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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/3/2025. These drawings are unacceptable. They contain new matter. FIGS. 1a-9 are considered new as they were not presented in the original disclosure. It is noted that while FIG. 4 appears to be similar to prior FIG. 2.3 (filed 8/19/2022), there is a new addition with the bolt not previously shown. All new matter must be removed from the drawings.
Additionally, it recommended that Applicant add reference characters to the figures to clearly point to the different elements of the invention. It is noted that any reference characters added to the drawings should also be added to the specification (without adding any new matter not in the original disclosure).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 6/13/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the paragraphs labelled as 1.-5. on pages 6-7 (description of “uni”-roof poles and “khana”-latticed wall) of the amendment specification filed 6/13/2024.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Astasio Cavero (ES-1,069,830 U).
Claim 1: Astasio Cavero discloses a portable and foldable yurt comprising: a lattice roof (29; as seen in FIGS. 34-36, the roof has members that cross each other/extend between the radially extending members, thus making the roof have a lattice configuration), a lattice wall (17-21), a door structure (FIGS. 11 and 36), a dome (30), an inner tension band (seen above and below lattice wall in FIGS. 35 and 36), a cover (comprised of 13, 15, 16; English translation, “Once the rafters are placed we will get ready to assemble the fabric that will cover and insulate the yurt. These are formed by two different parts: the one that covers the roof of the yurt and the one that covers the walls. It consists of three layers: interior decorative fabric, high performance insulation and canvas High strength exterior” and “The canvas and the inner fabric of the yurt come together and pose as the pieces (13,16 and 15) as indicated in (fig. 28) without piercing none of them but making it The canvas and the inner fabric of the yurt come together and pose as the pieces (13,16 and 15) as indicated in (fig. 28) without piercing none of them but making it waterproof”) and a floor (7).
Claims 2 and 5: Astasio Cavero discloses the lattice roof and the lattice wall to be formed of a lightweight wood (English translation; “The yurt biosolis is provided, to large features, of a circular base, walls, crossbars that form the ceiling, a base for the dome, doors and windows, all of wood”).
Claim 8: Astasio Cavero discloses said cover as being formed of a waterproof material (English translation; “The canvas and the inner fabric of the yurt come together and pose as the pieces (13,16 and 15) as indicated in (fig. 28) without piercing none of them but making it waterproof”).
Claim 9: Astasio Cavero discloses said floor as being composed of waterproof material (floor 7 is comprised of wooden planks laid on top of a framework; English translation, “With the structure of the base ready we only it remains to place the wooden planks that will make up the floor as (fig. 8) and screw them to the crossbars” and “On this framework will be laid the floor, completely composed of Phenolic plates of high resistance”).
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) 3, 4, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astasio Cavero (ES-1,069,830 U) in view of Jessop (GB-2,383,807 A).
Astasio Cavero teaches the entire framework, including the lattice roof and lattice wall, to be made of wood, and therefore lacks these elements being composed of lightweight metals or lightweight composite mateirals. Jessop teaches a portable and foldable yurt comprising: a lattice roof (2), a lattice wall (4), a door structure (21), a dome (1; FIGS. 1 or 6-7), an inner tension band (3), and a cover (page 11, third full paragraph, “outer cover may be applied to a structure after its erection”). Jessop teaches that the lattice roof and lattice wall as being composed of either wood, metal, or a composite material (page 11, second full paragraph, “roof and/or trellis poles may be of wood, bamboo, plastics, metal, or glass or carbon fibre reinforced plastics”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astasio Cavero to include a lattice roof and lattice wall composed of either lightweight metal or lightweight composite material, such as taught by Jessop, as an alternative that would provide the advantages of not be able to rot, like wood.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/13/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Astasio Cavero did not indicate that he has invented a lattice roof frame or structure at all. However, Applicant also admits that Astasio Cavero did state that the roof of his invention makes “lattice configuration” (page 1 of Remarks). Applicant provided a definition from the Oxford Dictionary for the term lattice as “a structure consisting of strips of wood or metal crossed and fastened together with square or diamond-shaped spaces left between, used as a screen or fence or as a support for climbing plants” (see page 1 of Remarks). So Applicant asserted both Astasio Cavero and Jessop do not teach strips of wood or metal crossed and fastened. However, it is noted that the original specification of the present invention (filed 8/19/2022) does not provide a definition of the term lattice. It is also noted that Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines lattice as “a framework or structure of crossed wood or metal strips”. As such, the definition provided by Applicant in the arguments appears overly narrow. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the roof of Astasio Cavero can be considered a lattice structure since FIGS. 34-36 shows crossing frame members. Astasio Cavero also states “supported by a latticed wooden structure on ceilings and walls” in the abstract, meaning there are crossing wooden members forming a lattice on the roof. As such, the Examiner maintains that the combination of Astasio Cavero anticipates claim 1 as it currently stands.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIELLE JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2268. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11AM-7PM EST.
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, David Dunn can be reached at (571)272-6670. 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.
/DNJ/Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636