DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 07, 20206 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-19 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent Claim 1 now recites that the “base itself is free from being used for the manufacture of said building kit”. A review of the disclosure as originally filed does not substantiate such scope, and the limitation is merely introduced in an effort to obviate the applied prior art references. The mere absence of a positive recitation (i.e., a negative limitation) is not a basis for an exclusion. The lack of a literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter, 1993). Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 16-17 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. In Claim 16, lines 3-4, the phrase “each of the first pair of cross members attaches to a first pair of lateral upright supports of the first upright support” is unclear and confusing as presently set forth since it is not known how the first pair of cross members (122d-1 & 122d-2) of the first upright support (122) are engaging a first pair of lateral upright supports (126a’s or 126b’s); additionally, the phrase “each of the second pair of cross members attaches to a second pair of lateral upright supports of the second upright support” lines 6-7, is also unclear and confusing as presently set forth since it is not known how the second pair of cross members (124d-1 & 124d-2) of the second upright support (124) are engaging a second pair of lateral upright supports (126a’s or 126b’s). Examiner note: applicant may be viewing the angled vertical framing members of each upright (note fig. 6) as the “lateral upright supports”, but the disclosure as originally filed, does not corroborate such intention since the specification already assigns lateral supports as being components (126’s, 126a’s, 126b’s) for instance. Appropriate correction / clarification is required. Consequently, Claim 17 is rejected since it is directly dependent upon an indefinite claim.
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, 12-15, 18 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lucht [US 2011/0047890]. Lucht teaches of a pallet assembly (fig. 2), comprising: a base (40) having a bottom (such as middle (50) for instance) adapted to rest on a surface {such as a ground surface}; a support frame (42) operably engaged with the base; a first upright support (46) of the support frame operably engaged with the base at a first position (fig. 3); a second upright support (48) of the support frame operably engaged with the base at a second position opposite to the first position (fig. 3); wherein the support frame defines an A-shaped configuration (shown as an A-shaped configuration); and wherein building parts (such as 26’s, 32, 34) for instance) that are supported on the base (fig. 2) are for construction of a building kit {such as fig. 1 for example}, and the base itself may be free from being used for the manufacture of the building kit {such would be the case if the building kit is only partially used / constructed}. As to Claim 12, the assembly further comprising: a storage compartment (note fig. 2 showing stored items between the opposing upright supports) collectively defined by the base, the first upright support, and the second upright support. As to Claim 13, the assembly further comprising: a pair of cleats (either of (22) & (18) for instance) operably engaged with the base and spaced apart from the support frame. As to Claim 14, the pair of cleats comprises: a first distance measured between a first cleat (right most (22) as shown in fig. 3) of the pair of cleats and the first upright support (46); and a second distance measured between a second cleat (18) of the pair of cleats and the second upright support (48); wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance. As to Claim 15, the first cleat and the first upright support are adapted to support a first set of building materials (as represented in figure 3, this structure is capable of supporting items as dependent upon the needs of an end user); and wherein the second cleat and the second upright support are adapted to support a second set of building materials (as represented in figure 3, this structure is capable of supporting items as dependent upon the needs of an end user). As to Claim 18, the assembly further comprising: a first pair of lateral supports (such as the two mounting flanges of (51) for instance) securing the first upright support and the second upright support with one another and being spaced apart from the base (along the top of the connected supports). As to Claim 21, the assembly further comprising at least one cleat (can be viewed as other (50) components not associated with the identified first and second uprights of the A-frame – note figure 3 for instance) operably engaged with and positioned along a top of the base and spaced apart from the support frame.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmidt [US 6,585,224]. Schmidt teaches of a pallet assembly (fig. 1), comprising: a base (14) having a bottom (underside or bottom of (14) for instance) adapted to rest on a surface {such as a ground surface}; an A-frame (such as the right side A-frame (16) – fig. 2) operably engaged with the base; a first upright support (32) of the A-frame operably engaged with the base at a first position defined at a first angle measured relative to the base (such as from the right vertical edge to the horizontal base – right A-frame in fig. 2); a second upright support (34) of the A-frame operably engaged with the base at a second position opposite to the first position and defined at a second angle measured relative to the base (such as from the right vertical edge to the horizontal base – right A-frame in fig. 2); and a pair of cleats (can be viewed as the (32’s) of the left sided A-frame as shown in fig. 2 for instance) operably engaged with and positioned along a top of the base and spaced apart from the A-frame; wherein the second angle is greater than the first angle.
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 2-11 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucht in view of Schmidt [US 6,585,224]. Regarding Claims 2-5, Lucht teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed pallet assembly, including a first angle measured between the first upright support and the base (fig. 3), and a second angle measured between the second upright support and the base (fig. 3); but Lucht does not show aspects where the second angle is greater than the first angle (i.e., different inclinations measured relative to the base), with the first angle being approximately 70 degrees and the second angle being approximately 85 degrees, or show the first and second upright supports being of different lengths. As to these aspects, Schmidt is cited as an evidence reference for the known technique of angling a first upright support (32) relative to a base (14) differently than a second upright support (34) where a first angle is less than the second angle, and where a length of the first upright support is greater than a length of the second upright support in an analogous art. As such, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lucht so as to employ different lengths of upright supports and connecting them together such that the bottoms of the upright supports have different angles as measured relative to the horizontal base in view of Schmidt’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative supporting means by which articles of different sizes or articles needing to be supported / suspended along a specific orientation can be accommodated as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user (i.e., items can be supported upon the upright supports as dictated by their sizes or shapes such that longer items might need less of an angled slope in order to balance the load properly for instance). As to the specific measured angles, the position is taken it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the angles of the upright supports measured relative to the base, so as to encompass several angle ranges as dependent upon the needs or preferences of a user, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As modified, a first length defined between a first end (bottom end) of the first upright support and a second end (top end) of the first upright support that is opposite to the first end of the first upright support would be greater than a second length defined between a first end (bottom end) of the second upright support and a second end (top end) of the second upright support that is opposite to the first end of the second upright support (note Schmidt’s differing upright support lengths that produce differing angles measured relative to the base in the formation of the offset A-frame). Regarding Claim 6, as modified, the first upright support would be adapted to support building materials defining a length that is greater than the first length of the first upright support. Regarding Claim 7, as modified, the second upright support would be adapted to support a building material defining a length that is less than the first length of the first upright support. Regarding Claim 8, as modified, a top end (top surface) of the base that operably engages with the first end (bottom end) of the first upright support and the first end (bottom end) of the second upright support; a bottom end (underside) of the base opposite to the top end and adapted to interface with a ground surface (as is conventional in the art); and an overall height defined between the first end of the first upright support and the bottom end (basically, a height measured from the top surface to the underside – as best understood in view of the claimed scope); wherein the overall height is less than the first length of the first upright support (shown). Regarding Claim 9, as modified, the overall height is less than 96 inches (clearly shown in the figures as mapped). Regarding Claim 10, as modified, the first end of the first upright support operably engages with the base at the first position; and wherein the second end of the first upright support is positioned above and free from engaging with the second end of the first upright support. Regarding Claim 11, as modified, the first end of the second upright support operably engages with the base at the second position; and wherein the second end of the second upright support operably engages with the first upright support at a location between the first end of the first upright support and the second end of the first upright support. Regarding Claim 20, as modified, the combined prior art teaches of a pallet assembly (fig. 3), comprising: a base (40) having a bottom (underside of (40) for instance) adapted to rest on a surface {such as a ground surface}; an A-frame (42) operably engaged with the base; a first upright support (46) of the A-frame operably engaged with the base at a first position defined at a first angle measured relative to the base; a second upright support (48) of the A-frame operably engaged with the base at a second position opposite to the first position and defined at a second angle measured relative to the base (note Schmidt’s modified upright support placement); and a pair of cleats (can be viewed as other (50) components not associated with the identified first and second uprights of the A-frame – note figure 3 for instance) operably engaged with and positioned along a top of the base and spaced apart from the A-frame; wherein the second angle can be greater than the first angle depending upon the mounted position of the second upright support relative to the first upright support.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucht and Schmidt and further in view of Lefevre [US 2,839198]. The prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed pallet assembly, including the use of cross bracing (52) in order to stabilize the support frame; but does not show the use of pairs of cross members and pairs of lateral supports attached to the pairs of upright supports to stabilize the support frame. As to this aspect, Lefevre is cited as an evidence reference for the known incorporation of pairs of cross members (17’s) and pairs of lateral supports (15’s) utilized to stabilize and provide rigidity to a support frame (fig. 1) in an analogous art. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of the prior art so as to include multiple cross members and lateral supports in view of Lefevre’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a reinforced support frame that would be better suited to withstanding forces acting upon the support frame in all directions. The addition of multiple cross braces and lateral supports helping to stabilize the structure and provide rigidity as well. As modified, the first pair of cross members (17’s) of the first upright support would operably engaging with a first pair of lateral upright supports (15’s) – in as much as applicant depicts the claimed arrangement; and a second pair of cross members (other 17’s) of the second upright support would operably engage with a second pair of lateral upright supports. Regarding Claim 17, as modified, a first cross member of the first pair of cross members and a first cross member of the second pair of cross members are substantially aligned / even with one another (opposite facing cross members (17) for instance; and wherein a second cross member (lower (17)) of the first pair of cross members is positioned below a second cross member (higher (17)) of the second pair of cross members. Regarding Claim 18, as modified, a first pair of lateral supports securing the first upright support and the second upright support with one another and being spaced apart from the base (such as upper (15’s)). Regarding Claim 19, as modified, a second pair of lateral supports securing the first upright support and the second upright support with one another and being secured to the base (such as lowest (15’s) – figs. 1 & 3 of Lefevre).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments, filed June 01, 2026, with respect to the outstanding 112(b), 102(a)(1), 103 and double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Upon review, the of 112(b) rejection concerning Claim 17, along with the 102(a)(1) & 103 rejections relating to Schmidt (where Schmidt is the primary reference) have been withdrawn. Additionally, the timely filed Terminal Disclaimer has been approved and therefore obviated the double patenting rejection. The 102(a)(1) rejection to Lucht and accompanying 103 rejections are maintain and modified as per the amended subject matter. As to the 102 rejection under Lucht, a claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 63 l, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. The Office determines the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim must then be compared with the prior art. The Office may find in the prior art a feature, which is capable of performing a function recited in the claims. Once a prima facie case of anticipation has been established, the burden shifts to applicant to prove that the prior art product does not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product. The position being taken that all the positively claimed features within the claimed scope have been accounted for {mapped} within the applied rejection. As to the 103 rejections, where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d at 1396. The position being taken that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established since applicants claimed invention only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions. Common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of known devices according to their established functions, as such, the examiner has identified reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the same way as the claimed new invention does. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Consequently, the rejections are deemed adequate to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
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 JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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. 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.
JOH
July 14, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
