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 first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10, 12, 14-16, 19-22, and 24-26, as originally filed 11 FEB. 2026, are pending and have been considered as follows; Cl. 26 remains withdrawn as previously detailed:
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 FEB. 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 FEB. 26 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The examiner has lined through Citation No. B1 in the Foreign Patent Documents section of the IDS filed 11 FEB. 26 for either failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)(i) because a complete copy of the foreign language document was not provided.
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 1-2, 8, and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erel US 5177913 A in view of Rutledge et al. US 10895071 B2 (Rutledge).
As per claim 1 Erel teaches a reinforced concrete (see “reinforced concrete” 2:25; this is recognized as teaching the inventor was in possession of reinforced concrete) module for use in preparing a prefabricated structure, the module comprising:
a horizontal slab (unidentified upper slab member, FIG. 27; note “each integral unit including a slab integral with and resting on the four columns” abstract) defining two opposing longitudinal edges (unidentified proximal longitudinal edge, FIG. 27), two opposing transversal edges (see two unidentified transverse edges, FIG. 27), and four corners (see four corners, FIG. 27);
four corner columns (see four unidentified corner columns, FIG. 27), each said corner column being located at a respective corner (see FIG. 27); and
an attachment element (see four unidentified corner columns, FIG. 27) located at a base of each said corner column (see steel pipe 48 and cone-shaped bottom part 49, FIG. 28B; these are recognized as being “configured for attachment” as broadly claimed), configured for attachment to a support surface (see exemplary support surfaces, FIGs. 4, 19, or 29);
wherein the module is configured to rest on a support surface (see FIG. 27; this is recognized as being capable —or “configured”— to rest on a support surface);
wherein adjacent corner columns (see four unidentified corner columns, FIG. 27) and respective bottom edges of the perimeter beams define an opening (see “opening” extending between proximal lower left corner and distal upper right corner, FIG. 27; these are configured to receive a later added assembly as broadly claimed) configured to receive a wall in-fill assembly,
wherein each said opening extends between said adjacent corner columns (see four unidentified corner columns, FIG. 27) and from the respective bottom edges of the perimeter beams to the bottom of each said corner column (see openings extending as claimed, FIG. 27); and
and the module is fabricated cast as a unitary body (“connecting plates and integral units with four columns, each integral unit including a slab integral with and resting on the four columns” abstract ln. 6).
Erel fails to explicitly disclose:
two longitudinal perimeter beams, each of said longitudinal perimeter beams extending downwardly from a respective longitudinal edge of the horizontal slab and extending between and connected to adjacent corner columns;
two transversal perimeter beams, each of said transversal perimeter beams extending downwardly from the transversal edges of the horizontal slab and extending between and connected to adjacent corner columns;
at least two transverse ribs located on an underside of the horizontal slab and extending between opposing longitudinal perimeter beams; and
wherein each of the horizontal slab, the corner columns, the perimeter beams and the transverse ribs are fabricated from rebar-reinforced concrete.
Rutledge teaches a particularly reinforced slab having the claimed array of beams and ribs and rebar, specifically:
two longitudinal perimeter beams (first inner side 308, second outer side 314, FIG. 11), each of said longitudinal perimeter beams extending downwardly from a respective longitudinal edge of the horizontal slab (slab 104, FIG. 11) and extending between and connected to adjacent corner columns;
two transversal perimeter beams (second inner side 310 first outer side 312, FIG. 11), each of said transversal perimeter beams extending downwardly from the transversal edges of the horizontal slab and extending between and connected to adjacent corner columns;
at least two transverse ribs (ribs 1100, 1102, FIG. 11) located on an underside of the horizontal slab and extending between opposing longitudinal perimeter beams; and
wherein each of the horizontal slab (unidentified upper slab member, FIG. 27; note “each integral unit including a slab integral with and resting on the four columns” abstract), the corner columns (see four unidentified corner columns, FIG. 27), the perimeter beams and the transverse ribs are fabricated from rebar-reinforced concrete (see “vertical and horizontal rebar” 13:15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Erel by including the including the rebar and beams and ribs slab as taught by Rutledge in order to overcome drawbacks of symmetrical and asymmetrical slabs with a reinforcement arrangement.
As per claim 2 Erel in view of Rutledge teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Erel further discloses wherein the longitudinal edges are the same length as the transversal edges, or the longitudinal edges are twice as long as the transversal edges (see two unidentified transverse edges, FIG. 27).
In other words, the examiner's position is that Erel in view of Rutledge inherently has the longitudinal edges twice as long as the transversal edges.
However, in the alternative, if Erel in view of Rutledge does not disclose that the longitudinal edges twice as long as the transversal edges, then it certainly would have been obvious to a skilled artisan art at the time the invention was made to modify the assembly of by including the claimed shape in order to simplify construction plans and because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As per claim 8 Erel in view of Rutledge teaches the limitations according to claim 1, wherein the support surface is an upper surface of a horizontal slab (unidentified upper slab member, FIG. 27; note “each integral unit including a slab integral with and resting on the four columns” abstract) of one or more additional modules (see FIG. 4; also “FIG. 29: Describes a cross-section of an extension element for a pair of columns” 5:58; this is recognized as teaching “the support surface is an upper surface…” as broadly claimed).
As per claim 12 Erel in view of Rutledge teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Erel further discloses wherein the attachment element (see four unidentified corner columns, FIG. 27) is a cast-in attachment element (see four unidentified corner columns, FIG. 27) configured for attachment via a connector assembly to a corresponding attachment element (see four unidentified corner columns, FIG. 27) on the support surface.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erel in view of Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Siqueiros
US 8875471 B2.
As per claim 4 Erel in view of Rutledge teaches the limitations according to claim 1 above but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
lifting anchors located at an upper surface of the horizontal slab adjacent each corner column.
Siqueiros teaches such , specifically:
lifting anchors (bolt 24, coupler 34, FIG. 6) located at an upper surface of the horizontal slab adjacent each corner column.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Erel in view of Rutledge by including the bolt and coupler as taught by Siqueiros in order to enable the assembly to be handled by an external device.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erel in view of Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Gutierrez US 4185423 A and Siqueiros.
As per claim 5 Erel in view of Rutledge teaches the limitations according to claim 1 above Erel further discloses the longitudinal edges are twice as long as the transversal edges (see two unidentified transverse edges, FIG. 27).
In other words, the examiner's position is that Erel in view of Rutledge inherently has the longitudinal edges twice as long as the transversal edges.
However, in the alternative, if Erel in view of Rutledge does not disclose that the longitudinal edges twice as long as the transversal edges, then it certainly would have been obvious to a skilled artisan art at the time the invention was made to modify the assembly of by including the claimed shape in order to simplify construction plans and because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Rutledge further discloses elements fabricated from rebar-reinforced concrete (“vertical and horizontal rebar” 13:15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Erel by including the including the rebar and reinforced slab as taught by Rutledge in order to overcome drawbacks of symmetrical and asymmetrical slabs with a reinforcement arrangement.
The combination fails to explicitly disclose:
comprising: two central columns, each said central column being located at a midpoint in each respective longitudinal edge; and
a central beam extending between the two central columns; and
lifting anchors located on the upper surface of the horizontal slab adjacent each corner column and each central column.
Gutierrez teaches central columns, specifically:
two central columns (see at least two “central” straight bars 113, 113, FIG. 19), each said central column being located at a midpoint in each respective longitudinal edge (see FIG. 19); and
a central beam (see “central” angle bar 126, FIG. 19) extending between the two central columns;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Erel in view of Rutledge by including the central columns as taught by Gutierrez in order to support the assembly between corners.
Siqueiros teaches such , specifically:
lifting anchors (bolt 24, coupler 34, FIG. 6) located on the upper surface of the horizontal slab adjacent each corner column and each central column.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Erel in view of Rutledge and Gutierrez by including the bolt and coupler as taught by Siqueiros in order to enable the assembly to be handled by an external device.
Claim 10, and 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erel in view of Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gillen US 7596909 B1
As per claim 10, and 15-16 Erel in view of Rutledge teaches the limitations according to claim 1 above, but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 10) the support surface comprises pre-cast footings adapted to support the base of a respective corner column, wherein the pre-cast footing comprises: a pre-cast reinforced concrete base formed as square concrete body, a footing post extending upward from the concrete base and having an upper surface; and four bolts extending from the upper surface of the footing post, wherein the concrete base and footing post of the pre-cast footing are optionally cast as a unitary body;
(Cl. 15) one or more bolt inserts located on one or more externally facing surfaces of the corner and/or central columns, an upper surface of the horizontal slab, and/or a lower surface of the horizontal slab (floor member 11, FIG. 1), wherein the bolt inserts are configured to receive structural or functional elements, wherein the bolt inserts are optionally cast-in bolt inserts.
(Cl. 16)the wall in-fill assembly is configured to receive one or more decorative elements, structural elements or functional elements, wherein the one or more structural elements or functional elements are selected from a window unit, a door unit, wall panels, and insulation, and wherein the module further comprises one or more bolt inserts located on an inner perimeter of the opening, and the bolt inserts are configured to receive the wall in-fill assembly.
Gillen teaches , specifically:
(Cl. 10) the support surface comprises pre-cast footings adapted to support the base of a respective corner column, wherein the pre-cast footing comprises: a pre-cast reinforced concrete base (lower end portion 22, FIG. 11) formed as square concrete body (see FIG. 8), a footing post (24, FIG. 11) extending upward from the concrete base and having an upper surface (see upper surface of 22, FIG. 8); and four bolts (rebars 36, FIG. 11) extending from the upper surface of the footing post, wherein the concrete base and footing post of the pre-cast footing are optionally cast as a unitary body (see FIG. 8);
(Cl. 15) one or more bolt inserts (notch 29, FIG. 11) located on one or more externally facing surfaces of the corner and/or central columns, an upper surface of the horizontal slab, and/or a lower surface of the horizontal slab (floor member 11, FIG. 1), wherein the bolt inserts are configured to receive structural or functional elements (see FIG. 11; notches 29 are capable of receiving structural elements), wherein the bolt inserts are optionally cast-in bolt inserts;
(Cl. 16) the wall in-fill assembly is configured to receive one or more decorative elements, structural elements or functional elements (see FIG. 11; notches 29 are capable of receiving structural elements), wherein the one or more structural elements or functional elements are selected from a window unit, a door unit, wall panels, and insulation, and wherein the module further comprises one or more bolt inserts located on an inner perimeter of the opening, and the bolt inserts are configured to receive the wall in-fill assembly (see FIG. 11; the are capable of receiving an “in-fill assembly” as shown in FIG. 19, as broadly claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Erel in view of Rutledge by including the bolt inserts as taught by Gillen in order to attach external elements for habitation.
Claim 14 and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erel in view of Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Claflin US 4841897 A.
As per claim 14 and 25 Erel in view of Rutledge teaches the limitations according to claim 12, but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 14) the connector assembly comprises a top bracket connected to a top connector baseplate and a bottom bracket connected to a bottom connector baseplate, wherein the top bracket and the bottom bracket are coupled via a pin connection; and
(Cl. 25) the module is sized for transport on a standard sized tractor trailer.
Claflin teaches brackets for connection and transport, specifically:
(Cl. 14) the connector assembly comprises a top bracket (jack 48, FIG. 2) connected to a top connector baseplate (point of contact between shell 36 and jack 48, FIG. 2) and a bottom bracket (post 112, FIG. 2) connected to a bottom connector baseplate (point of contact between post 112 and ground 30, FIG. 2) , wherein the top bracket and the bottom bracket are coupled via a pin connection (see pivot point 44, FIG. 2); and
(Cl. 25) the module is sized for transport on a standard sized tractor trailer (see hitch point 42, FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Erel in view of Rutledge by including the connector assembly as taught by Claflin in order to allow the assembly to be transported and supported on a ground.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erel in view of Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Gutierrez.
As per claim 19 Erel in view of Rutledge teaches the limitations according to claim 1 but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
external elements selected from decorative or insulating panels, railings, solar panels, wind turbines, water retention or management features.
Gutierrez teaches such external elements, specifically:
external elements selected from decorative or insulating panels, railings (108, FIG. 1), solar panels, wind turbines, water retention or management features.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Erel in view of Rutledge by including the railings as taught by Gutierrez in order to enhance the safety of an end use assembly.
Claim 20-21 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erel in view of Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nagy et al. US 8490363 B2 (Nagy).
As per claim 20-21 Erel in view of Rutledge teaches the limitations according to claim 1 but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 20) the perimeter beams further comprise service access openings of suitable size and shape to provide service access and/or to receive utility infrastructure;
(Cl. 21) each corner column comprises a plurality of vertical rebar elements, each said vertical rebar element being a headed bar comprising a square plate washer welded at a top end of the respective vertical rebar element for connection to the slab.
Nagy teaches access openings and a headed bar, specifically:
(Cl. 20) the perimeter beams further comprise service access openings of suitable size and shape to provide service access and/or to receive utility infrastructure (see “conduit… for various wires” 13:50);
(Cl. 21) each corner column comprises a plurality of vertical rebar elements, each said vertical rebar element being a headed bar comprising a square plate washer welded (plate 156, FIG. 18C and “rods 108… welding” 10:14) at a top end of the respective vertical rebar element (rods 100, unidentified FIG. 18C; see FIG. 18B) for connection to the slab.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Erel in view of Rutledge by including the conduit and plate as taught by Nagy in order to include technical functionality and reinforce the column because doing so would provide a more functional assembly.
As per claim 24 Erel in view of Rutledge teaches the limitations according to claim 1 but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
sealing means configured to provide sealing engagement between adjacent modules upon installation.
Nagy teaches such an engagement, specifically:
sealing means (“joints may be sealed with caulk as is known in the art” 18:59) configured to provide sealing engagement between adjacent modules upon installation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Erel in view of Rutledge by including the sealing means as taught by Nagy in order to prevent unnecessary water intrusion.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erel in view of Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Klett et al. US 3703058 A.
As per claim 22 Erel in view of Rutledge teaches the limitations according to claim 1, but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
a vertical indentation extending around an upper outer perimeter of each module and/or a horizontal indentation extending around the upper surface around the outer perimeter of each module.
Klett teaches such an indentation, specifically:
a vertical indentation (box structure 51, FIG. 8) extending around an upper outer perimeter of each module and/or a horizontal indentation extending around the upper surface around the outer perimeter of each module.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Erel in view of Rutledge by including, the box structures as taught by Klett in order to enable connection of the module to positioning tabs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10, 12, 14-16, 19-22, and 24-26, 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. Examiner notes Rutledge provides for the claimed array of beams and ribs and use of rebar and was not relied upon to teach a stand-alone module cast as a unitary body, as argued.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hamy US 3871146 A teaches a reinforced concrete module with four corner columns which may be constructed as a one-piece monolithic unit of appropriate material, such as cast cementitious material
PNG
media_image1.png
214
275
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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