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, 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 (when no pallet is in contact with the latch insomuch as they lack an actuator or any mechanism that moves them. Moreover, they lack a restriction or prohibition against free movement. In other words, any external force be it human or nature can move the latch when no pallet is in contact because latches 16 are free pivoting.
With respect to claim 11, Harting's latch 16 lacks pivots via springs into a 90-degree position as shown in FIG. 4. Latch 16 requires an external force to pivot into a position shown in FIG. 5. Latch 16 lacks an actuator whether, electrical, pneumatic or hydraulic to pivot on its own.
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 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) 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) 16 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.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on May 18, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12,503,322 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 14, 17, 18 & 19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments AND amendments filed May 18, 2026 with respect to claims 6, 7, 14, 17, 18 & 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 6, 7, 14, 17, 18 & 19 has been withdrawn. As for the remaining claims Applicant's arguments AND amendments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
All claims. Applicant argues that MPEP 2115 does not apply in an examiner's interpretation of the claims.
The examiner does not agree. The examiner stands by the interpretation of the claims provided in the previous office action and repeated above as well as PTO guidance in following the MPEP.
Claim 15. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose pallets.
Applicant neither points to the disclosure nor adds secondary evidence of a pallet. Pallet is defined as a "portable platform for handling, storing, or moving materials and packages (as in warehouses, factories, or vehicles)." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pallet). Harting's articles clearly have a flat bottom on which articles are stored and/or moved about a warehouse.
Alternatively, MPEP 2111.02 states that "statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim." In other words, nowhere is there a structural difference between Harting's method of operation and the steps recited in claim 15. Consequently, claim 15 lacks a manipulative difference from the cited prior art.
Claim 3. Applicant argues that Epperson's latches 8, 10 are not connect to one another.
Applicant alleges that "connected by" requires that a latch connector bar connect at one end to a first latch and at the other end to second latch. Claim 3 recites that the first and second pallet support latches are connected by a latch connector bar. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation allowed under the MPEP there may be multiple bars in the connection, not merely a single bar, but as long as the latches are connected by at least one bar the cited prior art will suffice. In this case, Epperson discloses bars 8, 8 connect at one end to latch 4 and at the other end to bar 10. In other words, bar 10 is an intervening connection with bar 8 when connect latches 4, 4. And, when bars 8, 10 move both latches 4, 4 move in synchrony.
Claim 21. Applicant argues that cited prior art does not disclose an opening defined partially by sidewalls by latches.
Harting discloses an opening 3 defined by wall comprising members 15, 15, 15. (See FIG. 3). The claim does require that the walls be completely solid panels as implied by Applicant.
Claim 22. Applicant argues that a forklift could not fit into Epperson's opening 3.
Claim 22 does not further limit the size of its opening, nor disclose the size of an opening relative to the size of a fork lift truck. Assuming arguendo that Epperson's apparatus is smaller than Applicants and would not allow a fork truck MPEP 2144.04 states that changes in size/proportion are "not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art."
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 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
Prosecution Insights