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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swartz (20200172289).
PNG
media_image1.png
608
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Swartz teaches an interlock panel (2) having an upper surface (i.e., upper surface of 2) having a plurality of keg-retaining recesses (36, 38, 40) formed on an upper surface thereof, the plurality of keg-retaining recesses including a plurality of half barrel recesses (36), a plurality of quarter barrel recesses (38) and a plurality of sixth barrel recesses (40), wherein one of the plurality of half barrel recesses is partially interiorly defined by convex sides of a pair of inner pentacurve projections (M, N in Fig. 4 Annotated).
Regarding claim 27, Swartz teaches a lower surface (i.e., lower surface of 2) having a plurality of keg-retaining recesses (36, 38, 40 – see Fig. 5b & par. 61) formed on an upper surface thereof, the plurality of keg-retaining recesses including a plurality of half barrel recesses (36), a plurality of quarter barrel recesses (38) and a plurality of sixth barrel recesses (40).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 23 & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalinowski (20210039830) in view of O’Connell (20190337673).
PNG
media_image2.png
295
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Kalinowski teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a nestable half (par. 44) pallet (110) comprising: a deck (112); and a plurality of columns (114) extending downward from the deck, wherein the deck includes a plurality of openings (116) aligned with the plurality of columns and configured to receive a plurality of columns of an identical pallet therein (par. 45-46 & Figs. 19-22 of Kalinowski). Kalinowski fail(s) to teach keg-retaining recesses. However, O’Connell teaches the inclusion, in a deck (16), of a plurality of keg-retaining recesses (J-K in Fig. 1 Annotated from O’Connell) formed on an upper surface thereof, the plurality of keg-retaining recesses defined by a plurality of projections (L), wherein the plurality of keg-retaining recesses include first keg-retaining recesses (J) configured to retain kegs of a first size and second keg-retaining recesses (K) configured to retain kegs of a second size smaller than the first size (Fig. 1), wherein the first keg-retaining recesses overlap the second keg-retaining recesses (Fig. 1), wherein the first keg-retaining recesses and the second keg-retaining recesses are aligned along and centered on a longitudinal centerline of the deck (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add keg-retaining recesses, as taught by O’Connell, to the deck of Kalinowski, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate retention of kegs thereupon.
Regarding claim 25, Kalinowski teaches a plurality of keg-retaining recesses (J-K) that are configured to receive chimes of the kegs of different sizes (Fig. 1).
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swartz (20200172289) in view of Apps (20140000493). Swartz teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including an interlock panel (2) having an upper surface (i.e., upper surface of 2) having a plurality of keg-retaining recesses (36, 38, 40) formed on an upper surface thereof, the plurality of keg-retaining recesses including a plurality of half barrel recesses (36), a plurality of quarter barrel recesses (38) and a plurality of sixth barrel recesses (40); but fail(s) to teach openings. However, Apps teaches the inclusion, in a panel, of openings (125). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add openings, as taught by Apps, to the panel of Swartz, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the panel to be more easily lifted and carried by users (as suggested by par. 33 of Apps). Hence, Swartz as modified would teach an interlock panel (2 of Swartz) further includes a plurality of openings (i.e., two of 125 of Apps) configured to receive columns of a pallet therethrough (note that 125 of Apps could accommodate appropriately-sized pallet columns); and handle openings (i.e., two others of 125 of Apps) formed therethrough.
Claims 1, 3-4, & 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalinowski (20210039830) in view of Baker (2444326).
Regarding claim 1, Kalinowski teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a pallet (110) comprising: a deck (112) is dimensioned such that the pallet is a half pallet (par. 44 & Fig. 12); and a plurality of columns (114) extending downward from the deck; but fail(s) to teach keg-retaining recesses. However, Baker teaches the inclusion, in a deck (10), of a plurality of keg-retaining recesses (19, 21, 23) formed on an upper surface thereof, the plurality of keg-retaining recesses including a plurality of half barrel recesses (19), a plurality of quarter barrel recesses (21) and a plurality of sixth barrel recesses (23). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add keg-retaining recesses, as taught by Baker, to the deck of Kalinowski, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate retention of kegs thereupon.
Regarding claim 3, Kalinowski teaches a pallet (110) that is a nestable half pallet (par. 45-46), wherein the deck (112) includes a plurality of openings (116) aligned with the plurality of columns (114) and configured to receive a plurality of columns of an identical pallet therein (Figs. 19-22).
Regarding claim 4, Kalinowski teaches a deck (112) that has a width in a range of approximately 17” to approximately 24”, inclusive (implied by par. 2 & 44), and a length in a range of approximately 36” to approximately 50”, inclusive (implied by par. 2 & 44).
Regarding claim 13, Baker teaches a plurality of keg-retaining recesses (19, 21, 23) that are defined by a plurality of projections (Figs. 1-2).
PNG
media_image3.png
292
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Baker teaches a plurality of projections that includes a plurality of tricurve projections (P in Fig. 1 Annotated from Baker).
Regarding claim 15, Kalinowski teaches a plurality of projections that includes a pair of side projections (Q) extending along side edges of the deck, wherein each of the side projections includes a plurality of concave sides each partially defining an exterior of one of the plurality of keg-retaining recesses (19, 21, 23).
Regarding claim 16, Kalinowski teaches a plurality of tricurve projections (P) that includes a pair of outer tricurve projections (P) aligned along a lateral centerline of the pallet (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12, 17-22, & 30-34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Said arguments have been 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