DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on May 11, 2026 & July 07, 2026 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informality: in line 5, the phrase “and the second upright support” does not have a proper antecedent basis [should be “and a second upright support]. Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitation (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 A(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 2-3, the phrase “attaching a first pair of cross members of a first upright support of the A-frame to a first pair of lateral upright supports” 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 attached to a first pair of lateral upright supports (126a’s or 126b’s); additionally, the phrase “attaching a second pair of cross members of a second upright support of the A-frame to a second pair of lateral upright supports” lines 4-5, 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 attached to 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 method of packaging a building kit to a pallet assembly (fig. 2), comprising: engaging a base (40) of the pallet assembly with an A-frame (front (44) for instance) of the pallet assembly (figs. 2-3), the base having a bottom (such as middle (50) for instance) adapted to rest on a surface {such as a ground surface}; loading a first set of building materials (such as (32, 34) for instance) of the building kit onto a first portion (viewed as the left side portion of (48) – fig. 2) of the A-frame and onto the base; and loading a second set of building materials (plural (26’s)) of the building kit onto a second portion (viewed as the right side portion of (46) – fig. 2) of the A-frame opposing the first portion and onto the base of the pallet assembly, wherein the base itself is free from being used for the manufacture of said building kit {such would be the case if the building kit is only partially used / constructed}. As to Claim 12, the method further comprising loading a third set of building materials (defined as remaining components – [0061] as shown in fig. 2) inside of a storage compartment (space) of the pallet assembly; wherein the storage compartment is collectively defined by the base, a first upright support (48) of the A-frame, and a second upright support (46) of the A-frame. As to Claim 13, the method further comprising engaging a pair of cleats (can be viewed as any of the other framing members (46, 48) that are not mapped to the A- frame for instance) with the base and being positioned along a top of the base and spaced apart from the A-frame (note fig. 3). As to Claim 14, the method further comprising positioning a first cleat (third row (48) for instance) of the pair of cleats at a first distance measured from a first upright support (first row (48) for instance) of the A-frame; and positioning a second cleat (second row (46) for instance) of the pair of cleats at a second distance measured from a second upright support (first row (46)) of the A-frame; wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance (fig. 3). As to Claim 15, the method further comprising supporting the first set of building material on the first cleat and the first upright support (fig. 2); and supporting the second set of building material on the second cleat and the second upright support (fig. 2). As to Claim 18, the method further comprising securing a first pair of lateral supports (such as the two mounting flanges of (51) for instance) with a first upright support (48) of the A- frame and a second upright support (46) of the A-frame and being spaced apart from the base (along the top of the connected supports). As to Claim 21, as modified, the method further comprising partially nesting the second set of building material under the first set of building material and the first portion of the A-frame (this would be the case when the second set of building material is positioned on the shorter upright, while the first set of building material is position on the longer upright thereby giving the impression that the second set of building material is “under” the first set of building material and the first portion when viewed from above).
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 method related to a pallet assembly, including supporting the first set of building material by a first upright support (48) of the A-frame, and supporting the second set of building material by a second upright support (46) of the A-frame; 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 while supporting the first and second sets of building material. 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 that 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 of the first upright support measured 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 is defined; while a second length of the second upright support measured 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 is defined; wherein the first length is greater than the second length. Regarding Claim 6, as modified, supporting the first set of building material, by the first upright support that defines a length that is greater than the first length of the first upright support (as mapped). Regarding Claim 7, as modified, supporting the second set of building material, by the second upright support, that defines a length that is less than the first length of the first upright support (as mapped). Regarding Claim 8, as modified, the step of engaging the base with the A-frame further comprises engaging a top end (top surface) of the base with the first end (bottom end) of the first upright support and the first end (bottom end) of the second upright support; interfacing a bottom end (underside) of the base with a ground surface (as is conventional in the art), wherein the bottom end is opposite to the top end; and defining an overall height between the first end of the second upright support and the bottom end; 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, wherein the step of engaging the base with the A-frame further comprises engaging the first end of the first upright support with the base; and positioning the second end of the first upright support above and first end of the first upright support such that the second end of the first upright support is free from engaging with the first end of the second upright support. Regarding Claim 11, as modified, wherein the step of engaging the base with the A-frame further comprises engaging the first end of the second upright support with the base; and engaging the second end of the second upright support 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 a method of packaging a building kit to a pallet assembly (fig. 3), comprising: engaging a base (40) of the pallet assembly with an A-frame (front (44) for instance) of the pallet assembly, the base having a bottom (such as bottom (50) for instance) adapted to rest on a surface {such as the ground surface}; engaging a pair of cleats (can be viewed as any of the other framing members (46, 48) that are not mapped to the A- frame for instance) with the base and being positioned along a top of the base and spaced apart from the A-frame; loading a first set of building materials (32, 34) of the building kit onto a first portion (left side portion of (48)) of the A-frame, the base, and a first cleat (different (48) for instance) of the pair of cleats; loading a second set of building materials (plural (26’s)) of the building kit onto a second portion (right side of (46) for instance) of the A-frame, the base, and a second cleat (different (46) for instance) of the pair of cleats, wherein and loading a third set of building materials (remaining components – [0061]) inside of a storage compartment (space) of the pallet assembly.
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 method related to a 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 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) along with pairs of lateral supports (15’s) and 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 attach 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 attach with a second pair of lateral upright supports. Regarding Claim 17, as modified, aligning a first cross member of the first pair of cross members and a first cross member of the second pair of cross members with one another (opposite facing upper cross members (17) for instance; and positioning a second cross member of the first pair of cross members is positioned even with a second cross member of the second pair of cross members (opposite facing lower cross members (17) for instance). Regarding Claim 18, as modified in a parallel rejection, securing a first pair of lateral supports with a first upright support of the A-frame and a second upright support of the A-frame and being spaced apart from the base (such as upper (15’s)). Regarding Claim 19, as modified, securing a second pair of lateral supports with the first upright support and the second upright support and being secured to the base (such as lowest (15’s) – figs. 1 & 3 of Lefevre).
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/949,093 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the recited components / features / methods of packaging in the instant application are accounted for within the claimed scope of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments, filed June 12, 2026, with respect to the outstanding claim objections, 112(b) & double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Upon review, the claim objection concerning Claim 1, the 112(b) rejections concerning Claims 2-11 and the double patenting rejection relating to the co-pending 18/949,363 application have been withdrawn. It is noted that applicant filed a Terminal Disclaimer which was approved and therefore obviated the double patenting rejection with regards to the `363 application; however, the outstanding double patenting rejection previously set forth with regards to co-pending 18/949,093 application is maintained. 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 15, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights