DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges Claims 21, 27 and 31 have been amended and Claims 32-38 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections of Claims 21 and 31 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments with respect to the Prior Art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
The Applicant’s Attorney summarizes the invention on Page 8 of the response in the paragraph starting “the method of amended claim 21”. The Examiner disagrees with the summarization of the invention because it includes many limitations not found in Claim 21, specifically “a top channel”, “vertical pilasters” and “a substantially horizontal pilaster”.
The Applicant’s Attorney argues that Williams does not disclose using the piers to support a foundation, which in turn supports the panels, but rather panels that form a basement floor. However, Paragraph 0020 of Williams shows that element 100 of the system is a foundation, not just a floor.
The Applicant’s Attorney also argues the use of the modular foundation and the structure of the modular foundation are not disclosed in Williams but discloses that the walls are poured below ground. It is unclear in the arguments how the use of the invention matters in pertaining to Williams. Furthermore, the arguments make allegations against Williams without any specific citations to Williams’ disclosure.
The Applicant’s Attorney continues on to argue against Williams, Paradis, Ciuperca and Mills individually. However, the rejection was an obviousness type rejection where all these references were combined. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The next argument is that the Prior Art does not disclose the foundation pieces are placed on the concrete piers and span a length of concrete portions or tilting and retaining the panels on the horizontal concrete pilaster in the foundation to provide support to the panels. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies [those emphasized by bolding and highlighting] are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “108” has been used to designate both the right end and the top portion in Figure 19. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “110” has been used to designate both channels on the right and left side in Figure 22. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Element 121 shown in Figure 22. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the substantially horizontal channel in the foundation member must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Figures 19-24 show the foundation member (100) but this has a dovetail channel, not a horizontal channel. It is Figures 2-4 that show a channel but this channel is in element 12 which is the wall, not the foundation. Thus lines 8-21 in Claim 21 are shown for the walls and not for the foundation.
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.
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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the main body" on Line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 is 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. This claim depends from Claim 21 that recited “a foundation” but this Claim recites on Line 2 “the foundations”. A plurality of foundations was not previously claimed.
Claim 31 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. Line 3 recites “the plurality of foundation components” but the Claim depends from Claim 21 that only recited a singular foundation. However, Claim 21 did recite the foundation comprises a plurality of members, but that is not what this claim says.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the outline". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 21 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2006/0257210 to Williams in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2008/0075945 to Paradis in further view of US Patent # 8,844,227 to Ciuperca in further view of US Patent # 6,260,329 to Mills.
Regarding claim 21, Williams teaches in Figure 1, a method (Paragraph 0003) of building a structure [residential building (Paragraph 0019)] with an interior space [basement (Paragraph 0003)], the method comprising: forming a plurality of spaced apart holes (Paragraph 0027) in soil (104) (Paragraph 0022) for piers (110) (Paragraph 0022); placing concrete (Paragraph 0022) in the spaced apart holes (Paragraph 0027) in the soil (104) to form spaced apart piers (110); positioning a foundation (100) (Paragraph 0020) comprising a plurality of members (130) [slabs (Paragraph 0020)] positioned end to end to form a footprint [floor (Paragraph 0019)] of the structure, Figure 3 shows each of the plurality of members (130) comprising: a foam portion (330) [insulating foam (Paragraph 0028)] comprising: a block [insulation fill (Paragraph 0028)] having a length, a width and a height extending from a first end to a second end; and a substantially horizontal channel (238) (Paragraph 0024) extending into the block [of foam insulation] from an upper surface to a depth [HOR. MEMBER, Fig 4 (Paragraph 0029)] less than the height of the block [of foam insulation]; and spaced apart end channels [to create end portions 234 and 236 (Paragraph 0024)] in communication with the substantially horizontal channel (238) from the first end and the second end wherein the spaced apart end channels (234 and 236) intersect a bottom surface at the first and the second end; and a concrete portion (132) [horizontal slab member (Paragraph 0029)] placed into the substantially horizontal channel (238) and the spaced apart end channels (234 and 236), wherein the concrete within the spaced apart end channels (234 and 236) of the block [of foam insulation] are supported on adjacent concrete piers (110); providing a plurality of panels (150) [wall sections (Paragraph 0021)], each panel (150) comprising: a concrete layer (Paragraph 0021) supported by the concrete (132) within the substantially horizontal channel (238) of the foundation (100), the spaced apart end channels (234 and 236) and the spaced apart piers (110); securing each of the plurality of panels (150) to the foundation (100); securing adjacent panels (150) of the plurality of panels to each other. Williams does not teach the foundation is positioned partially below grade. However, Paradis teaches positioning a foundation partially below grade (Paragraph 0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Williams with the system of Paradis with a reasonable expectation of success because Paradis teaches his arrangement can be used above ground, below ground or partially below ground (Paragraph 0003) thus being obvious variants of each other. Neither Williams or Paradis teach each panel comprising a foam layer. However, Ciuperca teaches in Figure 11, a panel (212) (Column 26, Line 19) comprising a foam layer (14) (Column 26, Line 20); and a concrete layer (202) (Column 21, Lines 54-55) secured [applied (Column 21, Line 42)] to the foam layer (14); tilting (Column 1, Line 10) each of the panels (212) to a vertical position (Column 3, Line 37) to form at least a portion of an exterior wall () such each of the panels (212) is supported by a foundation (12) (Column 26, Line 25) and the concrete layer (202) provides an exterior surface (Column 21, Line 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Williams in view of Paradis with the tilt-up walls of Ciuperca with a reasonable expectation of success because Ciuperca teaches his panels use less steel and concrete than a conventional panel (Column 1, Lines 14-16). Neither Williams, Paradis nor Ciuperca teach sealing seams between adjacent panels. However, Mills teaches using waterproof mastic injected between panels to seal them (Column 5, Lines 18-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Williams in view of Paradis in further view of Ciuperca with the seal of Mills with a reasonable expectation of success because Mills teaches using waterproof mastic between panels to seal them (Column 5, Lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 31, Williams in view Paradis, Ciuperca and Mills teach a method comprising positioning the foundation partially below grade. Furthermore, Williams teaches in Figures 1 and 3, the foundation (100) forms the footprint [floor (Paragraph 0019)] of the structure comprises: positioning the first and second end of the plurality of foundation members (130) adjacent each other to form the footprint [floor (Paragraph 0019)] of the structure.
Claims 22, 24-26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2006/0257210 to Williams in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2008/0075945 to Paradis, US Patent # 8,844,227 to Ciuperca and US Patent # 6,260,329 to Mills in further view of US Patent # 8,322,098 to Schiffmann et al.
Regarding claim 22, Williams in view Paradis, Ciuperca and Mills teach a method but they do not teach a plurality of beams secured to an upper portion of the plurality of raised panels. However, Schiffmann teaches in Figure 3, a plurality of beams (40) [main floor having a plurality of floor joists (Column 20, Lines 2-5)] secured to an upper portion of a raised panel (22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Williams in view of Paradis, Ciuperca and Mills with the building structure of Schiffmann with a reasonable expectation of success because Schiffmann teaches a way to attach a main floor to a foundation wall (Column 11, Lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 24, Williams in view Paradis, Ciuperca, Mills and Schiffmann teach a method. Furthermore, Williams teaches positioning insulation between adjacent beams [joists (Paragraph 0030)].
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Williams in view Paradis, Ciuperca, Mills and Schiffmann teach a method comprising a plurality of beams. Furthermore, Schiffmann teaches in Figure 3, the plurality of beams (40) comprise rafter beams [there is no claimed structural difference between a floor joist and a rafter beam] and securing a roof (Column 46, Line 52) to the rafter beams (Column 46, Lines 48-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Williams in view of Paradis, Ciuperca and Mills with the building structure of Schiffmann with a reasonable expectation of success because Schiffmann teaches a way to attach a roof to the structure (Column 46, Lines 48-52).
Regarding claim 30, Williams in view Paradis, Ciuperca and Mills teach a method but they do not teach installing a drainage system below grade prior to positioning the foundation. However, Schiffmann teaches in Figure 9, installing a drainage system (53) [settled bed of stone aggregate (Column 9, Line 65)] below grade (174) [backfill (Column 18, Line 65)] prior to positioning a foundation (14) (Column 8, Line 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Williams in view of Paradis, Ciuperca and Mills with the building structure of Schiffmann with a reasonable expectation of success because Schiffmann teaches the proper way to prepare hole in the soil to support the structure (Columns 9-10, Lines 65-2).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2006/0257210 to Williams in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2008/0075945 to Paradis, US Patent # 8,844,227 to Ciuperca, US Patent # 6,260,329 to Mills, and US Patent # 8,322,098 to Schiffmann in further view of US Patent # 2008/0005990 to Marty
Regarding claim 23, Williams in view Paradis, Ciuperca and Mills teach a method but they do not teach placing ends of the beams within U-shaped channels extending into the foam layer from a top edge. However, Marty teaches in Figure 9, placing ends of beams (60) within U-shaped channels (37) (Paragraph 0042) extending into a wall panel (18) (Paragraph 0050) at a top edge. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Williams in view of Paradis, Ciuperca, Mills and Schiffmann with the building structure of Marty with a reasonable expectation of success because Marty teaches placing the ends of the beams within the U-shaped channels creates a monolithic building structure (Paragraph 0024).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2006/0257210 to Williams in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2008/0075945 to Paradis, US Patent # 8,844,227 to Ciuperca and US Patent # 6,260,329 to Mills in further view of US Patent # 6,546,679 to Bushberger.
Regarding claim 27, Williams in view Paradis, Ciuperca and Mills teach a method but they do not teach positioning a width of insulation adjacent the foundation. However, Bushberger teaches in Figure 1, positioning a width of insulation (30) (Column 3, Line 12) adjacent a foundation (12) (Column 2, Lines 60-61) and extending from the foundation (12) below grade (G) (Column 3, Line 15); and covering (Column 3, Lines 17-21) the foundation (12) from the width of insulation (30) to the exterior surface of a wall (26) [sheathing (Column 3, Line 10)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Williams in view of Paradis, Ciuperca and Mills with the insulated building foundation of Bushberger with a reasonable expectation of success because Bushberger teaches the insulation insulates the building foundation (Column 1, Line 50).
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2006/0257210 to Williams in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2008/0075945 to Paradis, US Patent # 8,844,227 to Ciuperca and US Patent # 6,260,329 to Mills in further view of US Patent # 5,097,893 to Trimble.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Williams in view Paradis, Ciuperca and Mills teach a method but they do not teach positioning a foam layer adjacent the foundation. However, Trimble teaches in Figure 1, positioning a foam layer (13) [insulation (Column 4, Line 33)] adjacent a foundation (11) (Column 4, Line 31); and installing a radiant heating system (22) [heat exchanger conduits (Column 4, Line 36)] on the foam layer (13) adjacent the foundation (11); and placing concrete (14) (Column 4, Line 34) over the radiant heating system (22) to form a floor (20) (Column 4, Line 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Williams in view of Paradis, Ciuperca and Mills with the radiant floor heating system of Trimble with a reasonable expectation of success because Trimble teaches the radiant heating system heats the floor and the earth space associated with the floor (Column 1, Line 14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm 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, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. 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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635