DETAILED ACTION
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 1-5, 22-23 are pending.
Claims 6-21 and 24-35 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter type rejection.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “wherein the fabric sheet (2) comprises a material having tensile strength sufficient to retain the compressed filling material (3) in a compressed elongate form” in lines 13-15. However, after a review of the original disclosure (and of the disclosure of the applications to which the pending application claims priority, if such priority is claimed), the Examiner can find no support for this limitation. The claim language requires that the fabric sheet has a sufficient tensile strength to retain the compressed filling material in a compressed elongate form. However, the specification makes no mention of the fabric itself, regardless of tensile strength, retaining the filling material in a compressed form. The specification merely recites that the filling material is compressed, and the fabric should have a tensile strength, but makes no mention that the fabric sheet has a sufficient tensile strength to retain the compressed filling material in a compressed elongate form. Thus, there appears to be no support as originally filed for the limitation. In the event that the Applicant is of the opinion that this language is supported as originally filed, the Examiner requests Applicant to please cite to where the language is supported as originally filed. In addition, although Applicant’s remarks allege there is support for the above, the Examiner can find no support in the cited paragraphs which discloses a material having tensile strength sufficient to retain the compressed filling material (3) in a compressed elongate form,
Claims 2-5 and 22 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 1-5, 22-23 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “the elongate body of compressed filling material” in line 2-3, “an elongated body of compressed filling material” in line 4, “the same fabric sheet” in line 12 and “the longitudinal overlapping edges” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language refers to “an elongated body of compressed filling material,” “the elongate body of compressed filling material,” “the fabric sheet” and “the opposite longitudinal edges” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 1 recites, “the wrap” in line 16 and in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language refers to “the fabric sheet” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 1 recites, “wherein the fabric sheet (2) comprises a material having tensile strength sufficient to retain the compressed filling material (3) in a compressed elongate form” in lines 13-15. However, after a review of the original disclosure (and of the disclosure of the applications to which the pending application claims priority, if such priority is claimed), the Examiner can find no support for this limitation. The claim language requires that the fabric sheet has a sufficient tensile strength to retain the compressed filling material in a compressed elongate form. However, the specification makes no mention of the fabric itself, regardless of tensile strength, retaining the filling material in a compressed form. The specification merely recites that the filling material is compressed, and the fabric should have a tensile strength, but makes no mention that the fabric sheet has a sufficient tensile strength to retain the compressed filling material in a compressed elongate form. Thus, it is unclear how the fabric sheet has a sufficient tensile strength to retain the compressed filling material in a compressed elongate form. For the purposes of this examination, this language will be interpreted as requiring that the filling material be compressed, and the fabric have a particular tensile strength.
Re claim 23, claim 23 recites, “the opposite longitudinal edges” in line 7, “the opposite longitudinal portions” in line 10 and “the overlapping longitudinal portions” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language refers to “overlapping longitudinal edges” and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 2-5 and 22 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinley et al (“Quinley”) (US 2008/0080936) in view of Parks (US 2019/0264407) and Bradley, SR et al (“Bradley”) (US 2013/0048138).
At the outset, citations to the prior art will be made subsequent to Applicant’s own numerical identifications.
Re claim 1, Quinley discloses a building module (1) (Fig. 1-2) comprising:
a fabric sheet (2) (1; [0029]) wrapped around (Fig. 4) and retaining (Fig. 4) the elongate body of filling material (3) (5);
an elongate body of filling material (3) (5); and
a holding means (4) (31-34);
wherein opposite longitudinal edges (edges shown in Fig. 4) of the fabric sheet (2) (1) wraps overlappingly around (Fig. 4) the filling material (3) (5) to form a circumferential enclosure (Fig. 1, Fig. 4) around a transverse cross-section of the filling material (3) (5), wherein opposite longitudinal portions (edges shown in Fig. 4) of the fabric sheet (2) (1) overlap along (see proximate 21 and 24) a length of the elongate body (5) to define a longitudinal overlapping region (Fig. 4) extending along the length (Fig. 4) of the building module (Fig. 1) such that a first part (bottom of 10) of an inner surface (10) of the fabric sheet (1) overlaps onto (Fig. 4) a second part (24) of an outer surface (of 21) of the same fabric sheet (1);
wherein the fabric sheet (2) (1) comprises a material having tensile strength ([0029]) sufficient to retain the filling material (3) (5) in a compressed elongate form (as modified below), the longitudinal overlapping edges (5) (ends of 1 in Fig. 4) of the wrap (Fig. 1) being held in place by the holding means (4) (31-34);
the holding means (4) (31-34) is made up of one or more of:
pins, barbed wires, staples, stakes, spikes, pegs, or stitches affixed to the wrap;
adhesives provided overlapping portions of the fabric sheet (2); and
a further building module placed atop the building module,
but fails to disclose the filling material as compressed, and the holding means (4) is made up of one or more of:
pins, barbed wires, staples, stakes, spikes, pegs, or stitches affixed to the wrap;
adhesives provided overlapping portions of the fabric sheet (2); and
a further building module placed atop the building module,
However, Parks discloses the filling material as compressed ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building module of Quinley with the filling material as compressed as disclosed by Parks in order to allow for transportation of more bags ([0008]).
In addition, Bradley discloses the holding means (is made up of one or more of:
pins, barbed wires, staples, stakes, spikes, pegs, or stitches (Fig. 3; [0057]) affixed to the wrap (21);
adhesives provided overlapping portions of the fabric sheet (2) (as this is an “or” clause); and
a further building module placed atop the building module (as this is an “or” clause).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building module of Quinley with the holding means (4) is made up of one or more of: pins, barbed wires, staples, stakes, spikes, pegs, or stitches affixed to the wrap; adhesives provided overlapping portions of the fabric sheet (2); and a further building module placed atop the building module as disclosed by Bradley in order to provide permanent connection ([0057]) and to provide greater tensile strength ([0057]).
Re claim 2, Quinley as modified discloses the building module (1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fabric sheet (2) (1) is made of synthetic material ([0032]), natural fibre material, or a combination thereof.
Re claim 3, Quinley as modified discloses the building module (1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the filling material (3) is selected from sand, silt, clay, gravel, earth aggregate material, organic material, recycled waste, or a combination thereof ([0039]).
Re claim 4, Quinley as modified discloses the building module (1) as claimed in claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the filling material further comprises a bonding agent from lime, clay, cement, proteins, gypsum, fibre or glue, or a combination thereof.
However, Parks discloses wherein the filling material (102) ([0038]) further comprises a bonding agent ([0038]) from lime, clay, cement, proteins ([0081] disclosing agents including proteins), gypsum, fibre or glue, or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building module of Quinley wherein the filling material further comprises a bonding agent from lime, clay, cement, proteins, gypsum, fibre or glue, or a combination thereof as disclosed by Parks in order to preserve waste material in the mixture to help maintain the structures for a longer time outdoors ([0081]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinley et al (“Quinley”) (US 2008/0080936) in view of Parks (US 2019/0264407), Bradley, SR et al (“Bradley”) (US 2013/0048138) and Wang (US 2012/0051673).
Re claim 5, Quinley as modified discloses the building module (1) as claimed in claim 1, but fails to disclose comprising more than one fabric sheet (2), wherein an end of a second fabric sheet (2) wraps around one end of a first fabric sheet (2), and wherein both the first fabric sheet (2) and the second fabric sheet (2) wraps around the filling material (3) and the overlapping portions of the first fabric sheet and second fabric sheet are held by the holding means (4).
However, Wang discloses more than one fabric sheet (2) (11, 12), wherein an end (of 12) of a second fabric sheet (2) (12) wraps around (proximate 13A) one end of a first fabric sheet (2) (11), and wherein both the first fabric sheet (2) (11) and the second fabric sheet (12) wraps (2) around (10 being a sand bag) the filling material (3) (sand) and the overlapping portions (proximate 13A) of the first fabric sheet and the second fabric sheet (11, 12) are held by the holding means (4) ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building module of Quinley with comprising more than one fabric sheet (2), wherein an end of a second fabric sheet (2) wraps around one end of a first fabric sheet (2), and wherein both the first fabric sheet (2) and the second fabric sheet (2) wraps around the filling material (3) and the overlapping portions of the first fabric sheet and second fabric sheet are held by the holding means (4) as disclosed by Wang in order to allow for greater manipulation of the filing material, as providing two sheets instead of wrapping one allows for attachment and completion of the sheets after moving material to desired locations. In other words, providing two sheets sewn together provides more flexibility in filling and design than that of using a single, folded sheet.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinley et al (“Quinley”) (US 2008/0080936) in view of Parks (US 2019/0264407), Bradley, SR et al (“Bradley”) (US 2013/0048138) and Bradley (US 5,902,070).
Re claim 22, Quinley as modified discloses the building module (1) as claimed in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the fabric sheet (2) wraps around the filling material (3) in a spiral configuration, whereby the folded portions of the fabric sheet (2) are formed over the filling material (3) about turns of the spiral configuration in a continuous manner, and the overlapping edges (5) are formed between consecutive turns of the spiral configuration.
However, Bradley discloses wherein the fabric sheet (2) (50) wraps around the filling material (3) (18) in a spiral configuration (Fig. 5), whereby the folded portions (Fig. 5) of the fabric sheet (2) (50) are formed over the filling material (3) (18) about turns (Fig. 5) of the spiral configuration (Fig. 5) in a continuous manner (Fig. 5), and the overlapping edges (5) (at 54) are formed between consecutive turns (Fig. 5) of the spiral configuration (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building module of Quinley wherein the fabric sheet (2) wraps around the filling material (3) in a spiral configuration, whereby the folded portions of the fabric sheet (2) are formed over the filling material (3) about turns of the spiral configuration in a continuous manner, and the overlapping edges (5) are formed between consecutive turns of the spiral configuration as disclosed by Bradley in order to allow for an elongated building module made from a single piece of fabric.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinley et al (“Quinley”) (US 2008/0080936) in view of Parks (US 2019/0264407).
Re claim 23, Quinley discloses a method (Fig. 1 showing the product made) for making a building module (Fig. 1) comprising the steps of:
advancing (Fig. 4, as any degree of overlapping with a width is advancing) a fabric sheet (2; [0029]) (1);
depositing (Fig. 4 showing 5 deposited) a filling material (3) (5) atop (Fig. 4) the fabric sheet (2) (1);
providing a holding means ([0113]);
folding (Fig. 4 showing edges folded) the opposite longitudinal edges (of 1, see Fig. 4) of the fabric sheet (2) (1) up and around (Fig. 4) the elongated body (5) of filling material (3) (5) to form a circumferential enclosure around a transverse cross-section (Fig. 4) of the elongate body (5) and such that the opposite longitudinal portions (of 1, Fig. 4) overlap (Fig. 4) along a length of the elongate body (5); and securing (31-34) the overlapping longitudinal portions (of 1, see Fig. 4) of the fabric sheet (2) (1) by a holding means (4) (31-34) to form the building module (1) (Fig. 1),
but fails to disclose compressing the filing material (3) while the filling material (3) is supported on the fabric sheet (2) to form an elongated body of compressed filling material (3).
However, Parks discloses compressing the filling material (3) ([0020]) to form an elongated body of compressed filling material (3) ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Quinley with compressing the filling material (3) to form an elongated body of compressed filling material (3) as disclosed by Parks in order to allow for transportation of more bags ([0008]).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Quinley with compressing while the filling material (3) is supported on the fabric sheet (2) in order to reduce steps required, eliminating the need for pre-compression. In general, selection of the order of performing process steps has been held as within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent new or unexpected results. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 (for the reasons stated in the previous rejection) is hereby withdrawn. However, “the same fabric sheet” remain rejected in claim 1, as well as additional rejections necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot as they do not apply to any of the combination of references relied upon in the above, as Quinley is relied upon as a newly cited, newly relied upon primary reference for each independent claim.
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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 at (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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights