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 .
This correspondence is in response to applicant’s reply filed on 06/25/2026. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/02/2023.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (Figs. 3-6B) in the reply filed on 06/02/2023 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo (U.S. Pub. 20150059624) in view of Hansen (U.S. Pub. 20050166804).
Regarding claim 1, Kuo teaches a sheet-shaped cushioning rubber comprising: a planar base portion 10 and a three-dimensional portion 12b,20 formed to rise from the base portion 10 toward one side in a sheet thickness direction (as seen in Fig. 3d below), the planar base portion 10 and the three-dimensional portion 12b,20 being alternately provided in one direction of a sheet plane, where: the three-dimensional portion 12b,20 includes a hollow portion 15 that opens toward another side in the sheet thickness direction (as shown in Fig. 3d below), the three-dimensional portion 12b,20 is integrally provided with a first rising surface 20 that is continuous from the base portion 10, a top surface 12b, and a second rising surface 20 on a side opposite to the first rising surface 20 (as seen in Fig. 3d), and the hollow portion 15 also opens toward both sides in a sheet width direction.
With regards to claim 1, Kuo is discussed above and teaches the cushioning rubber, which is capable of being made using other materials, to diversify the applications thereof (see discussion in para. [0044], lines 14-16). However, Kuo fails to teach where the three-dimensional portion is configured to be compressed and elastically deforms in the sheet thickness direction when a load is applied from above. Hansen teaches a cushioning rubber comprising planar portions 32,52, and a three-dimensional portion 54,70,72, where the three-dimensional portion is configured to be compressed and elastically deforms in the sheet thickness direction when a load is applied from above.
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 pallet of Kuo to be made with rubber, allowing it to be compressible elastically, in order to provide a pallet that does not require fumigation or other treatment prior to foreign shipment and is less expensive to produce than plastic pallets, and to provide a pallet constructed of a rubber composite that is shaped and dimensioned to work with existing automated loading and shipping equipment, as taught to be desirable by Hansen (see discussion in paras. [0012], lines 1-4, and [0014], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 2, Kuo teaches the cushioning rubber, where a reinforcing rib 14 that is connected to the three-dimensional portion 12b,20 and inhibits falling over of the three-dimensional portion 12b,20 is integrally provided on a plane of the base portion 10 (as seen in Fig. 3d).
Regarding claim 3, Kuo teaches the cushioning rubber, where a protrusion (as shown in Fig. 3d below) used as a mounting margin for the cushioning rubber is integrally provided to protrude in the width direction from an end portion of the cushioning rubber in the width direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The reason for the allowance of the claims in this case, is the structural limitations drawn to the cushioning rubber, comprising reinforcing ribs integrally provided on planes of the base portions, where respective reinforcing ribs each have a first end and a second end and are disposed between adjacent three-dimensional portions, and where the respective reinforcing ribs extend in a sheet length direction and are connected to one of the adjacent three-dimensional portions at the first end and to another of the adjacent three-dimensional portions at the second end to inhibit falling over of the three-dimensional portions, now included in all the independent claims, in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. In addition to the reference to Kuo and Hansen above, the Examiner submits the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The cited references teach cushioning rubber for supporting various objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM-4:30PM.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 2-Sep-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights