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12, 14-16, 19-22, and 24-26, as amended 26 JUN. 2026, are pending and have been considered as follows; Cl. 26 remains withdrawn as previously detailed:
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 JUN. 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.
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).
PNG
media_image1.png
439
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
EXRFIG. 27
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; note also “FOUR OPENINGS” in EXRFIG. 27, above) 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 filed 26 JUN. 26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the argument (p. 7):
As a consequence, the S3 unit of Erel does NOT present openings on all four sides-the short sides are occupied by the leg walls.
the Examiner submits EXRFIG. 27 presented above and referenced with regard to claim 1 makes clear the modules of Erel identify openings as customarily understood as a breach, aperture, unobstructed width or span extending between each of four corners.
As per applicant’s supposition that “the legs span the entire width of the short (transversal) edges of the horizontal slab, functioning as wall-like supports rather than discrete corner columns” does not suggest novelty as the cited elements of Erel are columns at corners. Further, the word “discrete” is not an element of the claims.
As per the argument (p. 8):
Applicant submits that the word "connected" as used in claim 1 requires a structural bond between the perimeter beams and the corner columns, which is achieved through the single-pour casting of the presently claimed module
The Examiner submits a “structural bond” does not suggest patentable invention over Erel which teaches a slab integral with and resting on the four columns, or Rutledge which teaches a slab having perimeter beams as claimed. The Examiner notes applicant's arguments against the references individually cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Insofar as Applicant has not made clear the features of “connected” which extend beyond the ordinary customary meaning (see MPEP 2111.01) of “joined or linked together” and the specification fails to provide a meaning of “bond” beyond that contemplated by Erel or Rutledge, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the “perimeter beams” of the Rutledge slab would be incorporated into the slab or Erel to provide a stronger assembly.
As per applicant’s supposition that “The perimeter beam "skirt" acts in combination with the transverse ribs to enable the module to be open on all four sides without sacrificing structural integrity” the Examiner notes the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "skirt…without sacrificing”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As per the argument (p. 9):
Rutledge teaches that ribs extending in BOTH transverse AND longitudinal directions are required to achieve the necessary rigidity.
and
The presently claimed module, by contrast, uses only transverse ribs (extending between the opposing longitudinal perimeter beams in one direction only) and relies on the perimeter beam "skirt" in combination with those transverse ribs to provide structural strength and torsional stability.
the Examiner submits in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the secondary reference of Rutledge was not relied upon to teach both transverse and longitudinal ribs. Either transverse or longitudinal ribs can be relied upon within the structure of Rutledge or within the structure of Erel to reinforce the respective structures of Rutledge or of Erel.
As per applicant’s supposition that “The specification of the present application at paragraphs [0008] and [0103] expressly discloses that the module is formed from concrete slurry cast in a single pour using upside-down formwork, resulting in a one-piece casting in which the horizontal slab, corner columns, perimeter beams, and transverse ribs are all integrally formed as a single structural body” the Examiner submits the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “upside-down formwork… one-piece casting”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
.
As per the argument (p. 11):
Rutledge discloses a structural frame in which a precast concrete slab is separately manufactured and then placed around independently positioned corner columns, with the slab being held against the columns by tensioned tendon assemblies (see Rutledge Abstract and column 2, lines 22-50)…neither the primary reference (Erel) nor the secondary reference (Rutledge) teaches the unitary body feature of claim 1
the Examiner notes the method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. (Product by Process 2113).
As per the argument (p. 11):
The Office Action's alleged motivation-"to overcome drawbacks of symmetrical and asymmetrical slabs with a reinforcement arrangement"-is impermissibly generic and conclusory. It does not explain:
(1) why a POSITA working with Erel's specialized parking lot modular system would look to Rutledge's building structural frame;
(2) why a POSITA would selectively incorporate only certain features of Rutledge (transverse ribs, but not the longitudinal crossed ribs that Rutledge teaches are necessary for rigidity);
(3) why a POSITA would fundamentally redesign Erel's wall-like legs into discrete corner columns; or
(4) why a POSITA would then connect the resulting perimeter beams to those corner columns via a unitary casting rather than the compressive tendon system taught by Rutledge.
the Examiner submits It has been held that: “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82, USPQ2d at 1396. Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would teach each of these improvements.
.
As per applicant’s supposition that (p. 12) “Siqueiros is… does not disclose a module having corner columns, longitudinal and transversal perimeter beams, transverse ribs, and openings between corner columns as required… [is not] configured for use in connection with a module having the corner column and perimeter beam structure of claim 1” the Examiner notes Siqueiros was not relied upon to teach corner columns. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As per the argument (p. 13):
reinforcing members of Gutierrez are fundamentally different from the two central columns and a central beam of claim 5
the Examiner submits the columns of Gutierrez would support the assembly between corners. Rutledge teaches rebar. As per applicant’s supposition that the “[bars] of Gutierrez are not structural columns or beams in the sense used in the claims-they do not function as load-bearing structural members between which openings are defined” the Examiner submits “load-bearing structural members” are not an element of the claimed structure.
As per the argument (p. 14):
Gillen's lower end portion 22 is part of a continuous chain wall foundation system designed to support an entire building perimeter-it is not a discrete, independent pre-cast footing.
the Examiner submits aside from not positively claiming a “discrete, independent pre-cast footing” the claims merely require elements “adapted to support”, which the cited member of Gillen are clearly capable of anticipating.
As per the argument (p. 15-16):
The pivot point 44 is cited as the "pin connection." This mapping strains the disclosure of Claflin well beyond what a POSITA would read in the reference.
the Examiner submits a broadly claimed “pin connection” hasn’t been so explicitly redefined by the specification as to require more than a connection capable of being reduced to a hinge point, as taught by Claflin. The claim of a “connector assembly”, a “top bracket”, and ”bottom bracket” is/are so broad as to be met by the elements of Claflin.
As per applicant’s supposition that (p. 17) “there is no teaching in Gutierrez as to how such elements would be attached… [and] the reinforcing members… are not fabricated from rebar-reinforced concrete as required by claim” the Examiner submits the primary reference of Erel teaches reinforced concrete and the secondary reference of Rutledge teaches rebar-reinforced concrete. The inclusion of the teachings of Gutierrez would be obvious to an artisan in possession of the combination of Erel and Rutledge.
As per the arguments regarding Nagy and Klett (p. 17-18):
"conduit...for various wires"… is materially different from a "service access opening…”
does not provide the open access to the perimeter beam interior that the term "service access opening" connotes;
and
a structural junction element at the intersection of wall panels
the Examiner submits these allegations of “materially different” and “the term … connotes” are not persuasive as they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The test when considering combination(s) of references is to consider what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, these features would be beneficial to the modules of Erel when attempting to improve the user experience of the modules. It is old and well-known to include conduits and recesses to improve the operability of a structure provided upon combining modules.
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/
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights