DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/340,147. Receipt of the Response to the Election/Restriction filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 5-13 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-4 and 14-20 are examined.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Claims 1-4 and 14-20 in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 11 of claim 14 defines “and a lower” which instead should define --and a lower flange-- to properly define such a term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levesque (U.S. Patent 4,161,087).
Regarding claim 1, Levesque discloses a wall of modular construction comprising:
a lower track member (the bottom track #22 of figure 3) and an upper track member (the upper track #22 of figure 3) each comprising a base (the horizontal portion of each track #22 of figure 3) and first and second opposing walls (the left and right vertical walls of each track #22 of figure 3) extending from said base (see figure 3), said opposing walls defining a utility channel (the U-shaped channel formed by the walls and base of each track #22 of figure 3) and opposing retention members (the holes which receive fasteners or vertical surfaces of such walls of the tracks #22 can be considered the retention members as broadly defined); and
at least one molded panel (Panel #23 is constructed from metal, such as steel (col. 3, ll. 53-55), and is corrugated for strength purposes so as to be considered “molded” as disclosed at the bottom of page 4 of the present specification) having a center section (the corrugated panel section of the panel #23), a lower flange (the bottommost flange #33 of figure 3) adapted to be coupled to the one of the opposing walls of said lower track member by a first elongate retainer and at least one first fastener (such a coupling is not positively defined nor are the fastener and retainer positively defined, where the screw fasteners extending through the flange #33 and the S-shaped bracket #35 can be considered the respective fasteners and retainer configured to couple the lower flange #33 to the track #22), and an upper flange (the upper flange #33 of figure 3) adapted to be coupled to one of the opposing walls of said upper track member by a second elongate retainer and at least one second fastener (such a coupling is not positively defined nor are the fastener and retainer positively defined, where the screw fasteners extending through the flange #33 and the U-shaped channel #34 can be considered the respective fasteners and retainer configured to couple the upper flange #33 to the track #22).
Regarding claim 2, Levesque discloses a lower utility channel cover adapted to be coupled to the opposing retention members of the lower track member, and an upper utility channel cover adapted to be coupled to the opposing retention members of the upper track member (the upper and lower utility channel covers can be considered opposite studs #21 which cover the ends of the utility channels of the tracks and are attached to respective retention members/vertical inner walls of the tracks #22 as depicted in figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Levesque discloses said at least one molded panel comprises multiple sections adapted to be joined together to form a full panel (panel #23 is constructed from multiple sections #23A connected at their ends by a bead #32c of one section inserted into the pocket #23D of another to form a full panel, see figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Levesque discloses said wall of modular construction is built between a pair of contiguous spaces (see figures 3 and 4, where the wall is built between inner and outer spaces that are contiguous), one of said pair of contiguous spaces assigned to a first purchaser, and wherein said wall of modular construction built between the pair of contiguous spaces is constructed of reusable components (the wall is constructed from metal and other reusable materials where the wall can be disassembled and reassembled as needed and thus is considered “reusable”), at least a first of which is separately owned, continues to be owned and is transferable by said first purchaser, and a second of which is owned, continues to be owned and is transferable by someone other than the first purchaser (In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the wall of modular construction, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the wall comprises components that are to be separately owned and transferable in ownership. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).). Ownership of components of such a wall does not change the final structure of such a wall and is related only to the method of using/selling/producing a multi-family building with such a wall formed therein. Such a method is not germane to the final wall product and thus Levesque is considered to anticipate such limitations of claim 4 since it is configured to be owned by different owners and used in such a manner while still maintaining the final structure as broadly defined.).
Regarding claim 14, Levesque discloses a method of modular construction of a wall comprising:
securing a lower track member (the bottom track #22 of figure 30 to a flooring member (#43; see figure 3) and an upper track member (the top track #22 of figure 3) to a ceiling member (the upper ceiling/roof member with beam #48 of figure 3), each lower track member and upper track member comprising a base (the horizontal segment of each track #22 of figure 3) and first and second opposing walls (the vertical walls of each track #22 of figure 3) extending from said base (see figure 3), said walls defining a utility channel (the U-shaped channel between such vertical walls and the base of each track #22 of figure 3) and opposing retention members (the vertical walls themselves are considered the retention members as they are configured to receive studs #21 therebetween and retain them, such as through welding);
coupling a lower utility channel cover to opposing retention members of the lower track member (see figure 1, where one of the studs #21 can be considered a utility channel cover which covers the end of the utility channel of the lower track and is attached to the retention members by being inserted therebetween and welded thereto, see col. 2, ll. 53-66);
coupling an upper utility channel cover to opposing retention members of the upper track member (see figure 1, where another one of the studs #21 can be considered a utility channel cover which covers the end of the utility channel of the upper track and is attached to the retention members by being inserted therebetween and welded thereto, see col. 2, ll. 53-66);
providing at least one molded panel (panel #23 is constructed from steel and with corrugations so as to be considered “molded” for strength purposes as is defined in the present specification) having a center section (the corrugated central section of panel #23), an upper flange (the top flange #33 of figure 3) and a lower flange (the bottommost flange #33 of figure 3);
securing the lower flange to the first opposing wall of the lower track member using a first elongate retainer (#35) and at least one first fastener (the two screw fasteners used to attach the lower track #33 to the retainer #35 and right, first wall of the lower track #22 of figure 3); and
securing the upper flange to the first opposing wall of the upper track member using a second elongate retainer (#34) and at least one second fastener (the two screw fasteners used to attach the upper track #33 to the retainer #34 and the right, first wall of the upper track #22 of figure 3).
Regarding claim 15, Levesque discloses said at least one molded panel comprises multiple sections adapted to be joined together to form a full panel (panel #23 is constructed from multiple sections #23A connected at their ends by a bead #32c of one section inserted into the pocket #23D of another to form a full panel, see figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Levesque discloses a plurality of molded panels (#23A), all of the same construction, are used to construct the wall (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 18, Levesque discloses applying an insulative material (#37; see figure 2) to at least the center section of the at least one panel (see figure 2, where the center section of the panel can be considered to include element #23B of the panel).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Levesque or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Levesque in view of Aubauer et al. (EP 3467230).
Regarding claim 19, Levesque discloses applying a sound absorbing material to at least the center section of the at least one panel (see figure 2, where the center section of the panel can be considered to include element #23B of the panel and where material #37 is inserted therein and thus applied thereto, where col. 4, ll. 5-9 disclose such an element #37 is made from insulating material and thus would comprise of some characteristic of sound absorption, whether such a material for element #37 is provided as a rubber, foam, or fiber based insulation).
However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Levesque as meeting such sound absorbing material features as defined, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Aubauer et al., that fire protection and/or soundproofing material #30 can be inserted within the protrusions #14 of a “molded” sheet #12, where such a sheet can be used to form walls or ceilings. See figure 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the insert of Levesque to comprise of soundproofing material, as taught in Aubauer et al., in order to improve the sound insulation properties of the assembly during use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Levesque in view of Nelson et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0100932).
Regarding claim 17, Levesque discloses the claimed invention except for the specific step of at least one of said plurality of molded panels is owned by a first person and at least one other of said plurality of molded panel is owned by a second person. Ownership of any piece of such a wall does not change the final structure of the wall of Levesque and elements of a wall can be owned by multiple different entities, such as based on shared spaces or other factors. Nelson et al. disclose a community can be constructed where a plurality of workshops #20 can be built around a central building #30, where the building #30 can be jointly owned and the workshops can each be separately owned #20 and thus portions of walls can be separately owned and transferred. See paragraph 36. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have allowed for selling and transferring of ownership of different portions of the wall of Levesque, as taught in Nelson et al., in order to construct, for example, a shared structure with the wall of Levesque and allow for proper transfer and ownership of each individual space of such a structure built by such a wall, thus meeting the needs of the end user.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Levesque in view of Folley (U.S. Patent 3,820,295).
Regarding claim 20, Levesque discloses the claimed invention except for applying a surface finishing layer on at least a first side of the at least one molded panel. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Folley, that such outer corrugated panels of a structure can be filled or painted or otherwise coated in order to provide an exterior appearance as needed. See col. 5, ll. 3-10. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the panels of Levesque so as to comprise of a surface finish, such as painting or other coating as taught in Folley, in order to provide an exterior aesthetic as needed by the end user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635