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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “the ramp the ramp” should read --the ramp--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Embleton et al. (US patent application publication 2018/0127147) (hereinafter Embleton)
Regarding claim 1, Embleton discloses a pallet, comprising: an upper frame (104); a lower frame (108) opposite the upper frame; a first suspension system (905) disposed between the upper frame and the lower frame and configured to provide dampening between the upper frame and the lower frame; and a first spring shock rod assembly (903) located alongside the first suspension system (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 2, Embleton discloses a pallet further comprising: a second suspension system (905) disposed between the upper frame and the lower frame and configured to provide dampening between the upper frame and the lower frame; a second spring shock rod assembly (903) located alongside the second suspension system; a third suspension system (905) disposed between the upper frame and the lower frame and configured to provide dampening between the upper frame and the lower frame; a third spring shock rod assembly (903) located alongside the third suspension system; a fourth suspension system (905) disposed between the upper frame and the lower frame and configured to provide dampening between the upper frame and the lower frame; a fourth spring shock rod assembly (903) located alongside the fourth suspension system; wherein the first, second, third and fourth suspension systems are located at respective first, second, third and fourth corner regions of the pallet (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, Embleton discloses a pallet wherein the first spring shock rod assembly comprises a first spring (903) that compresses during a movement of the upper frame away from the lower frame to provide a force, between the upper frame and the lower frame, and which opposes the movement.
Regarding claim 15, Embleton discloses a pallet system, comprising: the pallet of claim 1; and a ramp (2016) removably connected to a side region of the pallet by at least one fastener.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Embleton.
Regarding claim 12, Embleton discloses the pallet as claimed. Embleton does not disclose a pallet further comprising: a plurality of stacking features. The examiner is taking OFFICIAL NOTICE that pallets with stacking features are common and well known in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to modify Embleton to include stacking features, because this arrangement would have facilitate stacking of the pallets allowing them to take up less space when in a stacked configuration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-11, 13, 14 & 16-18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it gives a general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J ROHRHOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-7624. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Dan 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. 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.
/DANIEL J ROHRHOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights