50) having a pair of tines (52, 54) received snugly (Figs. 6-7) between a first corner column (14 at one corner of 10) and the second corner column (14 at another corner of 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 a pallet lift/pallet jack, as taught by King, to the structure of Kalinowski as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate relocation of the half pallet.
Regarding claim 29, Kalinowski as modified teaches a structure wherein a distance between the angled gusset (L of Kalinowski) connecting the first corner column (A of Kalinowski) to the deck (112 of Kalinowski) and a second angled gusset (L of Kalinowski) connecting the second corner column (another of N of Kalinowski) to the deck is an unspecified distance greater (e.g., due to ordinary engineering tolerances) than a distance between outermost edges of the pair of tines (52, 54 of King). Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). 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 distance between the angled gussets connecting the first & second corner columns to the deck 1/4” greater than the distance between the outermost edges of the pair of tines, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate insertion & removal of the tines between the first & second corner columns.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the Frankenberg reference (Remarks at 2-3), this reference’s teachings are viewed as being broadly applicable to half-pallets as well as full pallets, since both types of pallets are handled using tines inserted between columns. The remainder of applicant’s arguments are addressed in the prior art rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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