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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a second Office Action on the Merits. Claims 7 and 10-14, as amended 04 AUG. 2025 are pending and have been considered as follows:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.83 or 1.84 because of the following informalities:
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, therefore the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Cl. 12 ln. 2-3: “at least one portion extending at an acute angle with respect to the plate” has not been explicitly pointed out
Cl. 13 ln. 2-3: “sides that have at least one portion extending at an acute angle with respect to the plate are orthogonal to each other” has/have not been explicitly pointed out
Cl. 14 ln. 2-3: “the side of the angled self-alignment pins that extends at a 90 degree angle to the plate extends substantially the full length of the plate” has not been explicitly pointed out
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 Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 7 ln. 10: after “top end of” replace “the” with --a--
Cl. 7 ln. 13: after “into the inside of a” insert --second--
Cl. 7 ln. 16: after “into the inside of the” insert --second--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 and 10-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Cl. 7 ln. 3: the recitation(s) of “the first prefabricated module is disposed below the deck and the second prefabricated module is disposed above the deck” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear how a module is defined in relation to a deck. The specification discloses “each module comprising a deck oriented in a horizontal plane and a plurality of hollow structural members extending downwardly from around a periphery of the deck” (p. 4 ln. 18-20), making it unclear how the claimed “deck” can have a module disposed thereon. A module having a deck has not been shown or disclosed as placed on a “deck”. Further, FIG. 2A of the specification appears to show an upside down u-shaped module, comprising a deck being positioned on an identical upside down u-shaped module, without an interposed deck, as would be suggested by the claim language of Cl. 1.
Cl. 12 ln. 2-3: the recitation(s) of “at least one portion extending at an acute angle with respect to the plate” is vague, indefinite, and confusing having not been explicitly pointed out. It is unclear which element is being referenced here. For examination purposes, this will be treated broadly.
Cl. 13 ln. 2-3: the recitation(s) of “sides that have at least one portion extending at an acute angle with respect to the plate are orthogonal to each other” is vague, indefinite, and confusing having not been explicitly pointed out. Two sides at an acute angle does not appear to have been explicitly pointed out making it unclear which features are being referenced and therefore the metes and bounds of this claim are difficult to ascertain.
Cl. 14 ln. 2-3: the recitation(s) of “the side of the angled self-alignment pins that extends at a 90 degree angle to the plate extends substantially the full length of the plate” is vague, indefinite, and confusing having not been explicitly pointed out. At least it is not clear where a side extends at the claimed angle for the claimed “full length”. Further, the claimed “side… at a 90 degree angle” has not been explicitly pointed out, rendering this claim confusing.
Claims 10 and 11 though not particularly referenced in this section are nonetheless rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
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 7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prokasky US 5491942 A in view of Bigelow US 6295766 B1.
PNG
media_image1.png
507
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
490
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As per claim 7 Prokasky teaches a building (see FIG. 1; note “FIG. 1 shows an orthographic view of the building construction illustrating a number of forms of the elements and a number of representative relationships between them” 3:24) comprising:
at least one deck (slab element above 24) oriented in a horizontal plane;
first and second prefabricated modules (see at least one —first— n-shaped member immediately “below” and —second— “above” the above identified slab element, FIG. 1; these are recognized as comprising a two vertical and one horizontal member; compare to FIG. 1 in the application as filed which teaches an n-shaped module 100 which comprises a deck and is not shown placed on a deck) wherein the first prefabricated module (“below” FIG. 1) is disposed below the deck (slab element spaced above 24) and the second prefabricated module (“above” FIG. 1) is disposed above the deck (slab element above 24);
a plurality of hollow structural column members (studs 40, FIG. 11; see also “load bearing studs, 40 spaced at determined intervals” 5:27)
wherein the vertical members (see vertical members of the lowermost n-shaped module, FIG. 1) disposed on the first prefabricated module (“below” FIG. 1) comprise:
a plate (flat portion of 41, FIG. 11) disposed at a top end of [[the]] --a-- first vertical member (see right vertical member of the lowermost n-shaped module, FIG. 1); and
angled self-alignment pins (alignment guides E, FIG. 11) disposed on the plate (flat portion of 41, FIG. 11) having a rectangular cross-section (see dotted outline around element “E”; these are recognized as “shaped like a rectangle” as broadly claimed) and an angled side (downwardly tapering element of “E”, right side, FIG. 11) and configured to be inserted into the inside of a --second-- vertical member (see right vertical member of the middle n-shaped module, FIG. 1) attached to the second prefabricated module (“above” FIG. 1) as it is lowered on top of the first prefabricated module (“below” FIG. 1), whereby the engagement of the angled side (downwardly tapering element of “E”, right side, FIG. 11) with an inside wall (see inside walls of element 40, FIG. 11) of the inside of the --second-- vertical member (see right vertical member of the middle n-shaped module, FIG. 1) attached to the second prefabricated module (“above” FIG. 1) provides precise positioning (see “several [bearing] studs 30 engage the alignment guides E of the element below” 8:57) of the second vertical member (see right vertical member of the middle n-shaped module, FIG. 1) with respect to the first vertical member (see right vertical member of the lowermost n-shaped module, FIG. 1).
Prokasky but fails to explicitly disclose:
a plurality of hollow structural column members disposed at each corner of the prefabricated modules and extending downwardly from around the periphery of each prefabricated module,
hollow structural column
Bigelow teaches the hollow structural columns can be placed at four corners below a member defining a horizontal plane, specifically:
a plurality of hollow structural column members (pillars 112, FIG. 9A) disposed at each corner of the prefabricated modules and extending downwardly from around the periphery of each prefabricated module (see four pillars, FIG. 9A),
hollow structural column (see hollow opening 114, FIG. 9B)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Prokasky by substituting the determined intervals of the hollow columns to be disposed at each corner and extending downwardly as taught by Bigelow in order to provide improved stability and load distribution, reducing the risk of structural failure.
As per claim 11 Prokasky in view of Bigelow teaches the limitations according to claim 7 and Prokasky further discloses wherein the angled self-alignment pins (alignment guides E, FIG. 11) extend orthogonally (see extending upwards, FIG. 11; this is recognized as “orthogonally” to a horizontally disposed plate “41”) to the plate (flat portion of 41, FIG. 11) and one side (inside face of E, FIG. 11) that extends at a 90 degree angle to the plate
As per claim 12 Prokasky in view of Bigelow teaches the limitations according to claim 11 and Prokasky further discloses the angled self-alignment pins (alignment guides E, FIG. 11) include first and second self-alignment pins (left and right side of alignment guides E, FIG. 11) wherein the sides that have at least one portion extending at an acute angle with respect to the plate (flat portion of 41, FIG. 11) are orthogonal to each other (see left and right side, orthogonal to each other).
As per claim 13 Prokasky in view of Bigelow teaches the limitations according to claim 11 and Prokasky further discloses the angled self-alignment pins (alignment guides E, FIG. 11) include a first and second self-alignment pins (left and right side of alignment guides E, FIG. 11) wherein the sides that have at least one portion extending at an acute angle with respect to the plate (flat portion of 41, FIG. 11) are parallel to each other (see upwardly extending acute angled sides, FIG. 11; these extend upwards in parallel upwards dimension).
As per claim 14 Prokasky in view of Bigelow teaches the limitations according to claim 11 and Prokasky further discloses the side (inside face of E, FIG. 11) of the angled self-alignment pins (alignment guides E, FIG. 11) that extends at a 90 degree angle to the plate (flat portion of 41, FIG. 11) extends substantially the full length (see left side of E extends substantially the full length of the plate in a direction from the upper left to the lower right) of the plate.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prokasky in view of Bigelow as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Sheu et al. US 6295770 B1 (Sheu).
As per claim 10 Prokasky in view of Bigelow teaches the limitations according to claim 7 but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the plate further comprises at least one opening in the plate configured to allow liquid concrete to pass from one hollow structural member to an adjacent hollow structural member.
Sheu teaches openings which are capable of allowing liquid concrete to pass therethrough, specifically:
wherein the plate further comprises at least one opening (plural flow holes 312, 412, FIG. 3) in the plate configured to allow liquid concrete to pass from one hollow structural member to an adjacent hollow structural member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Prokasky in view of Bigelow by including the flow holes as taught by Sheu in order to allow liquid concrete to pass through the plate as is old and well known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 and 10-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-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 D 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635