DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the different lengths of the rod and the hole in the steel plate claimed in claim 9 and the strap claimed in claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. You should also say something about the line quality. It is not black and well defined and the text in figure 2 is not even legible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 17 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.
Claims 9 and 17 recite the limitation "the steel place" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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) 1-3, 5-8, 10, 13-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiederick et al. (US2012/0279141) in view of ‘621 (CN103221621).
For claim 1, Wiederick et al. discloses a method for moving or securing a mobile structure (fig. 5A-B) having a floor (82) with an exterior floor surface, a roof (86) with an exterior roof surface, and at least one wall (84), the method comprising the acts of: providing at least one rod (91) having an attachment point at an attachment end and a brace end opposite the attachment end; running the at least one rod through at least one of the least one walls, leaving the attachment point extending from the exterior roof surface.
Wiederick et al. does not disclose coupling a brace to the rod at the brace end outside of the mobile structure such that a force created by pulling on the attachment end of the rod is distributed at the exterior roof surface.
‘621 discloses a method of securing a mobile structure (fig. 3), the method comprising providing at least one rod (4) having an attachment point at an attachment end (4B) and a brace end (4A) opposite the attachment end, running the at least one rod through at least one of the walls and coupling a brace (9) to the rod at the brace end outside of the mobile structure such that a force created by pulling on the attachment end of the rod is distributed at the exterior roof surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to couple a brace to the rod of Wiederick et al. at the brace end outside of the mobile structure such that a force created by pulling on the attachment end of the rod is distributed at the exterior roof surface as made obvious by ‘621 to reinforce the walls and provide an anchor system for the mobile structure.
For claim 2, the combination discloses that the attachment end extends from the exterior roof surface, the method further comprising the acts of coupling the attachment point of the at least one rod to a crane; lifting the mobile structure via the at least one rod (Wiederick et al. fig. 5A, 94).
For claim 3, the combination discloses that the attachment end extends from the exterior floor surface, the method further comprising the act of coupling the attachment point of the at least one rod to a pile (‘621 fig. 3, 5) that is anchored to the ground.
For claim 5, Wiederick et al. discloses a system for moving or securing a mobile structure (fig. 5A-B) having a floor (82) with an exterior floor surface, a roof (86) with an exterior roof surface, and at least one wall (84) with a first side, a second side and an interior between the first side and the second side, the system comprising at least one rod (91) having an attachment point at an attachment end and a brace end; with an attachment point on the attachment end, the at least one rod configured to be run through the interior of the at least one wall such that the attachment point extends from the exterior floor surface.
Wiederick et al. does not disclose a brace coupled to the brace end of the at least one rod to distribute a force created by pulling on the attachment end of the rod at the exterior roof surface if the attachment point extends from the exterior floor surface and at the exterior floor surface if the attachment point extends from the exterior roof surface.
‘621 discloses a system for securing a mobile structure (fig. 3) comprising at least one rod (4) having an attachment point at an attachment end (4B) and a brace end (4A) opposite the attachment end, running the at least one rod through at least one of the walls and coupling a brace (9) to the rod at the brace end outside of the mobile structure such that a force created by pulling on the attachment end of the rod is distributed at the exterior roof surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to couple a brace to the rod of Wiederick et al. at the brace end outside of the mobile structure such that a force created by pulling on the attachment end of the rod is distributed at the exterior roof surface as made obvious by ‘621 to reinforce the walls and provide an anchor system for the mobile structure.
For claim 6, the attachment point is an eye hook (Wiederick et al. fig. 5B, 94).
For claim 7, the combination discloses that the at least one rod can be a steel rod (‘621 [0036]) and it would be obvious to choose a steel rod having a diameter between 0.5 inch and 2 inches to meet design specifications and increase the strength of the system.
For claim 8, the combination discloses that the rod had a diameter and it would be obvious to make the diameter 5/8 inches since this merely involves a change of size of an already disclosed element to meet design specifications and increase the strength of the system.
For 10, the combination discloses at least one pile configured to be secured to the attachment point (‘621 fig. 3, 5).
For claim 13, Wiederick et al. discloses a prefabricated structure (fig. 5A-B) that is securable or movable, the prefabricated structure comprising: a roof (86) having an exterior roof surface, a floor (82) having an exterior floor surface, and at least one wall (84) with a first side, a second side, and an interior between the first side and the second side; at least one rod (91) passing through the interior of the at least one wall between the roof and the floor, the at least one rod having an attachment point at an attachment end, wherein the attachment point extends from the exterior roof surface.
Wiederick et al. does not disclose a brace coupled to the brace end of the at least one rod to distribute a force created by pulling on the attachment end of the rod at the exterior roof surface if the attachment point extends from the exterior floor surface and at the exterior floor surface if the attachment point extends from the exterior roof surface.
‘621 discloses a system for securing a mobile structure (fig. 3) comprising at least one rod (4) having an attachment point at an attachment end (4B) and a brace end (4A) opposite the attachment end, running the at least one rod through at least one of the walls and coupling a brace (9) to the rod at the brace end outside of the mobile structure such that a force created by pulling on the attachment end of the rod is distributed at the exterior roof surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to couple a brace to the rod of Wiederick et al. at the brace end outside of the mobile structure such that a force created by pulling on the attachment end of the rod is distributed at the exterior roof surface as made obvious by ‘621 to reinforce the walls and provide an anchor system for the mobile structure.
For claim 14, the attachment point is an eye hook (Wiederick et al. fig. 5B, 94).
For claim 15, the combination discloses that the at least one rod can be a steel rod (‘621 [0036]) and it would be obvious to choose a steel rod having a diameter between 0.5 inch and 2 inches to meet design specifications and increase the strength of the system.
For claim 16, the combination discloses that the rod had a diameter and it would be obvious to make the diameter 5/8 inches since this merely involves a change of size of an already disclosed element to meet design specifications and increase the strength of the system.
For 18, the combination discloses at least one pile configured to be secured to the attachment point (‘621 fig. 3, 5).
Claim(s) 4, 11-12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiederick et al. (US2012/0279141) in view of ‘621 (CN10322162) as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Oliver et al. (US2020/0392689).
For claim 4, the combination discloses that the attachment end extends from the exterior floor surface, but does not disclose the acts of coupling the attachment point of the at least one rod to a helical pile, and anchoring the helical pile to the ground.
Oliver et al. discloses a method for securing a mobile structure (fig. 6, 10) comprising coupling the attachment point of at least one rod (146) to a helical pile (30), and anchoring the helical pile to the ground (11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to couple the attachment point of the at least one rod of the combination to a helical pile, and anchoring the helical pile to the ground as made obvious by Oliver et al. to increase the sturdiness of the mobile structure when it is positioned on the ground.
For claims 11 and 19, the combination discloses the obviousness of making the pile a helical pile (Oliver et al. fig. 6, 30) to increase the sturdiness of the mobile structure when it is positioned on the ground.
For claims 12 and 20, the combination discloses using straps (Oliver et al. fig. 9, 76) to connect braces together and it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to couple multiple braces of the system to each other by a strap that further distributes the forces to increase the load bearing capacity of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA K IHEZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5347. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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 Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/JOSHUA K IHEZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633