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 § 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) 1-3, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘260 (RU2656260) in view of Wilson (US2015/0033639).
For claim 1, ‘260 discloses a home assembly (figs. 1-2), comprising: a wall panel (2) comprising mass plywood (page 4 para 6 of submitted translation); a floor panel comprising mass plywood (1a); and a roof (3); wherein: the home assembly is configured to be manufactured in separate pieces (the roof, wall panels and floor panels are separate pieces); and the home assembly is configured to be assembled together to form a complete home and the mass plywood of the wall panel comprises a solid laminate (page 4 para 6 of submitted translation).
‘260 does not disclose that the entire home assembly is shipped in two or less single standard shipping containers or that the solid laminate has a shear strength of approximately 2925 lbf/ft.
Wilson discloses a home assembly and the obviousness of shipping the entire home assembly in one shipping container [0067].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the entire home assembly of ‘260 shippable in one shipping container as made obvious by Wilson to increase the ease of transportation and portability of the assembly.
It would have been obvious to choose a laminate with a shear strength of approximately 2925 lbf/ft since this merely involves optimizing already disclosed elements to get predictable and expected results like increased strength of the assembly.
For claim 2, the combination discloses the obviousness of adding a plurality of wall panels, of wall panels, a plurality of doors, a window, a roof, cabinets, electrical components, plumbing components, HVAC components, insulation, railing, finish work, countertops, bathroom fixtures, and kitchen fixtures since these are standard components of a house to provide a standard dwelling that is habitable and transportable.
For claim 3, the combination discloses that the roof can comprise a metal (‘260 submitted translation page 4 para 11, metal plate).
For claim 8, the combination discloses that the entire home assembly can be shipped in a standard shipping container (Wilson [0067]).
For claim 9, it would be obvious to make the panel 4 inches thick since this merely involves changing the size of an already disclosed element to get predictable and expected results like increase in strength.
For claim 10, the combination discloses fasteners for joining the home assembly to form a complete home (‘260 screws Page 4 para 7).
For claim 11, the combination does not make any mention of a foundation in both ‘260 and Wilson and it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the assembly free of a foundation so the home assembly can be easily assembled, disassembled and transported without hassle.
Claim(s) 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘260 (RU2656260) in view of Wilson (US2015/0033639) as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, and further in view of Hopkins, Jr. (US Patent No. 4,513,545).
For claim 4, the combination does not explicitly disclose an electrical access through-hole defined by one of the plurality of wall panels; and a plumbing through-hole defined by one of the plurality of wall panels.
Hopkins, Jr. discloses a home assembly (fig. 15) comprising wall and floor panels, and the obviousness of adding an electrical access and plumbing through-hole (fig. 35, holes through which 250 goes through) to the wall panels so that electrical and plumbing pipes can be passed through.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to add an electrical access and plumbing through-hole to the wall panels of the combination as made obvious by Hopkins, Jr. to provide a means for electrical and plumbing pipes to pass through.
For claim 5, the combination discloses the obviousness of assembling the electrical components and the plumbing components on an exterior surface of the wall panels (Hopkins, Jr. fig. 16, 178, 63).
For claim 6, the combination discloses that the insulation is attached to the exterior surface of the wall panels (‘260 fig. 3, 10, page 6 para 9).
For claim 7, the combination discloses the obviousness of attaching drywall over the insulation (Hopkins, Jr. col. 1 lines 44-47, drywall is a well-known outer layer for wall panels to increase the insulation of the wall panel).
Claim(s) 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘260 (RU2656260) in view of Wilson (US2015/0033639).
For claim 12, ‘260 discloses a packaged complete home assembly (figs. 1-2), comprising: a plurality of wall panels comprising mass plywood (page 4 para 6 of submitted translation); a plurality of floor panels made of plywood; a roof that can be made of metal (page 4 para 9); it would be obvious to add a plurality of doors, windows, cabinets, electrical components, plumbing components, HVAC components, insulation (‘260 fig. 3, 10, page 6 para 9), finish work, countertops, bathroom fixtures, and kitchen fixtures since these are well known building components to provide a complete habitable building, wherein: the home assembly is configured to be manufactured in separate pieces (fig. 2); and the home assembly is configured to be assembled together to form a complete home (fig. 2) and the mass plywood of the wall panel comprises a solid laminate (page 4 para 6 of submitted translation).
‘260 does not disclose that the entire home assembly is shipped in two or less single standard shipping containers or that the solid laminate has an R-value of about 21.
Wilson discloses a home assembly and the obviousness of shipping the entire home assembly in one shipping container [0067].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the entire home assembly of ‘260 shippable in one shipping container as made obvious by Wilson to increase the ease of transportation and portability of the assembly.
It would have been obvious to choose a laminate with an R-value of about 21 since this merely involves optimizing already disclosed elements to get predictable and expected results like increased insulation of the assembly.
Claim(s) 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘260 (RU2656260) in view of Wilson (US2015/0033639) as set forth in the rejection of claim 12, and further in view of Hopkins, Jr. (US Patent No. 4,513,545).
For claim 13, the combination does not explicitly disclose an electrical access through-hole defined by one of the plurality of wall panels; and a plumbing through-hole defined by one of the plurality of wall panels, wherein the electrical components and the plumbing components are assembled on an exterior surface of the wall panel.
Hopkins, Jr. discloses a home assembly (fig. 15) comprising wall and floor panels, and the obviousness of adding an electrical access and plumbing through-hole (fig. 35, holes through which 250 goes through) to the wall panels so that electrical and plumbing pipes can be passed through, wherein electrical components and the plumbing components are assembled on an exterior surface of the wall panels (fig. 16, 178, 63).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to add an electrical access and plumbing through-hole to the wall panels wherein electrical components and plumbing components are assembled on an exterior surface of the wall panels of Wilson as made obvious by Hopkins, Jr. to provide a means for electrical and plumbing pipes to pass through.
For claim 14, the combination discloses that insulation is attached to the panels and it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill to attach it to the exterior surface of the wall panels to insulate the exterior of the panels (Hopkins, Jr. col. 3 lines 44-46).
For claim 15, the combination discloses the obviousness of attaching drywall over the insulation (Hopkins, Jr. col. 1 lines 44-47, drywall is a well-known outer layer for wall panels to increase the insulation of the wall panel).
For claim 16, the combination discloses that the entire home assembly can be shipped in a standard shipping container (Wilson [0067]).
For claim 17, it would be obvious to make the panel 4 inches thick since this merely involves changing the size of an already disclosed element to get predictable and expected results like increase in strength.
For claim 18, the combination discloses fasteners for joining the home assembly to form a complete home (Wilson fig. 3, 306).
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Wilson (US2015/0033639) in view of ‘182 (CH716182).
For claim 19, Wilson discloses a method of shipping a complete home assembly [0067], comprising: providing a complete home assembly having separate components; positioning all of the separate components in no more than two standard shipping containers; and transporting the separate components in the no more than two standard shipping containers to a place of assembly [0067].
Wilson discloses that the components comprise plywood, but does not disclose that the plywood is a single piece mass ply panel (MPP) and assembling the complete home assembly by fastening the single piece MPPs to one another, wherein at least one of the single piece MPPs is configured to define an internal surface and an external surface of the complete home assembly.
‘182 discloses a shippable module (fig. 1) with single piece MPPs fastened to one another, wherein at least one of the single piece MPPs is configured to define an internal surface and an external surface of the complete home assembly (fig. 1, 102a).
For claim 20, the combination discloses that the no more than two standard shipping containers comprises a single standard shipping container (Wilson [0067]); and the complete home assembly is assembled on a foundation (fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
In response to the argument that the prior art does not disclose a mass plywood including a solid laminate having a shear strength of approximately 2925 lbf/ft, the examiner argues that this is not a patentable difference since the prior art discloses the use of plywood panels and one of ordinary skill in the art can optimize the plywood panels to have any desired shear strength to increase the strength of the home assembly.
The rest of the arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 JOSHUA K IHEZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5347. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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 Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/JOSHUA K IHEZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633