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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the reinforcing elements being flat panels fully covering the inner surfaces of the panels while interlocking adjacent wall elements per claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. (It appears the figures show flat panels which interlock with adjacent reinforcing elements, but the flat panels do not cover the entire inner surfaces; the figures also show flat panels covering the entire inner surfaces, but these panels do not interlock with adjacent panels).
The drawings are objected to because:
Reference characters should only be underlined when located on the surface of the element represented; therefore the underlines should be removed from all reference characters in all of the Figures.
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 use of the term “Styrofoam”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1, 3, and 10-15 contain the trademark/trade name “Styrofoam”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe “Extruded Polystyrene Foam” or “XPS” and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear how the flat panels fully covering inner surface will interlock with adjacent panels or how interlocking panels will enable the flat panels to cover the entire inner surfaces.
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.
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, 5, 9, 10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2001/0027631 A1 to Moore, JR. et al. (Moore) in view of US 5,140,794 to Miller.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Moore discloses a modular housing structure formed from a plurality of prefabricated panels (Fig.1), the housing structure comprising: a plurality of roofing elements (Paragraph [0009], [0011], [0078]-[0082]; can be used as roof panels also); a plurality of reinforced wall elements (Fig.1), each wall element comprising an inner foam material panel (inner 20) and an outer foam material panel (outer 20) having a plurality of openings formed therein (Paragraph [0111], bolts can be used to secure the panels together, therefore holes would be formed in the panels to accept the bolts), the inner and outer foam material panels being bolted together via the openings (Paragraph [0111], bolts can be used to secure the panels together, therefore holes would be formed in the panels to accept the bolts) with one or more reinforcing elements (40, 40’; Fig.2) disposed between each pair of inner and outer panels (Fig.2), the reinforcing elements being formed of a harder material (Paragraph [0056]) than the foam material panels and being arranged so as to interlock with the foam material panels to connect adjacent wall elements together (the reinforcing elements accept re-bar which interlocks the adjacent panels together); and a plurality of corner elements (39, Fig.1), each corner element having one or more central grooved slots spanning the length of their height for interlocking with the reinforcing elements (slots into which the reinforcement members are received).
Moore discloses wherein the inner and outer panels are formed from expanded polystyrene foam, but does not disclose wherein the panels are formed from extruded polystyrene foam (XPS).
Miller discloses wherein inner and outer foam panels are formed from expanded or extruded polystyrene foam (EPS or XPS) (Column 1, lines 33-40; Column 3, lines 19-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the panels of Moore from Extruded Polystyrene foam as taught by Miller so to provide panels with increased insulative properties as well as increases strength and rigidity while maintaining a lighter weight than other structural components.
Regarding claim 2, Moore discloses wherein, when assembled together, the reinforced wall elements and the corner elements form at least an inner wall and an outer wall which are separated by a gap, the inner wall and outer wall being arranged so as to support the plurality of roofing elements (Fig.1; Paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 3, Moore discloses wherein the reinforcing elements are divided into a first set of reinforcing elements which are permanently affixed to respective foam material wall panels (the reinforcement members are held within the panels and secured by poured concrete; Fig.2A) and a second set of skeletal reinforcing elements (re-bar extending between reinforcement elements, interlocking the adjacent wall members) which are configured to interlock with the first set and connect adjacent wall elements.
Regarding claim 5, Moore discloses wherein the openings formed in the wall panels are arranged so as to receive fixings for housing apparatus and circuitry as well as facilitating the bolting together of the reinforced wall elements (any holes within wall panels are capable of any use, specifically circuits, wires, etc.).
Regarding claim 9, Moore discloses wherein the reinforcing elements are formed of one or more of: metal (re-bar is typically metal), and plastic (Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 10, Moore discloses wherein the plurality of roofing elements are also formed of foam material (Paragraph [0082]).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2001/0027631 A1 to Moore, JR. et al. (Moore) in view of US 5,140,794 to Miller in view of US 3,898,779 to Tracy.
Regarding claim 6, Moore discloses the formation of walls, floors, roofing elements, but does not specifically show the structure.
Tracy discloses wherein walls of the housing structure form a rectangular shape (Fig.2) with the plurality of roofing elements (14 and 140) being arranged parallel to a first opposing pair of edges of the walls and orthogonal to a second pair of edges of the walls (Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the panels of Moore to have formed a known structural shape as taught by Tracy thereby enabling the manufacture and erecting of the structure to be easier and less labor intensive.
Regarding claim 7, Tracv discloses wherein the reinforced wall elements forming the second pair of edges have a plurality of indents (128, Fig.6; 144, Fig.7) arranged along their top edges, the indents being configured to receive and support the roofing elements (Fig.6 and 7).
Regarding claim 8, Tracy discloses wherein each of the plurality of roofing elements have a pair of corresponding indents (indents on each side of the projections, Fig.6 and 7) disposed on either side for interlocking with the indents of the wall elements, the indents of the roofing elements being separated by a protrusion (projection on roofing element, Fig.6 and 7) having a width equal to the width of the gap between the inner wall and the outer wall (Fig.6 and 7).
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2001/0027631 A1 to Moore, JR. et al. (Moore) in view of US 5,140,794 to Miller in view of Owens Corning- Foamular XPS.
Regarding claims 11-14, Moore in view of Miller disclose the use of EPS and XPS, but do not disclose the specifically physical specifications of the extruded polystyrene foam.
Owens Corning discloses XPS (See FOAMULAR ® 600; all thicknesses) having a compressive strength of 300kPa or more at 10% deformation; a density of 40Kg/m3 or less; and a thermal conductivity of 0.033W/mK or less.
Owens Corning fails to specifically teach a shear modulus of 8MPa or greater.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the reinforced wall elements of Moore in view of Miller with well known extruded polystyrene products which have the properties to suit the needs of the panels as used, in the instant case, maximizing the strength and durability of the panels while minimizing the weight of the panels. Opting to use panels having optimal properties is notoriously well known in the art, and the results will not yield unexpected results.
Conclusion
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