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 .
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.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 27, and 32 are 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.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 27, and 32, the recitation “complex” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the term “complex”. What makes the support structures “complex”?
Regarding claim 2, lines 16-17, the recitation “structures allow adding supplementary components” which renders the claim indefinite. How does this limitation alter the scope of the claim? It appears that the “planar frameworks” are only being recited as being useable with the shell support structures. The term “allow” may be better suited as “configured to” or some other intended use type language.
Regarding claim 2, lines 22-26, it is unclear what the recitation actually means. What are appropriate thicknesses? What does “for creating and connecting installation or storage spaces” actually mean? Further, recitations of lines 25-26 are mere recitations of intended use for the building.
Regarding claim 4, the claim in general is very confusing and renders the claim indefinite. It appears that the claim is attempting to recite the connector plates of Fig.2 and Fig. 3 but the wording of the claim is vague and indefinite. The claim should be rewritten to better describe the structure of the connector plates and the relationship between the connector plates and the load bearing structure modules.
Regarding claim 4, lines 5-8, the claim recites “flat bars are replaced on outer sides of the connection pockets” but the claims lack proper antecedent basis for flat bars and connection pockets. It is not possible to replace flat bars if the flat bars are not already positively recited.
Regarding claim 6, lines 5-7, the recitation “are replaceable by” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is positively reciting the closed frames, or if Applicant is simply reciting an intended use or capability of the diagonals/load-bearing structure module.
Regarding claim 7, lines 19-20, as recited in claim 6 above, it is unclear if the closed frames are being positively recited or if the claim simply recites intended use of the modules.
Regarding claim 27, it is unclear if Applicant is meaning for the storage containers to be positively recited, but as written, the claims do not require the storage containers, but simply require a building capable of housing storage containers.
Regarding claim 32, it is unclear what is required by the claims. The claim seems to be an extended claim of intended use of the building, and also recites steps for using the building, but the claims does not appear to further define the structure of the building itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2, 27, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10 2017 001 551 A1 to Heidenreich.
Regarding claim 2, Heidenreich discloses a building (Fig.2) formed from complex structural support structures (Fig.2) and having a plurality of stories (two stories shown in Fig.2), said building comprising: a plurality of interconnected load-bearing structure modules (Fig.1), which comprise either two secondary shell elements (1,2), or one secondary shell element and one peripheral frame (central area shown in Fig.3; upper frame area 10 with lower shell elements), wherein the secondary shells or peripheral frames are spaced apart from each other and extend between two opposite sides of (Fuig.1 and 3), the load-bearing structure modules; a web (3 and 6) providing structural rigidity and comprising corner angle profiles (3) and diagonals (6) connected to said corner angle profiles (5); wherein: said load-bearing modules are joined together in the form of primary shell support structures providing biaxial load-bearing effects in form of both diaphragm action and truss action (Fig. 1, 2, 3); said primary shell support structures allow adding supplementary components including planar frameworks (capable of receiving additional frameworks); said primary shell support structures form ceiling constructions and walls of an appropriate thicknesses for creating and connecting installation or storage spaces throughout the building (Fig. 2 and 3; any of the spaces within the modules is capable of storing storage containers or transporting people or object), said installation or storage spaces being configured to at least one of storing storage containers and transporting objects or people horizontally and vertically through the building (capable of storing storage containers or transporting people); and at least one of the plurality of interconnected load-bearing structure modules includes one secondary shell element (lower level of central portion of Fig.2) and one peripheral frame (10, Fig.3).
Regarding claim 27, the building as taught by Heidenreich is capable of being used with storage containers designed as plant containers.
The recitation of the claim is recited as an intended use of the building, and the building of Heidenreich is capable of the recited use.
Regarding claim 32, The recitation of the claim is recited as an intended use of the building, and the building of Heidenreich is capable of the recited use. Further, the claim recites steps of the use of the building which do not further define the structure of the building itself, but further emphasize the use of the building. Heidenreich discloses a building formed from complex structures which are capable of being used in the recited way.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2017 001 551 A1 to Heidenreich in view of US 5,624,045 to Highsmith et al.
Regarding claim 6, Heidenreich discloses in which the diagonals are connected separately by fasteners (through holes 5) at the corner angle profiles in the construction of the load-bearing structure module, wherein some of the diagonals are replaceable by closed frames replacing the diagonals if the diagonals prevent the use of the space between the secondary shells (capable of removing the diagonals and replacing with additional structure if desired).
Heidenreich does not disclose short cylindrical pins with split pins or partial threads.
Highsmith et al. disclose short cylindrical pins (52) with partial threads (threaded into the shank 56) to secure framing members to corner angles (14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used short pins as taught by Highsmith to secure the framing members of the modules of Heidenreich so to provide a means to adjustably secure the members and keep the ability to adjust or remove the framing members without the need to manual remove mechanical fasteners or permanent fasteners.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, regarding claim 2, filed 03 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Heidenreich does not teach complex structures and further does not teach a multiple story building. This is not found to be persuasive. Heidenreich discloses complex structures in Figure 1, the complex structures can be used to form a multi-story structure as shown in Fig.2.
Applicant also argues that Heidenreich does not disclose a complex structure which form ceiling constructions and walls of an appropriate thickness for creating and connecting installation or storage spaces. This is not found to be persuasive. Heidenreich discloses a building structure, the building structure having “appropriate” thicknesses for a ceiling. Further, Heidenreich discloses a building formed from complex structures which create spaces; these spaces are certainly capable of being used as storage spaces for housing containers or for transporting objects or people.
Lastly, Applicant argues that Heidenreich does no envisage wherein peripheral frames could be used in lieu of the secondary shell installations. This is not found to be persuasive. Specifically, Figure 3 of Heidenreich teaches wherein an upper section of the modular structures are formed from a peripheral frame “10” and is absent an upper shell element, thereby allowing objects to be raised and lowered through the planar area formed from the shell elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635