DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
This communication is a Non-Final rejection Office Action on the merits. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are now pending and have been considered below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In particular, the limitations “wherein the adjacent horizontal diaphragm comprises at least one drag anchor welded therein and configured to transmit force through internal members of an adjacent load bearing wall and toward the peripheral angle” and “wherein the corner linking brace panel comprises at least two lengths of hollow structural steel welded to a transverse angle of steel” would overcome the prior art rejection since no prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches this configuration and such a modification to include a positively claimed corner linking brace, wherein the corner linking brace panel comprises at least two lengths of hollow structural steel welded to a transverse angle of steel, would involve modifying a modifier reference and would involve hindsight reconstruction, respectively. Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and is therefore objected to as well.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 12, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers (U.S. Patent No. 5,551,135) in view of Daudet et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,691,478).
Regarding claim 1, Powers teaches a pre-manufactured floor-ceiling corridor panel (fabricated building with sidewalls and purlins; abstract) capable of use for a multi-story building having load bearing walls, the floor-ceiling corridor panel comprising: a plurality of parallel metal joists (72); an end member (87) affixed to an end of the plurality of parallel metal joists (figure 16); and a peripheral angle (75) at least partially surrounding the floor-ceiling corridor panel (figure 16) and having a horizontal section (80) and a vertical section (79), wherein the vertical section of the peripheral angle is affixed to the end member (figure 16), wherein the horizontal section of the peripheral angle is configured to be placed on top of a corridor support member (at 90) of a utility wall of the building (the examiner notes that the corridor support member is not being positively claimed) so as to hang the floor-ceiling corridor panel from the utility wall (figure 16), wherein the corridor support member is positioned horizontally along a longitudinal axis of the utility wall (it is understood that a corridor support member is capable of being positioned horizontally along a longitudinal axis of the utility wall), and wherein the horizontal section of the peripheral angle is formed with first holes (holes through which 94 extend) for alignment with second holes formed in the corridor support member (holes in 90 through which 94 extend; although one hole is shown, it is understood that there are multiple vertical posts added for additional support; col. 5, lines 40-45), and wherein the first and second holes are configured to pass a fastener (94) therethrough (figure 16).
Powers does not specifically disclose the first and second holes are vertical.
Daudet et al. discloses a joist support assembly (abstract) whereby the first and second holes are vertical (figure 1; holes through which the fasteners extend through members 26 and 14).
Therefore, from the teaching of Daudet et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the building structure of Powers such that the first and second holes are vertical, as taught by Daudet et al., in order to provide additional securement of the angle member for a more secure wall assembly, by improving stability and preventing unintended disorientation of the panel in multiple directions.
Regarding claim 11, Powers does not specifically disclose wherein the peripheral angle is formed of at least ¼ inch thick steel. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the peripheral angle formed of at least ¼ inch thick steel, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a mere change in size involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the peripheral angle formed of at least ¼ inch thick steel, in order to provide the optimal thickness property for the angle member to provide sufficient support with respect the adjacent connected element, for a stronger structural connection.
With regards to the limitation that the product is formed by being hot rolled, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Powers as modified teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 12, Powers teaches wherein the peripheral angle is configured to mate and fixedly attach to a corner linking brace panel at distal ends of the pre-manufactured floor-ceiling corridor panel (it is understood that the peripheral angle is capable of being configured to mate and fixedly attach to a corner linking brace panel at distal ends of the pre-manufactured floor-ceiling corridor panel). The examiner notes that the "corner linking brace panel" is not being positively claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Powers teaches a multi-story building (figure 1), comprising: one or more levels (figure 1) formed from prefabricated interior panels (22-left), prefabricated exterior panels (22-right), and prefabricated floor-ceiling panels (panels 26 with joist assembly in figure 16), the one or more levels being substantially parallel to a ground plane (figure 1) defined by a foundation (bottom surface); and a floor-ceiling corridor panel (at 26; figure 1 and figure 16) arranged adjacent to at least one of the prefabricated exterior panels (figure 16), the floor-ceiling corridor panel comprising: a plurality of parallel metal joists (72); an end member (87) affixed to an end of the plurality of parallel metal joists (figure 16); and a peripheral angle (75) at least partially surrounding the floor-ceiling corridor panel (figure 16) and having a horizontal section (80) and a vertical section (79), wherein the vertical section of the peripheral angle is affixed to the end member (figure 16), wherein the horizontal section of the peripheral angle is placed on top of a corridor support member (at 90) of a utility wall of the building (the examiner notes that the corridor support member is not being positively claimed) so as to hang the floor-ceiling corridor panel from the utility wall (figure 16), wherein the corridor support member is positioned horizontally along a longitudinal axis of the utility wall (it is understood that a corridor support member is capable of being positioned horizontally along a longitudinal axis of the utility wall), and wherein the horizontal section of the peripheral angle is formed with first holes (holes through which 94 extend) for alignment with second holes formed in the corridor support member (holes in 90 through which 94 extend; although one hole is shown, it is understood that there are multiple vertical posts added for additional support; col. 5, lines 40-45), and wherein the first and second holes are configured to pass a fastener (94) therethrough (figure 16).
Powers does not specifically disclose the first and second holes are vertical.
Daudet et al. discloses a joist support assembly (abstract) whereby the first and second holes are vertical (figure 1; holes through which the fasteners extend through members 26 and 14).
Therefore, from the teaching of Daudet et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the building structure of Powers such that the first and second holes are vertical, as taught by Daudet et al., in order to provide additional securement of the angle member for a more secure wall assembly, by improving stability and preventing unintended disorientation of the panel in multiple directions.
Claim(s) 2-9 and 16-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers (U.S. Patent No. 5,551,135), in view of Daudet et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,691,478), and in view of Collins et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0032332).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Powers does not specifically disclose a plurality of ceiling layers affixed to transverse edges of the plurality of metal joists.
Collins et al. discloses floor and ceiling panels (abstract) including a plurality of ceiling layers (at 240) affixed to transverse edges of the plurality of metal joists (figure 4).
Therefore, from the teaching of Collins et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the building structure of Powers to include a plurality of ceiling layers affixed to transverse edges of the plurality of metal joists, as taught by Collins et al., in order to insulative layers to the floor and ceiling assembly for better sound absorption acoustics and overall energy efficiency for the building.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Collins et al. in the combination discloses the plurality of ceiling layers comprises at least two layers of board material (242) and at least one layer of sheet metal (paragraph 100), and wherein one layer of the at least two layers of board material form a corridor ceiling (figure 4; paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 4, Collins et al. in the combination discloses a plurality of floor layers (at 230) affixed to transverse edges of the plurality of parallel metal joists (figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Collins et al. in the combination discloses the plurality of floor layers comprises at least two layers of board material (232-1, 232-2), at least one layer of foam (232-3), and at least one layer of sheet metal (paragraph 100).
Regarding claim 6, Collins et al. in the combination discloses one layer of the at least two layers of board material form a corridor floor (while Collins et al. does not specifically a corridor, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Therefore, since the one layer of the at least two layers of board material is capable of functioning as a corridor floor, the limitation is met.
Regarding claim 7, Collins et al. in the combination discloses the at least one layer of foam is formed of high-density foam material (high density polystyrene foam; paragraph 62).
Although Collins et al. does not specifically disclose the at least one layer of foam is at least two-inches thick, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the at least one layer of foam at least two-inches thick, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a mere change in size involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the at least one layer of foam at least two-inches thick, in order to provide the a better thermal insulative property for the optimal efficiency of the structure.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Powers teaches wherein the end member and peripheral angle define an interior of the floor-ceiling corridor panel (figure 1), but does not specifically disclose wherein sheet metal further defining the interior of the floor-ceiling corridor panel is configured to receive, disperse, and absorb drag forces transmitted in a direction of the plurality of parallel metal joists and received from an adjacent horizontal diaphragm.
Collins et al. discloses floor and ceiling panels (abstract) wherein sheet metal (paragraph 100) further defining the interior of the floor-ceiling corridor panel (figure 6) is configured to receive, disperse, and absorb drag forces transmitted in a direction of the plurality of parallel metal studs and received from an adjacent horizontal diaphragm (it is understood that the sheet metal is capable of being configured to receive, disperse, and absorb drag forces transmitted in a direction of the plurality of parallel metal studs and received from an adjacent horizontal diaphragm).
Therefore, from the teaching of Collins et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the building structure of Powers to include sheet metal further defining the interior of the floor-ceiling corridor panel is configured to receive, disperse, and absorb drag forces transmitted in a direction of the plurality of parallel metal joists and received from an adjacent horizontal diaphragm, as taught by Collins et al., in order to further provide an energy dissipating means to make the structure less vulnerable to forces of nature to reduce the potential impact of structural damage.
Regarding claim 9, Collins et al. in the combination discloses the adjacent horizontal diaphragm is formed within an interior of a pre-manufactured floor-ceiling panel having a floor surface, a ceiling surface, and a longitudinal edge arranged perpendicular to the end member of the pre-manufactured floor-ceiling corridor panel (figure 10).
Regarding claim 18, Collins et al. in the combination discloses a plurality of floor layers (at 230) affixed to transverse edges of the plurality of parallel metal joists (figure 4), and wherein the plurality of floor layers comprises at least two layers of board material (232-1, 232-2), at least one layer of foam (232-3), and at least one layer of sheet metal (paragraph 100).
Regarding claim 20, Collins et al. in the combination discloses the adjacent horizontal diaphragm is formed within an interior of at least one of the prefabricated floor-ceiling panels (figure 10), and wherein the at least one of the prefabricated floor-ceiling panels has a floor surface, a ceiling surface, and a longitudinal edge arranged perpendicular to the end member of the floor-ceiling corridor panel (figure 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. New reference(s) Daudet et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,691,478) has been added to overcome the newly added limitations. Applicant’s argument regarding the corridor support member "is positioned horizontally along a longitudinal axis of the utility wall" has been carefully considered. Applicant argues that the post 90 of Powers is instead a vertical post. However, the examiner indicated that the corridor support member is not being positively claimed. Thus, since the angle member of Powers is capable of having an arbitrary corridor support member positioned horizontally along a longitudinal axis of the utility wall, the limitation is met.
In addition, the argument that there is no motivation to modify Powers so as to provide vertical holes/fasteners through the inverted channel 82 (of the metal hanger 75) that overlies the upper edge of the metal sidewall 92…has been considered. However, this argument misinterprets the rejection. The vertical holes / fasteners would be not in the sidewall 92, but rather in the members 90, where the bolts 94 are fastened, or in the combination, vertically through members 26 and 14. In addition, the argument that a modification in which the bolt 94 is instead inserted in a vertical orientation (through the horizontal metal plate 78 and into the upper/top end of the vertical post 90) would result in the bolt 94 being inserted into the terminal end of the grain pattern of the wood, which provides less strength/stability of the attachment… was not found persuasive as the argument is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the corridor support member is not being positively claimed, and therefore since Powers is capable of having a horizontal support member, for example such as the horizontal member 14 of Daudet et al., with the vertical fasteners extending therethrough, the claim limitation is met.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights