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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-12 and 22-31 are pending. Claims 23-31 are subject to examination in this Office action. Claims 1-4, 6, 9-12 and 22 are withdrawn (non-elected). Claims 5, 7, 8 and 13-21 have been canceled.
Drawings
Replacement drawings were received on 10/21/2025. These drawings appear to be acceptable.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 23-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Wolff (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0376303), in view of Segall (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0109495).
Regarding independent claim 23, Wolff describes an enclosed structure (Figs. 2A and 2B) comprising:
a floor assembly comprising a plurality of support frames (120, 125), wherein each support frame of the plurality of support frames comprises an exterior box frame (defined by bottom side rails 120 and bottom end rails 125) and a plurality of elongated supports (i.e., cross members 145) positioned within the box frame;
a floor (175) placeable upon the plurality of support frames;
a plurality of side panels (165, 170) disposed on and coupled to the floor assembly (i.e., at least indirectly coupled or secured thereto, Figs. 2A and 2B).
Wolff does not appear to expressly describe wherein each side panel of the plurality of side panels is configured to connect the floor assembly to a roof assembly, and wherein at least a first side panel and a second side panel of the plurality of side panels form a straight wall along a single edge of the floor assembly, and wherein the first side panel and the second side panel are coupled along the single edge of the floor assembly. As evidenced by Segall, it was old and well-known in the art to utilize first and second side panels oriented and positioned as claimed (see e.g., Figs. 1-4 and 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide each side panel of the plurality of side panels configured to connect the floor assembly to a roof assembly, and wherein at least a first side panel and a second side panel of the plurality of side panels form a straight wall along a single edge of the floor assembly, and wherein the first side panel and the second side panel are coupled along the single edge of the floor assembly with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have bolstered the structural integrity of the building structure. Such combination of known prior art elements that merely yields predictable results would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16.
Accordingly, Wolff as modified by Segall results in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24, wherein the support frames are formed from metal, and wherein the plurality of elongated supports are coupled to the exterior box frame (see e.g., Wolff ¶¶ [0043] – [0045]).
Regarding claim 25, wherein a first support frame of the plurality of support frames is coupled to a second support frame of the plurality of support frames frame (see e.g., Wolff ¶¶ [0043] – [0045]).
Regarding claim 26, wherein the first support frame is coupled to the second support frame with a releasable fastener (see e.g., Wolff ¶¶ [0047], [0048]).
Regarding claim 27, wherein the support frame comprises a plurality of connection points (Wolff 135) at the corners of the box frame.
Regarding claim 28, wherein the support frame is disposed on a stabilizing pad (Wolff ¶ [0049]).
Regarding claim 29, wherein the floor assembly is mechanically coupled to the stabilizing pad (Wolff ¶ [0049]).
Regarding claim 30, wherein the support frames are formed from steel (see e.g., Wolff ¶¶ [0043] – [0045]).
Regarding claim 31, Segall describes wherein each side panel (200) of the plurality of side panels comprises a frame (Fig. 12); an interior covering (204) disposed on the frame; an exterior covering (202) disposed on the frame; and an insulation (i.e., foam) disposed between the interior covering and the exterior covering (¶ [0092]).
Claims 23-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Novikov (U.S. Patent No. 10,731,329), in view of Segall (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0109495).
Regarding independent claim 23, Novikov describes an enclosed structure comprising:
a floor assembly (330) comprising a plurality of support frames (see e.g., Fig. 10), wherein each support frame of the plurality of support frames comprises an exterior box frame (defined by perimeter floor beams 652, 658, 659, 664, 666, 684, 685, 687, 688, 690) and a plurality of elongated supports (i.e., interior floor beams 650, 654, 660, 662, 667, 669, 680, 681, 683) positioned within the box frame;
a floor (255) placeable upon the plurality of support frames;
a plurality of side panels (202, 204) disposed on and coupled to the floor assembly (i.e., at least indirectly coupled or secured thereto).
Novikov does not appear to expressly describe wherein each side panel of the plurality of side panels is configured to connect the floor assembly to a roof assembly, and wherein at least a first side panel and a second side panel of the plurality of side panels form a straight wall along a single edge of the floor assembly, and wherein the first side panel and the second side panel are coupled along the single edge of the floor assembly. As evidenced by Segall, it was old and well-known in the art to utilize first and second side panels oriented and positioned as claimed (see e.g., Figs. 1-4 and 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide each side panel of the plurality of side panels configured to connect the floor assembly to a roof assembly, and wherein at least a first side panel and a second side panel of the plurality of side panels form a straight wall along a single edge of the floor assembly, and wherein the first side panel and the second side panel are coupled along the single edge of the floor assembly with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have bolstered the structural integrity of the building structure. Such combination of known prior art elements that merely yields predictable results would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16.
Accordingly, Novikov as modified by Segall results in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24, wherein the support frames are formed from metal, and wherein the plurality of elongated supports are coupled to the exterior box frame (Novikov col. 15, ll. 43-51).
Regarding claim 25, wherein a first support frame of the plurality of support frames is coupled to a second support frame of the plurality of support frames frame (see e.g., Novikov Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 26, wherein the first support frame is coupled to the second support frame with a releasable fastener (see e.g., Novikov col. 25, ll. 10-26).
Regarding claim 27, wherein the support frame comprises a plurality of connection points at the corners of the box frame (i.e., Novikov floor nodes 656, 668, 670, 686, and 689).
Regarding claim 28, wherein the support frame is disposed on a stabilizing pad (see e.g., Novikov col. 20, ll. 47-53).
Regarding claim 29, wherein the floor assembly is mechanically coupled to the stabilizing pad (see e.g., Novikov col. 20, ll. 47-53).
Regarding claim 30, wherein the support frames are formed from steel (Novikov col. 15, ll. 43-51).
Regarding claim 31, Segall describes wherein each side panel (200) of the plurality of side panels comprises a frame (Fig. 12); an interior covering (204) disposed on the frame; an exterior covering (202) disposed on the frame; and an insulation (i.e., foam) disposed between the interior covering and the exterior covering (¶ [0092]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/21/2025 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Refer to the attached Form PTO-892.
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.
Authorization for Email Communication – In the event Applicant wishes to communicate with the Examiner via electronic mail, written authorization should be provided in Applicant’s next response. See MPEP § 502.03. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by Applicant:
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, we hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with any authorized representative concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. We understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY MINTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7327. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 0730 - 1630 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.
/RODNEY MINTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635