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 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, 5, 11, 13, 14, 15 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harting (EP 3 782 930) (see also US publication US 11,952,225) (previously cited).
Interpretative note 1. Applicant is respectfully reminded that the material or article worked upon by the apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. In other words, the recitation of pallet has been given patentable weight where the structure accomplishes performs the function of the positively recited elements.
With respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 13, 15 & 20, Harting discloses a tower comprising:
a base frame 4, 15 defining a pallet receiving area 3, a pallet receiving area configured to receive a pallet;
a containment frame 2, 5, 6, 7 supported above a base frame, a containment frame defining a pallet storage area for storing a pallet, and
a first pallet support latch 16 and a second pallet latch on a side opposite to a first pallet support latch, each of first and second pallet support latches including a first surface 16 (FIG. 4) and operable between an open position (FIG. 4) and a closed position (FIG. 5), wherein a first pallet support latch in a closed position is configured to support a pallet when a pallet is in a pallet storage area.
With respect to claim 5, Harting's latches 16 are manually movable insomuch as they lack an actuator or any mechanism that moves them. In other words, external force must be applied to raise latches 16 from closed to open. Harting teaches that when a pallet is raised by a loading vehicle to contact the bottom of a previously stacked pallet whereupon raising pallet lifts the stack.
With respect to claim 14, Harting discloses an interior alignment surface 25, 26 "to center the container that is being moved through the opening 8 from all sides in the direction of the middle of the opening 8". (FIG. 6; C6/L15-30). "For each loading space 3, the frame arrangement 4 comprises an opening 8 through which the container receiving space 2 is connected to the loading space 3." In other words, alignment surface 25, 26 is located at opening 8 aligning containers as they transition from from receiving space 3, e.g. receiving area, to loading space 2, e.g. storage area.
It is noted that "align" and "center" are interpreted as the same function.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harting in view Epperson (US 2,693,898).
Harting does not disclose a latch connector bar for pivoting between open and closed positions simultaneously. Epperson discloses first and the second pallet support latches 4, 4 connected by a latch connector bar 8, 10 for pivoting between an open configuration and a closed configuration at a same time. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Harting to include first and the second pallet support latches extend along a side of a support latch frame and support opposite edges of a bottom surface of a pallet and a latch connector bar, as taught by Epperson, which prevents unintended release of pallets in continuous succession.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 18 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harting in view Barth (EP 2 772 408) (English translation included with copy of reference).
Har
Harting does not disclose a latch arm. Barth discloses a manually movable latch arm4 which actuates first and second pallet support latches 4, 4, 4, 4 from open to closed positions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Harting, as taught by Barth, which allows manual operation by a forklift drive to stack smaller pallets on larger pallets.
Claim(s) 8 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harting in view Matsui (WO 2016/051509) (English translation attached).
Interpretative note 1. As argued by Applicant during the course of prosecution in the parent app (US #12,503,322) "sprinkler and/or fire suppression system" are NOT positively recited and will not be given any patentable weight. In other words, prior art that discloses a solid panel top reads on claim 9.
Harting discloses four(4) sides, and does not disclose a solid rear panel and solid opposite side panels for enclosing a pallet when a pallet is in a pallet storage area. Harting also does not disclose a solid panel top. Matsui discloses a pallet stack containment frame that has a solid rear panel (indicated generally as 51b) and solid opposite side panels (unlabeled but shown in FIG. 6) for enclosing a pallet when a pallet is in a pallet storage area. Matsui further discloses a containment frame that has a solid panel top cover 51a. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Harting to include a containment frame that has a solid rear panel, solid opposite side panels and a solid panel top cover, as taught by Matsui, thereby providing "heat insulating properties and heat retaining properties."
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harting in view Redman (US 6,045,324) which disclosers a tower wherein a frame has chamfered side walls 29, 29 for aligning a pallet side to side for a receiving area. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Harting to include chamfered side walls, as taught by Redman, such that a pallet is guided to a central position in a tower.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harting in view Loomer (US 3,844,423) which disclosers a sensing device 117, 119, e.g. an indicator, for detecting when the pallet tower has a "predetermined number of empty pallets", e.g. is full. (C5/L28-35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Harting to include a device for detecting, e.g. sensor, as taught by Loomer, which signals an unstacker to initiate unstacking.
Claim(s) 14, 16 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harting in view Redman (US 9,718,628). Harting does not disclose an interior alignment surface. Redman discloses that "guide rails assist the operator in centering the pallet load in the apparatus by nudging the pallet and pallet load towards the center of the device." (C4/L37-39) Guides (21), e.g. interior alignment surfaces "have outwardly sloping portions that slope towards the first side frame (1) and the second side frame (22). As a misaligned instance of the pallet (112) is moved into the apparatus (900), it will be gradually positioned so that, while in operation, each side of the pallet load (802) is substantially circumscribed (at least in part) by the clamp assembly (208)." (C15/L65 thru C16/L7). Guides rails, as taught by Redman, help keep pallets from become "snagged and consequently damaged by the free edges of the pressure plates." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of the '322 patent to include a step of aligning a pallet by contacting a sloped surface with a pallet, as taught by Redman, to keep the pallet from being damaged when entering a pallet storage area.
Claim(s) 21 & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harting in view Redman (US 2020/0207556).
Harting discloses a storage tower for storing objects therein comprising:
a base frame 4, 5 including a rear wall and a pair of side walls extending forward from a rear wall, a base frame defining a receiving area 3;
a containment frame 2, 5, 6, 7 supported above a base frame, a containment frame defining a storage area; and
a support latch 16 operable between an open position (FIG. 4) and a closed position (FIG. 5), wherein a support latch in a closed position is configured to support an object in a storage area, wherein in a closed position a support latch is configured to support a bottom most object in a storage area, wherein a storage tower further includes a front opening at least partially defined by side walls of a base frame and extending upward above a support latch.
Harting does not disclose a base frame including a rear wall and a pair of side walls extending forward from a rear wall. Redman discloses a base frame 2 including a rear wall 1800 and a pair of side walls 1900, 1910 extending forward from a rear wall. Redman further discloses a storage tower 4 that includes a front opening (generally indicated as 1090 in FIG. 56) at least partially defined by side walls of a base frame and extending upward above a support latch (position of support latch 700 in FIG. 18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Harting to include a rear wall, pair of side walls and a front opening, as taught by Redman, to provide security against pallets from falling from a stack while providing visibility of stack capacity.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,503,322 in view of Swoboda (US 10,059,521). The '322 patent discloses lines 2-5 of the instant application. The '322 patent also disclose a support latch, but does not disclose a latch spring-biased to a default open position. Swoboda discloses a spring-biased support latch 3 which is biased to a retrieving position, e.g. open configuration, as shown in FIG. 3b. Swoboda's support latch is biased in this position during retrieval of a pallet. With respect to the operation of latch 2, 3, 4 Swoboda discloses thusly:
A holding device 1 according to FIG. 2a is illustrated in FIG. 3a, wherein the support arm 3 of the holding hook 2 is located in the holding position. In this case, the spring force F.sub.F of the spring 6 acts in such a manner that the support arm 3 is held in the holding position, or in the case of specific pivoting, is urged to the holding position. The spring force F.sub.F causes a respective momentum. In the example according to FIG. 3a this momentum acts in the clockwise direction about the rotation axis 5 of the holding hook 2.
This applies in a similar manner to the retrieving position (illustrated in FIG. 3a), having a support arm 3 which in relation to FIG. 3a is pivoted to the respective position. In this case, the spring force F.sub.F of the spring 6 acts in such a manner that the support arm 3 is held in the retrieving position or, in the case of specific pivoting, is urged to the retrieving position. In the example according to FIG. 3b, the momentum about the rotation axis 5 of the holding hook 2 that has been initiated by the spring force F.sub.F acts in a counter-clockwise manner.
The position of unstable equilibrium in which the support arm 3 is in principle not urged to any of the two positions mentioned (that is to say is in an equilibrium of momentums) is provided between holding position and retrieving position. However, any position of the support arm 3 that deviates from the position of unstable equilibrium inevitably leads to the support arm 3 being unequivocally urged in a determinable manner to either the holding position or to the retrieving position.
(Column 7, lines 36-64)
In other words, spring 6 biases support latch 3 in both a holding position (FIG. 3a), e.g. closed position, and a retrieving position (FIG. 3b), open position, based on movement direction of pallet 201. (See FIGS. 4a-4e for operation.)
Swoboda teaches that in a spring replaces "complex mechanical switching or actuating means" heretofore required where a "container other than the lowermost container of a container stack is to be retrieved." Prior support latches required "successive retrieving and restacking of the respective lowermost container of the container stack to other container stacks is required." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of the '322 patent to spring-bias a latch into an open configuration, as taught by Swoboda, so that a container other than a lowermost container in a stack can be retrieved without successive retrieving and restacking.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,503,322 in view of Redman (US 9,718,628). The '322 patent does not claims aligning a pallet by contacting a sloped surface with a pallet. Redman discloses that " guide rails assist the operator in centering the pallet load in the apparatus by nudging the pallet and pallet load towards the center of the device." (C4/L37-39) Guides (21) "have outwardly sloping portions that slope towards the first side frame (1) and the second side frame (22). As a misaligned instance of the pallet (112) is moved into the apparatus (900), it will be gradually positioned so that, while in operation, each side of the pallet load (802) is substantially circumscribed (at least in part) by the clamp assembly (208)." (C15/L65 thru C16/L7). Guides rails, as taught by Redman, help keep pallets from become "snagged and consequently damaged by the free edges of the pressure plates." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of the '322 patent to include a step of aligning a pallet by contacting a sloped surface with a pallet, as taught by Redman, to keep the pallet from being damaged when entering a pallet storage area.
Claims 2-16 & 18-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11-14, 17, 18, 20-24, 35 & 36 of U.S. Patent No. 12,503,322. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because linguist differences and/or elimination of an element or its functions is deemed to be obvious in light of prior art teachings of at least the recited element or its functions (see In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184, 186; 311 F2d 581 (CCPA 1963)), thereby rendering the elimination of any elements recited in the claims of the related patent (that are not recited in the instant claims) obvious.
Mapping of claims of instant application to that of the '322 patent.
Instant application
US Patent #12,503,322
Claim 2 (first surface is equivalent to "flat surface)
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 4 (latches moves independent of power source is equivalent to manual operation)
Claim 8
Claim 5
Claim 8
Claim 6
Claim 8
Claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 8 (solid rear panel, 2 solid side panels equivalent to 4 solid panel sides
Claim 9, 11
Claim 9
Claims 11, 12
Claim 10
Claim 14
Claim 11
Claim 17
Claim 12
Claim 18
Claim 13
Claim 1
Claim 14
Claim 13, 14
Claim 15
Claim 20
Claim 16
Claims 21, 22, 23
Claim 18
Claim 24
Claim 19
Claim 24
Claim 20
Claim 20
Claim 21
Claims 1 & 35
Claim 22
Claim 36
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652