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 1, 3-16, and 21, as amended 18 DEC. 2025, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Claim Objections
Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 21 ln. 10-11: these lines do not require underlining as the entire claim is new (37 C.F.R. 1.121 (c)(3)); this language is not a change to prior versions
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.
Claims 1, 3-16, and 21 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. 1 ln. 5-6: after “each connector column; wherein” the phrase “the wall bracket” is vague, indefinite and confusing as being unclear as to which of the “plurality of wall brackets” this phrase is referring. For examination purposes, this will be treated as “[[the]] --each-- wall bracket” and the claim should be amended as such.
Cl. 1 ln. 6-8: after “includes an L-shaped member; wherein” the phrase “the connector column” is vague, indefinite and confusing as being unclear as to which of the “plurality of connector columns” this phrase is referring. For examination purposes, this will be treated as “[[the]] --each-- connector column” and the claim should be amended as such.
Similarly, in line 8, after “members of the wall brackets fit within” the phrase “the U-shaped member” will be treated as “[[the]] --each-- U-shaped member” and the claim should be amended as such.
Cl. 12 ln. 11-12; Cl. 21 ln. 11: as per Claim 12, after “overlaps a vertical edge of” the phrase “the panel member” is vague, indefinite and confusing as to which or the “plurality of panel members” as previously introduced are being recalled. It is suggested to replace “the” with --at least one-- and the claims have been interpreted as such.
Similarly, as per Claim 21, after “the vertical edge of” the phrase “the panel member” is vague, indefinite and confusing as to which or the “plurality of panel members” are being recalled. It is suggested to insert the phrase --at least one-- before “panel member”.
Claims 3-11 and 13-16 not particularly referenced in this section are rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 3, 12, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eckel US 4038796 A.
As per claim 1 Eckel teaches a portable modular shelter, comprising:
a plurality of wall panels (panels 10, FIG. 2);
a plurality of wall brackets (tongues 24, FIG. 2) operatively attached to each of the wall panels (panels 10, FIG. 2); and
a plurality of connector columns (channel members 28, FIG. 2) configured to join two of the wall brackets (tongues 24, FIG. 2) together, such that two of the wall panels (panels 10, FIG. 2) are operatively joined by each connector column (channel members 28. FIG. 2);
wherein [[the]] --each-- wall bracket (tongue 24, FIG. 2) includes an L-shaped member (see shape of tongues 24, FIG. 2);
wherein [[the]] --each-- connector column (channel member 28, FIG. 2) is a U-shaped member (see shape of channel member 28, FIG. 2), such that two of the L-shaped members (tongues 24, FIG. 2) of the wall brackets (tongues 24, FIG. 2) fit within the U-shaped (see tongues 24, 24 “fit within” the U-shape of element 28) member of each connector column (see FIG. 2);
wherein the two of the L-shaped members (tongues 24, 24 FIG. 2) fitted within the U-shaped member substantially fill the U-shaped member (see FIG. 3; note also “FIG. 2… partially exploded… FIG. 3… assembled for use” 2:32-35; these figures are recognized to show the two members 24, 24 combine to substantially fill —at least somewhat— the area broadly defined by the U-shaped channel member 28).
As per claim 3 Eckel teaches the limitations according to claim 1, further comprising:
a bottom track (floor channel member 44, FIG. 1) configured to hold the wall panels (panels 10, FIG. 2), wall brackets (tongues 24, FIG. 2), and connector columns (channel members 28. FIG. 2); and
a plurality of bottom connector elements (inner facing surfaces of channel 44, FIG. 4) configured to attach the bottom track (floor channel member 44, FIG. 1) to one or more of the connector columns (channel members 28. FIG. 2).
As per claim 12 Eckel teaches a wall assembly comprising:
a plurality of panel members (panel members 10, FIG. 2);
a plurality of wall brackets (tongues 24, FIG. 2) operatively attached to the panel members (panels 10, FIG. 2); and
a plurality of connector columns (channel members 28, FIG. 2) configured to join two of the wall brackets (tongues 24, FIG. 2) together, such that
two of the panel members (panels 10, 10 FIG. 2) are operatively joined by each connector column;
wherein: each of the wall brackets (tongues 24, FIG. 2) include an L-shaped member (see shape of tongues 24, FIG. 2) and a U-shaped receiver; and
each of the panel members (panels 10, FIG. 2) is connected to two of the U-shaped receivers (channel members 28. FIG. 2) of the wall brackets (tongues 24, FIG. 2) such that each of the U-shaped receivers (channel members 28. FIG. 2)
substantially overlaps a vertical edge of [[the]] --at least one-- panel member (see “substantially overlapped” —as broadly claimed— side edges of members 10).
As per claim 13 Eckel teaches the limitations according to claim 12, wherein:
each of the connector columns (channel members 28, FIG. 2) is a U-shaped member, such that two of the L- shaped members of the wall brackets (tongues 24, FIG. 2) fit within the U-shaped member (see shape of channel members 28. FIG. 2) of each connector column (channel members 28. FIG. 2).
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 4-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckel in view of BONIFACE US 2931129 A (Boniface).
As per claim 4 Eckel teaches the limitations according to claim 3, wherein the bottom connector elements (inner facing surfaces of channel 44, FIG. 4) are suitable fasteners (see “suitable fasteners” 5:66) but fails to explicitly disclose:
the fasteners are retractable spring pins.
Boniface teaches such an obvious connecting element, specifically:
the fasteners are retractable spring pins (“spring-loaded bullet type plungers” 3:60; also plunger part 11, spring 12 FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Eckel by including the spring-loaded bullet type plungers as taught by Boniface in order to firmly hold the members in a removable fashion to supplement the inner facing surfaces, enhancing the ability of the assembly to be disassembled and relocated at will, in a modular fashion.
As per claim 5 Eckel in view of Boniface teaches the limitations according to claim 4, and Eckel further discloses: a top track (cap 52, FIG. 4) configured to hold the wall panels (panels 10, FIG. 2), wall brackets (tongues 24, FIG. 2), and connector columns (channel members 28. FIG. 2); and
a plurality of top connector elements (inner facing surfaces of cap 52, FIG. 4) configured to attach the top track (cap 52, FIG. 4) to one or more of the connector columns (channel members 28. FIG. 2).
As per claim 6 Eckel in view of Boniface teaches the limitations according to claim 5, and Boniface further discloses the top connector elements are retractable spring pins (“spring-loaded bullet type plungers” 3:60; also plunger part 11, spring 12 FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Eckel in view of Boniface by substituting the spring-loaded bullet type plungers as taught by Boniface in order to firmly hold the members in a repeatable fashion by utilizing the ability of the plungers to precisely snap the elements together in the desired orientation.
As per claim 7 Eckel in view of Boniface teaches the limitations according to claim 6, and Eckel further discloses:
a corner column (see “transversely to one another, so as to provide, for example, a corner formed by two intersecting walls, a connecting means in the form of an L-shaped or angle iron connector 40… connector 40 extends preferably for the full height” 3:50) configured to join two of the wall brackets (tongues 24, FIG. 2) together at an angle greater than sixty degrees, such that two of the wall panels (panels 10, FIG. 2) are operatively joined at an angle greater than sixty degrees (see “Thus, for example, where a corner of 110.degree. is desired” 3:63).
Claim 8-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckel in view of Boniface as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Vita, JR. US 20200165811 A1 (Vita).
As per claim 8 Eckel in view of Boniface teaches the limitations according to claim 7 and Eckel further discloses one of the wall panels (panels 10, FIG. 2) includes a selectively openable door (“a door frame and door can easily be substituted for one of the panels” 5:58), but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein one of the wall panels includes a window element.
Vita teaches a simple window element (FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Eckel in view of Boniface by including the window as taught by Vita in order to form a more hospitable structure.
As per claim 9 Eckel in view of Boniface and Vita teaches the limitations according to claim 8, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
a plurality of roof panels operatively attached to the wall panels; and
a plurality of roof columns configured to join two or more of the roof panels.
In a further development, Boniface teaches a roof supported by “roof columns”, specifically:
a plurality of roof panels (four beams 8 —two diagonal and two extending from lower left to upper right of FIG. 1— forming a square are recognized as a roof panel) operatively attached to the wall panels (two beams 8 and two upright frame members 5 are recognized as forming a wall panel, FIG. 1); and
a plurality of roof columns (two cross frame members 6 below gable bracket members 25, the cross frame members extending from lower right to upper left in FIG. 1) configured to join two or more of the roof panels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Eckel in view of Boniface and Vita by including the gabled roof assembly as taught by Boniface in order to add a drainage plane at the top of the assembly.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckel in view of Boniface and Vita as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of WATSON JR US 3397500 A (Watson).
As per claim 10 Eckel in view of Boniface and Vita teaches the limitations according to claim 9, and Boniface further discloses roof columns (diagonal members 8. FIG. 1) but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
a gutter element configured to collect and drain liquid away an exterior roof surface defined by the roof panels.
Watson teaches gutters in a structure made with panels and columns, specifically:
a gutter element (see “as shown in FIGURE 10, when structural shape 30 is used as a mullion it may be sealed to render it watertight and gutter 70 may be mounted directly atop the wall structure so that openings from the gutter will lead water into mullions as desired” 5:14-24) configured to collect and drain liquid away an exterior roof surface defined by the roof panels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Eckel in view of Boniface and Vita by including the waterproofing and gutter as taught by Watson in order to direct and collect water away from the structure in order to preserve the assembly as is old and well known in the art.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckel in view of Boniface, Vita and Watson as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of LA BARGE US 3363383 A (La Barge)
As per claim 11 Eckel in view of Boniface, Vita and Watson teaches the limitations according to claim 10, and Eckel further discloses wherein the wall panels (panels 10, FIG. 2) further include:
a first sheet defining an exterior surface and an interior surface (see FIG. 1; plate 12A and plate 12B define a proximate interior and distal exterior area and surface);
a second sheet defining an exterior surface and an interior surface (see FIG. 1; plate 12A and plate 12B define a proximate interior and distal exterior area and surface), wherein the first sheet and the second sheet are made of a polymer material (see “plates 12A and 12B… may be made of plastic” 5:64); and
a core layer (“sound absorbing material 22 such as glass fibers or a plastic foam” 2:63), wherein the core layer (“sound absorbing material 22 such as glass fibers or a plastic foam” 2:63) is made of an insulating material (“foam” is considered insulating), but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the interior surfaces of the first sheet and the second sheet are adhered to the core layer to form a laminate structure.
La Barge teaches the step of adhering, specifically:
wherein the interior surfaces of the first sheet and the second sheet are adhered to the core layer to form a laminate structure ( “insulating material, coextensively adhered to the inner surfaces of the angularly bent sheet” 7:38-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Eckel in view of Boniface, Vita and Watson by including the step of adhering as taught by La Barge in order to form a more secure panel.
Claim 14-15 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckel in view of La Barge.
As per claim 14 Eckel teaches the limitations according to claim 13, wherein the panel members are laminated panels (see plates 12A, 12B FIG. 2; these are recognized as teaching fungible interior or exterior surfaces; these panels are recognized as a member covered with thin plate laminae), and the laminated panels (see plates 12A, 12B FIG. 2; these are recognized as teaching fungible interior or exterior surfaces) further include:
a plurality of first sheets defining an exterior surface and an interior surface (see FIG. 1; plate 12A and plate 12B define a proximate interior and distal exterior area and surface);
a plurality of second sheets defining an exterior surface and an interior surface (see FIG. 1; plate 12A and plate 12B define a proximate interior and distal exterior area and surface); and
a plurality of core layers (“sound absorbing material 22 such as glass fibers or a plastic foam” 2:63), but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the interior surfaces of the first sheets and the second sheets are adhered to the core layers to form the laminated panels.
La Barge teaches the step of adhering, specifically:
wherein the interior surfaces of the first sheets and the second sheets are adhered to the core layers to form the laminated panels ( “insulating material, coextensively adhered to the inner surfaces of the angularly bent sheet” 7:38-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Eckel in view of Boniface, Vita and Watson by including the step of adhering as taught by La Barge in order to form a more secure panel.
As per claim 15 Eckel in view of La Barge teaches the limitations according to claim 14, and Eckel further discloses the core layers (“sound absorbing material 22 such as glass fibers or a plastic foam” 2:63) are made of an insulating material (“foam” is considered insulating); and the first sheets and second sheets are made of a polymer material (see “plates 12A and 12B… may be made of plastic” 5:64).
As per claim 21 Eckel teaches the limitations according to claim 13, wherein the panel members are laminated panels (see plates 12A, 12B FIG. 2; these are recognized as teaching fungible interior or exterior surfaces; these panels are recognized as a member covered with thin plate laminae), and
the laminated panels (see plates 12A, 12B FIG. 2; these are recognized as teaching fungible interior or exterior surfaces; these panels are recognized as a member covered with thin plate laminae) further include:
a plurality of first sheets (see “plates 12A and 12B… may be made of plastic” 5:64) defining an exterior surface and an interior surface (see FIG. 1; plate 12A and plate 12B define a proximate interior and distal exterior area and surface);
a plurality of second sheets (see “plates 12A and 12B… may be made of plastic” 5:64) defining an exterior surface and an interior surface (see FIG. 1; plate 12A and plate 12B define a proximate interior and distal exterior area and surface); and
a plurality of core layers (“sound absorbing material 22 such as glass fibers or a plastic foam” 2:63),
wherein each of the U-shaped receivers (channel members 28, FIG. 2) overlaps the first sheet (see “plates 12A and 12B… may be made of plastic” 5:64), the second sheet (see “plates 12A and 12B… may be made of plastic” 5:64), and the vertical edge of the --at least one-- panel member (channel members 28, FIG. 2-3; this member is recognized to extend past —or “overlap” as broadly claimed— plates 12A, 12B).
Eckel fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the interior surfaces of the first sheets and the second sheets are adhered to the core layers to form the laminated panels;
wherein the vertical edge is defined by the core layer.
La Barge teaches the step of adhering, specifically:
wherein the interior surfaces of the first sheets and the second sheets are adhered to the core layers to form the laminated panels ( “insulating material, coextensively adhered to the inner surfaces of the angularly bent sheet” 7:38-48);
wherein the vertical edge is defined by the core layer (see for example FIG. 2; the cores 22, 22 shown on left and right are recognized to extend to the limit of —or “define”— the edge of layers 12a, 12a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Eckel in view of Boniface, Vita and Watson by including the step of adhering as taught by La Barge in order to form a more secure panel.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckel in view of La Barge as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Vita.
As per claim 16 Eckel in view of La Barge teaches the limitations according to claim 15, and Eckel further discloses the insulating material of the core layers (“sound absorbing material 22 such as glass fibers or a plastic foam” 2:63) is a foam material (“foam” 2:63); but fails to explicitly disclose:
the polymer material of the first sheets and second sheets includes at least one of a fiberglass reinforced polymer, a polyethylene based polymer, a high density polyethylene elastomer (HDPE), a polyamide, or a nylon based polymer material.
Vita teaches an insulative core covered with thin polymer plates, specifically:
the polymer material of the first sheets and second sheets includes at least one of a fiberglass reinforced polymer (see “laminated wall panels 302… any sheet material… exterior and interior skins… high pressure laminates… fiberglass composites” [0038]; “fiberglass composites” are recognized as a type of “fiberglass reinforced polymer” as broadly claimed), a polyethylene based polymer, a high density polyethylene elastomer (HDPE), a polyamide, or a nylon based polymer material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Eckel in view of La Barge by including the fiberglass composites as taught by Vita in order to form an insulating structural panel from a lightweight, cost-effective, and insulative panel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 DEC. 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the argument (p. 8):
Therefore, Eckel fails to disclose as recited by amended claim 1, "wherein the two of the L-shaped members fitted within the U-shaped member substantially fill the U-shaped member".
the Examiner submits the “L-shaped” tongue (24, FIG. 2) includes —or “is”— an L-shaped member (see shape of tongues 24, FIG. 2) as broadly claimed. The presently constructed claims do not require an additional element.
In Claim 1, the phrase “a plurality of wall brackets operatively attached to each of the wall panels” is reasonably broadly met by the teaching of Eckel wherein the panels (10) are “operatively attached” to tongues (24).
Applicant’s use of “includes”, in the phrase “the wall bracket includes an L-shaped member” is recognized as requiring the wall bracket comprises an L-shaped member. This is being treated as synonymous with "comprising," "containing," or "characterized by".
See MPEP 2111.03 “Transitional Phrases”, which reads in relevant part:
The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[L]ike the term ‘comprising,’ the terms ‘containing’ and ‘mixture’ are open-ended.")... Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("Comprising" is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.)... Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) ("comprising" leaves "the claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts").
As per Applicant’s supposition that Eckel fails to teach “substantially fill” the Examiner submits the plain reading of this claim requires the cited “tongues” to take up a portion of the channel member, which tongues of Eckel extend a substantial depth allowed by the channel. The claims do not provide a structural requirement for “substantially fill” beyond that which is provided by Eckel, nor do the claims require a dimensionality —such as viewing plane— to meet the requirement of “fill”, either “fully” or “substantially”. The Examiner notes the Specification only includes one definition to understand the meaning of “fill”, namely “two L-shapes of the wall brackets 24 substantially fill the U-shape of the connector column 22” [0024].
As per the argument (p.9)(italics in original):
The Office has failed to identify a "U-shaped receiver" in Eckel, and as such, Eckel fails to disclose as recited by amended claim 13, "wherein: each of the wall brackets include an L-shaped member and a U-shaped receiver; and each of the panel members is connected to two of the U-shaped receivers of the wall brackets such that each of the U-shaped receivers substantially overlaps a vertical edge of the panel member." (emphasis added).
the Examiner submits the L-shaped members found in Eckel have a U-shaped receiver. The claim language of “wall bracket includes an L-shaped member” is recognized as requiring the tongues to be “L-shaped”.
Further, the claim language of “connector column is a U-shaped member” is clearly met by the members (28) in Eckel.
As per Applicant’s supposition that “Eckel fails to disclose…substantially overlaps a vertical edge” the Examiner submits the Specification provides, varyingly “U-shaped receiver 25 .. overlaps the vertical edges or sides of the wall panel 20, as shown in FIGS. 4 and 6” [0024] and “U-shaped receiver 25 that substantially overlaps the vertical edges” [0039]. These definitions do not provide clarity as to how the “vertical edge” is defined beyond a broad requirement of the side of the panels, which is met by Eckel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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