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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-6 & 8-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12234055. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of both U.S. Patent No. 12234055 and the instant application teach a pallet comprising first & second identical pallet halves each including a deck with parallel longitudinally-elongated concave keg recesses and male & female column portions. Thus, the invention of the claims in U.S. Patent No. 12234055 is in effect a species of the generic invention of claims 1-6 & 8-26. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed Cir. 1993). Since claims 1-6 & 8-26 are anticipated (fully encompassed) by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12234055, they are not patentably distinct there from, regardless of any additional subject matter present in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12234055.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 17-20, & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isenborghs (EP2628686) in view of Chilcutt (6155181) & Bravo (WO2016154260).
Regarding claims 1 & 17, Isenborghs teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a pallet (1) comprising: a deck (5) having center portion (A in Fig. 1 Annotated) and two outer portions (B) spaced outward on either side of the center portion, a plurality of supports (C) extending from each outer portion to the center portion (Fig. 1), a large opening (D) defined between each adjacent pair of supports (Fig. 1); and a plurality of column portions (9-12) protruding downward from the deck below the center portion and the two outer portions (Fig. 1), wherein the deck has an upper, outer surface (i.e., top surface of 5). Isenborghs fail(s) to teach keg recesses; elongated channels, or reinforcement members. However, Chilcutt teaches the inclusion, in an upper, outer surface of a deck (20), of a plurality of parallel longitudinally-elongated concave keg recesses (i.e., spaces formed by 194). 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 recesses, as taught by Chilcutt, to each of the decks of Isenborghs, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the pallet to be used for storage & transportation of beer kegs (as suggested by col. 11, lines 16-26 of Chilcutt).
PNG
media_image1.png
303
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Bravo teaches an elongated channel (i.e., channels in 20 aligned with 347 & 349) formed through each of two outer portions (E in Fig. 2 Annotated) of a pallet deck (10) and through (via 347 & 349 – see par. 66-67) at least two of a plurality of column portions (310, 330, 350), and an elongated reinforcement member (210, 250) received in each elongated channel (Fig. 2 and par. 59 & 66-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add reinforcement members, as taught by Bravo, to the outer portions & column portions of Isenborghs as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional strength & durability to the pallet (as suggested by par. 59 of Bravo).
PNG
media_image2.png
281
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 & 18, Isenborghs teaches a plurality of column portions (9-12) that includes a plurality of male column portions (9-10) and a plurality of complementary female column portions (11-12). See Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 3 & 17, Isenborghs teaches a pallet (1) that includes a pallet half (2) in which the plurality of column portions (9-12) are molded integrally (par. 37) with the deck (5). It is noted that the pallet does not depend on the process of making it; and the product-by-process limitation “molded” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the pallet. Therefore, the claimed pallet is not a different and unobvious pallet from the pallet of Isenborghs.
Regarding claims 4, 17, & 19, Isenborghs teaches a pallet half (2) that is a first pallet half (2), the pallet further including a second pallet half (3) identical to the first pallet half,1 wherein the plurality of male column portions of the first pallet half are received in the plurality of complementary female column portions of the second pallet half and the plurality of male column portions of the second pallet half are received in the plurality of complementary female column portions of the first pallet half (Figs. 4a-4b & par. 38-39).
Regarding claim 5, Isenborghs teaches a plurality of column portions (9-12) that includes a plurality of male column portions (10) and a plurality of complementary female column portions (12) extending from the center portion (A) of the deck (5), wherein adjacent pairs of male column portions and female column portions are aligned on opposite sides of a longitudinal center line (8) of the center portion (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Chilcutt teaches a plurality of parallel longitudinally-elongated concave keg recesses (i.e., spaces formed by 194) that are cylindrically concave (Figs. 33 & 36).
Regarding claims 8-9, Chilcutt further teaches a first keg (196) having a cylindrical wall (Fig. 33) received in one of plurality of parallel longitudinally-elongated concave keg recesses (i.e., spaces formed by 194); and a second keg (196) having a cylindrical wall (Fig. 33) received in another one of the plurality of parallel longitudinally-elongated concave keg recesses (Fig. 33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add first & second kegs, as taught by Chilcutt, to the pallet of Isenborghs as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use the pallet to transport large quantities of beer.
Regarding claim 10, Isenborghs as modified teaches a pallet (1) that is a first pallet (1). Additionally, mere duplication of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a second, identical pallet to the structure of Isenborghs as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional storage & transportation capacity. Additionally, Chilcutt further teaches stacking a second pallet on a first keg and a second keg (Fig. 33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to stack the second pallet of Isenborghs as modified atop the first & second kegs, as taught by Chilcutt, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow an additional level of beer kegs to be positioned atop the first pallet and first & second kegs (as suggested by col. 11, lines 23-25 of Chilcutt).
Regarding claim 17, Isenborghs as modified teaches a first pallet half (2 of Isenborghs) and a second pallet half (3 of Isenborghs) each including a plurality of column portions (9-12 of Isenborghs) formed integrally from its associated deck (5 of Isenborghs) and protruding inward toward the deck (5 of Isenborghs) of the other of the first pallet half and the second pallet half (Fig. 1 of Isenborghs); and a plurality of supports (C of Isenborghs) each including a concave portion (194 of Chilcutt) partially defining one of the plurality of parallel longitudinally-elongated concave keg recesses (i.e., spaces formed by 194 of Chilcutt).
Regarding claim 20, Isenborghs as modified teaches a reinforcement member (210, 250 of Bravo) received in each of the two outer portions (B of Isenborghs) of each of the first pallet half (2 of Isenborghs) and the second pallet half (3 of Isenborghs). Additionally, Bravo further teaches a reinforcement member (230) received in a center portion (F) of a pallet deck (10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a reinforcement member, as taught by Bravo, to each center portion of Isenborghs as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional strength & durability to the pallet (as suggested by par. 59 of Bravo). Hence, Isenborghs as modified would teach a reinforcement member (230 of Bravo) received in each center portion (A of Isenborghs) of each of the first pallet half (2 of Isenborghs) and the second pallet half (3 of Isenborghs).
Regarding claim 25, Isenborghs teaches supports (C) each having a longitudinal dimension (i.e., distance between 9 & 12, and between 12 & 11, in Fig. 1); and openings (D) each having an unspecified length (i.e., dimension of D along 8). Additionally, altering the size of a component has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pallet of Isenborghs as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making the length of each openings twice the longitudinal dimension of the supports, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the pallet (e.g., intended use of the pallet, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.). Hence, Isenborghs as modified would teach adjacent pairs of supports (C of Isenborghs) that are each spaced away from one another in a longitudinal direction (8 of Isenborghs) by a distance a plurality of times greater (i.e., 2x greater) than a longitudinal dimension of each of the plurality of supports to define the opening (D of Isenborghs) between each adjacent pair of supports.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isenborghs (EP2628686), Chilcutt (6155181) & Bravo (WO2016154260) in view of Kelly (20040026346). Isenborghs as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a plurality of supports (C of Isenborghs) each including a concave portion (194 of Chilcutt) partially defining one of the plurality of parallel longitudinally-elongated concave keg recesses (i.e., spaces formed by 194 of Chilcutt); but fail(s) to teach grommets. However, Kelly teaches a grommet (200) received in an aperture (i.e., holes in 10 into which 200 are snapped – see par. 39) in one of a plurality of parallel longitudinally-elongated concave keg recesses (Fig. 2); wherein the grommet is positioned to contact a keg (8) received in the one of the plurality of parallel longitudinally-elongated concave keg recesses (par. 39). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add grommets & apertures, as taught by Kelly, to the keg recesses of Isenborghs as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent kegs positioned in said keg recesses from sliding (as suggested by par. 39 of Kelly).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isenborghs (EP2628686), Chilcutt (6155181) & Bravo (WO2016154260) in view of Gillispie (6189720). Isenborghs as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including decks (5 of Isenborghs) each including an upper, outer surface (i.e., top surface of 5 of Isenborghs) having a plurality of parallel longitudinally-elongated concave keg recesses (i.e., spaces formed by 194 of Chilcutt in C of Isenborghs); but fail(s) to teach ring recess portions. However, Gillispie teaches a plurality of ring recess portions (74-77) formed in a plurality of parallel longitudinally-elongated concave keg recesses (55-56), each of the plurality of ring recess portions being cylindrically concave (Fig. 3) and sized to receive a ring of a keg (col. 5, lines 5-9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add ring recess portions, as taught by Gillispie, to the keg recesses of Isenborghs as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow said keg recesses to better accommodate kegs with ribs (as suggested by col. 5, lines 5-9 of Gillispie). Hence, Isenborghs as modified would teach an upper, outer surface (i.e., top surface of 5 of Isenborghs) of each deck (5 of Isenborghs) that further includes a plurality of ring recess portions (74-77 of Gillispie) formed in the plurality of parallel longitudinally-elongated concave keg recesses (i.e., spaces formed by 194 of Chilcutt in C of Isenborghs).
Claims 11-12 & 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ankele (11066210) in view of Laender (20050056193).
PNG
media_image3.png
379
601
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Ankele teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a pallet (300) comprising: a deck (G-K in Fig. 15 Annotated) having center portion (G) and two outer portions (H) spaced outward on either side of the center portion, a plurality of supports (J) extending from each outer portion to the center portion, a large opening (K) defined between each adjacent pair of supports; and a plurality of male column portions (42) and a plurality of complementary female column portions (36) extending from the center portion of the deck (Fig. 14), wherein adjacent pairs of male column portions and female column portions are spaced apart from one another and aligned on opposite sides of the longitudinal center line (322) of the center portion (Figs. 14-15). Ankele fail(s) to teach elongated column portions.
However, Laender teaches elongating column portions (16) along longitudinal center lines (Figs. 1 & 4) of a pair of decks (12, 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to elongate each of the male & female column portions of Ankele, as taught by Laender, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow said column portions to form guides for positioning forklift tines, thereby reducing the amount of time required to load the pallet (as suggested by par. 7 of Laender), and to deflect blows received from forklift tines, thereby reducing damage to the pallet & its contents (as suggested by par. 8 of Laender).
Regarding claim 12, Ankele teaches a deck (G-K) molded integrally (Fig. 6a) with the plurality of male column portions (42) and the plurality of complementary female column portions (36).
Regarding claim 26, Ankele teaches supports (J) each having a longitudinal dimension (Fig. 15); and openings (K) each having an unspecified length (i.e., dimension of K along 322). Additionally, altering the size of a component has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pallet of Ankele as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making the length of each openings twice the longitudinal dimension of the supports, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the pallet (e.g., intended use of the pallet, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.). Hence, Ankele as modified would teach adjacent pairs of supports (J of Ankele) that are each spaced away from one another in a longitudinal direction (322 of Ankele) by a distance a plurality of times greater (i.e., 2x greater) than a longitudinal dimension of each of the plurality of supports to define the opening (K of Ankele) between each adjacent pair of supports.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ankele (11066210) & Laender (20050056193) in view of Bravo (WO2016154260). Ankele as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a deck (G-K) having a center portion (G) and outer portions (H) with corner columns (36, 42) extending downward therefrom; but fail(s) to teach reinforcement members. However, Bravo teaches the inclusion, in a deck (10), of a reinforcement member (230) received in (Fig. 2 & par. 59) a center portion (F) parallel to the longitudinal center line of the center portion (Fig. 2); and a reinforcement member (210, 250) received in (Fig. 2 & par. 59) each of two outer portions (E) and received in (par. 66-67) corner columns (310, 350) extending downward from each of the two outer portions (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add reinforcement members, as taught by Bravo, to each outer portion, corner column, & center portion of Ankele as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional strength & durability to the pallet (as suggested by par. 59 of Bravo).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ankele (11066210) & Laender (20050056193) in view of Isenborghs (EP2628686). Ankele as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a pallet (300) that includes a pallet half (302) in which the plurality of column portions (36, 42) are molded integrally with the deck (G-K), wherein the pallet half is a first pallet half, the pallet further including a second pallet half (304), wherein the plurality of male column portions (42) of the first pallet half are received in the plurality of complementary female column portions (36) of the second pallet half and the plurality of male column portions (42) of the second pallet half are received in the plurality of complementary female column portions (36) of the first pallet half (implied by Figs. 5 & 13). Ankele as modified fail(s) to teach making the second pallet half identical to the first pallet half via the inclusion of openings. However, Isenborghs teaches making first (2) and second (3) pallet halves identical to each other via the inclusion of identical large openings (E) in both pallet halves (see par. 1, 11, 21, 31, & 36 and 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 large openings, identical to the large openings, in the first pallet half, to the second pallet half of Ankele as modified, as taught by Isenborghs, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order allow both halves of the pallet to be made using the same mold, thereby reducing manufacturing costs (as suggested by par. 6 of Isenborghs). Hence, Ankele as modified would teach a pallet further including an identical second pallet half (304 of Ankele, as modified).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ankele (11066210), Laender (20050056193) & Isenborghs (EP2628686) in view of Bravo (WO2016154260). Ankele as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first & second pallet halves (302, 304 of Ankele, as modified) each having two outer portions (H of Ankele) and corner columns (36, 42 of Ankele) extending from each of the two outer portions of the first pallet half and the second pallet half (Fig. 13 of Ankele); but fail(s) to teach reinforcement members. However, Bravo teaches the inclusion, in a deck (10), of a reinforcement member (210, 250) received in (Fig. 2 & par. 59) each of two outer portions (E) and received in (par. 66-67) corner columns (310, 350) extending from each of the two outer portions (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add reinforcement members, as taught by Bravo, to each outer portion & corner column of Ankele as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional strength & durability to the pallet (as suggested by par. 59 of Bravo).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Chilcutt discloses no deck having an outer surface with keg recesses, no supports extending from an outer portion of a deck to a center portion of the deck, and no support having a concave portion that partially defines a recess formed in a deck surface” (Remarks at 2). As noted above, however, Chilcutt does indeed teach a deck (20) having an outer surface (i.e., upper surface of 20) with keg recesses (i.e., spaces formed by 194), supports (192) extending from an outer portion (198) of the deck to a center portion (198) of the deck, and a support (192) having a concave portion (194) that partially defines a recess (i.e., spaces formed by 194) formed in a deck surface. Admittedly, applicant contends otherwise. However, applicant fails to explain why 20 of Chilcutt cannot be considered a “deck”; why 192 of Chilcutt cannot be considered a “support”, and why 194 of Chilcutt cannot be considered “a concave portion that partially defines a recess formed in a deck surface”.
Applicant also argues that Chilcutt’s teaching of parallel longitudinally-elongated concave keg recesses (i.e., spaces formed by 194) are inapplicable to the supports (C) of Isenborghs, because “Neither reference teaches or suggests forming the transverse grating segments . . . with concave portions that partially define those recesses” (Remarks at 2). Chilcutt’s teaching of keg recesses, however, is viewed as being broadly applicable to pallet decks generally, regardless of whether those decks are formed of solid material or transverse grating segments. Moreover, Chilcutt does indeed teach transverse grating segments (i.e., 192, which, by applicant’s own admission, are “die-cut corrugated boards standing on edge” (Remarks at 2)) with concave portions (194) that partially define recesses (i.e., spaces formed by 194). Hence, even assuming arguendo that a teaching of “transverse grating segments . . . with concave portions that partially define those recesses” is necessary in order to add keg recesses to Isenborghs’ supports, Chilcutt does supply such a teaching.
Applicant further contends that “The flutes of Bravo are cavities inherent to its corrugated sheet material” (Remarks at 2). However, the flutes/cavities/channels in Bravo’s deck (20) also provide spaces into which elongated reinforcement members (210, 250) can be received. Hence, Bravo does indeed teach an elongated channel (i.e., channels in 20 aligned with 347 & 349) formed through an outer portion (E) of a deck (20).
Applicant also argues that “Bravo does not teach an elongated channel formed . . . through column portions of a pallet” (Remarks at 2), and that “Bravo's reinforcement members . . . are not received in any column” (Remarks at 4). Applicant’s argument, however, is inconsistent with Bravo’s disclosure. As shown in Fig. 3 and explained in par. 66-67, Bravo’s columns (310, 330, 350) include grooves (347, 349) for the express purpose of receiving reinforcement members (210, 230, 250) that extend through the columns. Hence, Bravo does indeed teach an elongated channel formed (via 347 & 349) through column portions (310, 330, 350) of a pallet, as well as reinforcement members (210, 230, 250) received in columns (310, 330, 350).
Applicant argues that “the rationale borrowed from Laender does not fit the structures of Ankele” because “The posts of Ankele are connectors” while “The support blocks 16 of Laender are solid blocks” (Remarks at 3). However, Laender is viewed as simply teaching elongation of column portions (16) of a pallet along the longitudinal center line of the pallet’s deck (12, 32), for the purpose of guiding & deflecting forklift tines (par. 7-8). This teaching is viewed as being broadly applicable to various types of pallet column portions, including those made of multiple pieces as well as those made of one piece. In Ankele, the male (42) and female (36) column portions, when attached to each other, form column portions of a pallet, between decks (G-K) with longitudinal center lines (322). And, since Ankele also teaches the use of forklift tines (col. 2, lines 1-9, and col. 3, lines 14-20) in conjunction with the pallet (300) in Figs. 14-15, the ability to guide and deflect forklift tines would therefore be useful in such a pallet. Hence, Laender’s teaching of elongated column portions is therefore viewed as being properly applicable to Ankele’s male & female column portions.
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
1 Although the second pallet half (3) shown in Fig. 1 does omit the large openings (D) of the first pallet half (2), Isenborghs repeatedly states that the first (2) and second (3) pallet halves are identical to each other. For instance, par. 36 of Isenborghs’ written description mentions “a pallet 1 formed of two identical plastic half pallet members 2, 3”. Isenborghs makes similar statements in par. 1, 11, 21, 31 of the written description, and in claims 1 & 11. Hence, the examiner submits that the second pallet half (3) shown in Fig. 1 in merely an alternative embodiment of the pallet half, with the plain implication being that the pallet can be formed of two pallet halves (2-3) with openings (D), two pallet halves without openings (D), or one pallet half with openings and one pallet half without openings. Even assuming arguendo that Isenborghs does not teach two pallet halves each having openings, mere duplication of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add another, identical pallet half to the first pallet half of Isenborghs as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow both halves of the pallet to be made using the same mold, thereby reducing manufacturing costs (as suggested by par. 6 of Isenborghs).
Prosecution Insights