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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 34-47 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species/invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/29/2026. Applicant's election with traverse of species A, figure 1-4, claims28033, group I in the reply filed on the above date is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that serious burden is not present. This is not found persuasive because, as stated in the restriction requirement, applicant must submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case, which the applicant has not provided. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 31, Applicant provides “in which the lower side wall and where provided…” of which Applicant has failed to make clear Applicant’s intent in the 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.
Claim(s) 28-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter (US 20110108513 A1) in view of Mahaffy (US 4799723 A)
Peter discloses:
28. (Original) A container pallet or battery cell framework (figs 1-8b) comprising a lattice of walled cells (cells as shown in figs 1-8b with walls and interior space) for receiving and/or supporting a plurality of containers in a close packed arrangement where side walls of the containers contact each other (capable of performing the above intended use, such as in fig 6c; the Office notes that Applicant does not positively claim the contents, and the device is capable of accommodating contents that contacts), in which each walled cell has a profile of or approximating a polygon that is tessellatable with itself or one or more other polygons (as in fig 6b for example), and one of: each walled cell includes a lower side wall and an upper side wall, and the upper side wall is inset from the lower side wall in a direction towards a central axis of the walled cell; or each walled cell includes a container receiving surface and a lower side wall extending away from the container receiving surface, each walled cell having a central axis, and at least one retaining lip is provided around a periphery of the container pallet or battery cell framework (Applicant provides an “or” statement above; the prior art discloses the former, such as a lower side wall adjacent bottom of 60A and an upper side wall such as the angled portion between the vertical side and the horizontal top, where the above upper side wall is inset);with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Mahaffy: capable of holding tessellatable containers (the Office notes that the above word refers to polygonal shapes, and the device above provides a circular aperture and Mahaffy discloses an aperture in a polygon shape that could be capable of the above as in fig 2, 5 of Mahaffy). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Peter in view of Mahaffy (by providing the above shape) in order to accommodate contents of a particular shape and in a manner that promotes compact storage and transportion.
Peter discloses:
29. (Original) A container pallet or battery cell framework as claimed in claim 28, in which the upper side wall is angled inwards towards the central axis (as shown with angled wall in fig 6a for example).
30. (Original) A container pallet or battery cell framework as claimed in claim 28, in which the walled cells are arranged in a horizontal plane (as in fig 6b).
31. (Original) A container pallet or battery cell framework as claimed in claim 28, in which the lower side wall and where provided the upper side wall define an aperture through the walled cell (as in fig 6b with apertures).
32. (Original) A container pallet or battery cell framework as claimed in claim 28, in which the lower side wall of at least some of the walled cells include engagement elements for engagement to one or more container pallets or battery cell frameworks and/or to one or more container pallet modules or battery cell framework modules (such as portion adjacent 60A for example).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Combined Reference as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Smith (US 9367849 B1).
The Combined Reference discloses the claimed invention above with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Smith: one or more sensors (adjacent 32s). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Smith (by providing sensors within the device) in order to provide the means to detect weight such as to ensure the desired proper item or desired amount of contents is provided.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D PERREAULT whose telephone number is (571)270-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-5:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ANDREW D PERREAULT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights