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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received April 27, 2026.
Claims 1 and 12 are amended. Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are pending and have been examined.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghazali et al., Tessellation Planning and Honeycomb Housing, Planning of Malaysia, Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners (2005), pp 71-98 (“Ghazali”) in view of “Assessing Wastewater Options for Small Communities in Kansas” (1999) available at: < https://www.kdhe.ks.gov/1003/Wastewater-Options-for-Small-Communities > (“Kansas”), further in view of Flanders, US Pat No 6688052 (“Flanders”).
Per claim 1, Ghazali teaches A complex of buildings comprising: a plurality of regularly polygonal shaped acreages of land located adjacent to each other, each said regularly polygonal shaped acreage of land having at least six sides in pages 76 and 77, and Figs 8 and 9, see Fig 9 a. See also Fig 10. Acreage is taught in page 96, “400 acre mixed development.” See also Fig 30: 258 houses on 15.6 acres.
Ghazali then teaches a plurality of buildings disposed at regular intervals along the interior periphery of each said regularly polygonal shaped acreage of land in pages 76 and 77, and Figs 8 and 9, see Fig 9 a. See also Fig 10 and 11.
Ghazali then teaches each said plurality of buildings disposed outside of the periphery of a shared central space concentrically disposed within each said regularly polygonal shaped acreage of land in Fig 10 and 11. P 78, “a central area that can become the communal focus.”
Ghazali does not teach a sewer mainline connected to each said shared central space at a point within said shared central space; a plurality of sewer distribution lines, each said sewer distribution line directly connecting one said building of said plurality of buildings to said sewer mainline at said point within said shared central space for said polygonal shaped acreage of land within which said building is located.
Kansas teaches small community sewer arrangements. See drawings.
Kansas teaches a sewer mainline connected to each said shared central space at a point within said shared central space; a plurality of sewer distribution lines, each said sewer distribution line directly connecting one said building of said plurality of buildings to said sewer mainline at said point within said shared central space for said polygonal shaped acreage of land within which said building is located on page 23 (of the pdf), Fig 5-11 where six house lots are connected to the sewer mainline in the central space in a polygonal shaped acreage of land.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tessellated honeycomb housing teaching of Ghazali with the small community sewer design teaching of Kansas because Kansas teaches that the length of sewers can be reduced if the lots are designed closer together similar to Ghazali, see page 11 of the pdf: “(Another possibility for an area to be developed is to design the layout so that the houses are closer together even though the lots themselves are large.) See Figure 11.” As this would reduce sewer installation costs per Kansas one would be motivated to combine Ghazali with Kansas so that costs could be reduced. For this reason one would be motivated to combine Ghazali with Kansas.
Ghazali does not teach a plurality of roads disposed along the exterior peripheries of each said regularly polygonal shaped acreage of land and configured so that no road occupies any interior portion of any said regularly polygonal shaped acreage of land.
Flanders teaches a housing arrangement with a perimeter road. See abstract.
Flanders teaches a plurality of roads disposed along the exterior peripheries of each said regularly polygonal shaped acreage of land and configured so that no road occupies any interior portion of any said regularly polygonal shaped acreage of land in Figs 1 and 2 Item nos. 17 are the perimeter road that does not go into the interior and Item 39 is the back street that does not cross the interior, the interior being defined by rear border 33, promenade 55, and undeveloped land 59. See col 9.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polygonal (hexagonal) shaped land teaching of Ghazali with the roads disposed along the exterior peripheries teaching of Flanders because Flanders teaches in col 8 ln 30-55 that this makes life easier for elderly residents and optimizes satisfaction of basic human needs for safety, privacy, peace, and beauty by way of the encirclement of the perimeter road. One would be motivated to combine Flanders’ perimeter road teaching with Ghazali’s polygon teaching to further optimize living standards and increase safety. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Ghazali with Flanders.
Per claim 2, Ghazali, Kansas, and Flanders teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Ghazali further teaches said regularly polygonal shaped acreages of land are hexagonal in pages 76 and 77, and Figs 8 and 9, see Fig 9 a. See also Fig 10.
Per claim 3, Ghazali, Kansas, and Flanders teach the limitations of claim 2, above. Ghazali further teaches each said regularly polygonal shaped acreage of land further comprises at least one shared asset within the shared central space in page 79 where there is a communal garden in the shared central space which teaches shared asset.
Per claim 12, Ghazali, Kansas, and Flanders teach the limitations of claim 2, above. Ghazali further teaches each hexagonal regularly polygonal shaped acreage of land is configured with its sides flush with a side of every adjacent hexagonal regularly polygonal shaped acreage of land in Fig 9 a, and Fig 11.
Per claim 13, Ghazali, Kansas, and Flanders teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Ghazali further teaches said regularly polygonal shaped acreages of land are octagonal in Fig 22.
Per claim 14, Ghazali, Kansas, and Flanders teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Ghazali further teaches the buildings are houses in page 89 where duplexes are taught, a duplex is a kind of house.
Per claim 15, Ghazali, Kansas, and Flanders teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Ghazali further teaches each said regularly polygonal shaped acreage of land further comprises at least one shared asset within the shared central space in page 79 where there is a communal garden in the shared central space which teaches shared asset.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghazali et al., Tessellation Planning and Honeycomb Housing, Planning of Malaysia, Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners (2005), pp 71-98 (“Ghazali”) in view of “Assessing Wastewater Options for Small Communities in Kansas” (1999) available at: < https://www.kdhe.ks.gov/1003/Wastewater-Options-for-Small-Communities > (“Kansas”), further in view of Flanders, US Pat No 6688052 (“Flanders”), further in view of Fuller WO 2007041757 A1 ("Fuller"), further in view of Mike Holt’s Forum, “generator feeding 2 buildings,” available at: < https://forums.mikeholt.com/threads/generator-feeding-2-buildings.148020/ > published on: February 21, 2019 (“Mike Holt”).
Per claim 4, Ghazali, Kansas, and Flanders teach the limitations of claim 3, above. Ghazali does not teach the shared asset comprises an energy distribution system.
Fuller teaches a permanent multi dwelling structure and method of constructing the same. See page 1 ln 1-10.
Fuller teaches the shared asset comprises an energy distribution system Page 6 ln 1-10, " Utility services such as provision of water, heating, gas and electricity or the removal or sewerage are also usually shared between two or more dwellings. In addition, the facilities are in a modular form wherein the modularity relates to the entire structure." See also page 8 ln 13-28: " Once the units 2 have been affixed, the next step is the installation of the various utility services, such as water, heating, gas and electricity supply or sewerage removal. Part of the installation of each one of these services can be performed, on the basis of the foundation grid, prior to installation of the units. Of course, this does not have to always be the case and the entire installation can be performed after the installation of the units. As it was mentioned previously, the advantage of this system is that it uses facilities, which are common for more than one dwelling. In a preferred situation, a single facility would service the entire multi-dwelling structure." The single facility under a broadest reasonable interpretation teaches a hub in a shared central space as it is not possessed by any facility. The dwellings are polygonal because they are composed of at least three sides, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the term polygon. Both the community and the dwellings are polygons. See also Figs 2a, 2b where the shared asset is in between the structures.
It would have been obvious before one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polygonal neighborhood teachings of Ghazali with the shared asset with energy generating and distribution system teaching of Fuller because Fuller teaches an improvement in the art, that "an important aspect is a quick, cheap, but reliable installation whereby a minimum amount of labour, and in particular skilled labour, is required." Page 6 ln 10-19. This improvement would motivate one to modify Ghazali with Fuller because it would require less labor and less cost to implement. For these reasons, one would be motivated to modify Ghazali with Fuller.
Though Fuller teaches electricity it does not necessarily teach energy generating.
Mike Holt teaches hooking up a plurality of buildings to one generator. See page 1.
Mike Holt teaches energy generating in page 1 where two buildings are powered on one generator, which teaches energy generating in the context of powering using a shared asset.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tessellation teaching of Ghazali, as modified by Fuller, with the energy generating teaching of Mike Holt because one would be motivated to use one energy generating system so that it would save on not having to have two generators, that way two buildings can get service from one generator. This would be more efficient and utilize one piece of equipment better. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Ghazali in view of Fuller with Mike Holt.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghazali et al., Tessellation Planning and Honeycomb Housing, Planning of Malaysia, Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners (2005), pp 71-98 (“Ghazali”) in view of “Assessing Wastewater Options for Small Communities in Kansas” (1999) available at: < https://www.kdhe.ks.gov/1003/Wastewater-Options-for-Small-Communities > (“Kansas”), further in view of Flanders, US Pat No 6688052 (“Flanders”), further in view of Aqwa, “Mass Drain Fields aka Community Wastewater Systems,” [online] published on June 24, 2019, available at: < https://www.aqwa.net/blog/2019/6/24/some-of-the-benefits-of-mass-drain-fields-aka-community-wastewater-systems > (“Aqwa”).
Per claim 5, Ghazali, Kansas, and Flanders teach the limitations of claim 3, above. Ghazali does not teach the shared asset comprises a leach field for a shared septic system.
Aqwa teaches community onsite wastewater system. See page 1.
Aqwa teaches the shared asset comprises a leach field for a shared septic system the shared asset comprises a leach field for a shared septic system in page 2 where a “centralized drainfield” is taught which teaches a shared asset being a leach field for a shared septic system.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hexagon teaching of Ghazali, as modified by Kansas, with the centralized leach field teaching of Aqwa teaching because Aqwa teaches on page 2 that the centralized drainfield allows for more options in lot size, and this gives more options for lot size, as each lot does not need its own leach field. Because this would provide developers flexibility one would be motivated to modify Ghazali with Aqwa.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghazali et al., Tessellation Planning and Honeycomb Housing, Planning of Malaysia, Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners (2005), pp 71-98 (“Ghazali”) in view of “Assessing Wastewater Options for Small Communities in Kansas” (1999) available at: < https://www.kdhe.ks.gov/1003/Wastewater-Options-for-Small-Communities > (“Kansas”), further in view of Flanders, US Pat No 6688052 (“Flanders”), further in view of City of Pinellas Park, Florida, Utilities Detail [online], available at: < https://www.pinellas-park.com/1549/Standard-Details-Utilities-General-Detai > published in 2018 (“Pinellas”).
Per claim 11, Ghazali, Kansas, and Flanders teach the limitations of claim 2, above. Ghazali further teaches the plurality of buildings in at least one said regularly polygonal shaped acreage of land; inside the periphery of said regularly polygonal shaped acreage of land; around the periphery of said regularly polygonal shaped acreage of land in pages 76 and 77, and Figs 8 and 9, see Fig 9 a. See also Fig 10. Periphery is taught by the roads in the pictures.
Ghazali does not teach a utility is distributed among the plurality of buildings in at least one said shaped acreage of land via a distribution system having a channel disposed inside the periphery of said shaped acreage of land and running around the periphery of said shaped acreage of land.
Pinellas teaches utility layouts for cul-de-sacs. See pages 1-14.
Pinellas teaches a utility is distributed among the plurality of buildings in at least one said shaped acreage of land via a distribution system having a channel disposed inside the periphery of said shaped acreage of land and running around the periphery of said shaped acreage of land in page 2, GD-3 where the wire runs around the periphery of the cul de sac, and in page 13, GD-12 where the water runs the periphery of the cul de sac.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the honeycomb development of Ghazali with the utility being distributed on the periphery of a shaped acreage of land teaching of Pinellas because one would be motivated to follow the easement space such as the road for placing utilities to prevent accidental dig problems and also to provide equidistant access to the homes on the shape of acreage. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Ghazali with Pinellas.
Therefore, claims 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to remarks:
35 USC 103
Applicant argues against art that has not been presented. Applicant argues that “If roads in Ghazali were to be run at the exterior peripheries of the hexagonal land areas, houses could not be linked at the hexagon boundaries (the road would be in the way), and the looping cul-de-sacs would be eliminated that slow down traffic and make it safe for pedestrians.”
However, Applicant is only arguing against some examples in Ghazali. This is unpersuasive as Applicant is trying to narrow the prior art to only a few examples and described benefits. Applicant’s arguments are not based on any fundamental legal principle as Applicant has cited nothing. The following are some responses to the argument made by Applicant (see MPEP 2145):
ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because "[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA]." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Here, Applicant is attacking Ghazali alone as no art was cited yet. Applicant is stating that one would lose some benefits from Ghazali by comparing it to the hypothetical art to be cited. However, one would be motivated by the statement in Flanders that safety is provided and it is better for elderly residents to use a perimeter road. Therefore one would be motivated to combine the arts. As applicant could not argue against the combination yet, Applicant only attacks the single reference plus the hypothetical reference. The problem here is that Applicant doesn’t know the motivation to combine yet, and that is an important detail.
ARGUING THAT PRIOR ART DEVICES ARE NOT PHYSICALLY COMBINABLE
"It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) ("Etter's assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole."). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
Applicant’s argument suggests that these are not physically combinable because a benefit would be lost in doing so. Unlike where the court found that combining would prevent the principle operation, here, roads may be moved on a master plan; asphalt can be laid just about anywhere there is earth. So, just from a common sense standpoint, putting perimeter roads on Ghazali may take away from some of Ghazali’s benefits, but that is not the legal standard here. Because what benefits it takes away, the combinations adds benefits as well.
See for example MPEP 2143.01: In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959) (Claims were directed to an oil seal comprising a bore engaging portion with outwardly biased resilient spring fingers inserted in a resilient sealing member. The primary reference relied upon in a rejection based on a combination of references disclosed an oil seal wherein the bore engaging portion was reinforced by a cylindrical sheet metal casing. The seal construction taught in the primary reference required rigidity for operation, whereas the seal in the claimed invention required resiliency. The court reversed the rejection holding the "suggested combination of references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in the basic principle under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.").
Here, there is no “operation,” what Applicant is claiming and what the references are teaching (all of them) are static layouts, in other words, lines on a paper, (master plat, master development, subdivision etc), physically manifested down the road by builders. Therefore, for the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner is using this opportunity to foreclose the line of argumentation that Applicant seems likely to pursue.
Therefore, though Examiner is sympathetic and considered carefully this argument, it is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights