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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 circular tube and the auxiliary structure/hole in the guide part must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. (claims 4 and 5)
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/900,141 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach a pallet foot, comprising a guide portion and a support portion located below the guide portion, wherein an opening is formed in a top of the guide portion, the guide portion is internally provided with a stretching space in a shape of a reverse taper, a cavity is formed in the support portion, and the cavity is connected with the stretching space.
Since claim 1 is anticipated by the claims of the co-pending application, it is not patentably distinct therefrom. Thus, the invention of claim 1 of the application is in effect a species of the generic invention of co-pending application claims. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed Cir. 1993). Since claim 1 is anticipated (fully encompassed) by the claims of the co-pending application, it is not patentably distinct there from, regardless of any additional subject matter present in co-pending application claims.
For claims 8 and 9, the co-pending application fails to specifically teach the dimensions between the guide and support portions. This includes: the upper dimension of the guide portion is smaller or equal to twice of an overall dimension of the support portion and an overall dimension of the support portion is smaller or equal to a lower dimension of the guide portion and the lower dimension of the guide portion being smaller than or equal to the overall dimension of the support portion plus 5 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot of the co-pending application by sizing the guide and supports portions accordingly, to provide a more balanced and sturdier pallet support. Please note that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges between their dimensions would involve only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.04.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-5, 7 and 10-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/900,141 (reference application) in view of GB937354. The co-pending application teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a foot having a support and guide portion. For claim 2, the co-pending application fails to teach a ground protection structure at the bottom of its support portion. GB’354 teaches a ground protection structure (7,6) at the bottom of its support portion (8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot of the co-pending application by adding the ground protection structure of GB’354 there under, for additional support.
For claims 3-5 and 7, GB’354 teaches the specific shapes of the guide and support portions (see Fig. 2), i.e. the guide portion is in a shape of an inversed pyramid, a polygonally taper or an inverted cone; the stretching space inside the guide portion is also in a shape of an inversed pyramid, a polygonally taper or an inverted cone; and the support portion is in a shape of a circular tube, a square tube, a rectangular tube or a polygonal tube, and teaches an auxiliary hole (11) in the support portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the guide and support configurations of GB937354 for its foot, for aesthetic reasons, foot strength, etc. and to provide a drainage port(s) therein.
For claim 5, the co-pending application, modified, fails to teach that the guide portion includes an auxiliary hole(s). However, the examiner takes Official notice that adding holes on a foot structure is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot of the co-pending application by adding a hole(s) therein, for drainage purposes.
For claims 10-13, see rejections above for claims 8 and 9.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/900,141 (reference application) in view of Nash (WO0071431). The co-pending application teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a foot having a support and guide portion. For claim 6, the co-pending application fails to teach that an elongation portion is provided at a top of the guide portion, and the elongation portion extends upwards along an upper side of the guide portion. Nash teaches an elongation portion (c) is provided at a top of the guide portion, and the elongation portion extends upwards along an upper side of the guide portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot of the co-pending application by adding the elongation portion of Nash thereon, to elongate the vertical dimension of the foot for a taller support.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB937354. GB’354 teaches a pallet foot (Fig. 2), comprising a guide portion (9) and a support portion (8) located below the guide portion, wherein an opening is formed in a top of the guide portion, the guide portion is internally provided with a stretching space in a shape of a reverse taper, a cavity is formed in the support portion, and the cavity is connected with the stretching space. Wherein a ground protection structure (7,6) is provided at a bottom of the support portion. Wherein the guide portion is in a shape of an inversed pyramid, a polygonally taper or an inverted cone, and the stretching space inside the guide portion is also in a shape of an inversed pyramid, a polygonally taper or an inverted cone. Wherein the support portion is in a shape of a circular tube, a square tube, a rectangular tube or a polygonal tube. As best understood, wherein the support part is provided with auxiliary structures (11), and the auxiliary structures are auxiliary holes. Wherein the guide portion is welded or integrally formed with the support portion.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nash (WO0071431). Nash teaches a pallet foot (Fig. 4), comprising a guide portion (a; see annotated figure below) and a support portion (b) located below the guide portion, wherein an opening is formed in a top of the guide portion, the guide portion is internally provided with a stretching space in a shape of a reverse taper, a cavity is formed in the support portion, and the cavity is connected with the stretching space. Wherein a ground protection structure (30) is provided at a bottom of the support portion. Wherein the guide portion is in a shape of an inversed pyramid, a polygonally taper or an inverted cone, and the stretching space inside the guide portion is also in a shape of an inversed pyramid, a polygonally taper or an inverted cone. Wherein the support portion is in a shape of a circular tube, a square tube, a rectangular tube or a polygonal tube. Wherein the guide portion is welded or integrally formed with the support portion. Wherein an elongation portion (c) is provided at a top of the guide portion, and the elongation portion extends upwards along an upper side of the guide portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 5 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nash (WO0071431). As stated above, Nash teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a foot with a guide portion (9) and a support portion (8). For claim 5, Nash fails to teach that the guide and support portions include an auxiliary hole(s). However, the examiner takes Official notice that adding holes on a foot structure is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot of GB’354 by adding a hole(s) in the guide and support portions, for drainage purposes.
For claims 8-13, Nash fails to specifically teach the dimensions between the guide and support portions. This includes: the upper dimension of the guide portion of is smaller or equal to twice of an overall dimension of the support portion (claims 8, 10 and 11) and an overall dimension of the support portion is smaller or equal to a lower dimension of the guide portion, and the lower dimension of the guide portion is smaller than or equal to the overall dimension of the support portion plus 5 mm (claim 9, 12 and 13). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot of Nash by sizing the guide and supports portions accordingly, to provide a more balanced and sturdier pallet support. Please note that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges between their dimensions would involve only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.04.
Claims 5 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB937354. As stated above, GB’354 teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a foot with a guide portion (9) and a support portion (8). For claim 5, GB’354 fails to teach that the guide portion includes an auxiliary hole(s). However, the examiner takes Official notice that adding holes on a foot structure is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot of GB’354 by adding a hole(s) therein, for drainage purposes.
For claims 8-13, GB’354 fails to specifically teach the dimensions between the guide and support portions. This includes: the upper dimension of the guide portion of GB’354 appears to be equal to twice of an overall dimension of the support portion (claims 8, 10 and 11) but the drawings are not to scale and GB’354 fails to specifically teach an overall dimension of the support portion is smaller or equal to a lower dimension of the guide portion, and the lower dimension of the guide portion is smaller than or equal to the overall dimension of the support portion plus 5 mm (claim 9, 12 and 13). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot of GB’354 by sizing the guide and supports portions accordingly, to provide a more balanced and sturdier pallet support. Please note that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges between their dimensions would involve only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.04.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references 20250382094; 20250178784; 20250382096; and 2844344 teach various pallet structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm EST.
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.
Wilkens
January 22, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637