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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Par. [0006] of specification (as amended 12/15/25): It appears “U Patent” should be --US Patent--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-3, 4-10 and 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1: Line 5 of the claim, it appears the limitation “said wall section” should be --said first modular wall section-- for consistency of the claim language. Lines 14-15 and 19 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “said second modular wall section” should be --said adjacent second modular wall section-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 2: Line 3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “said second modular wall section” should be --said adjacent second modular wall section-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 6: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “at least one a male post” should be --at least one male post--.
With regard to claim 7: Line 2 of the clam, it appears the limitation “at least two male post” should be --at least two male posts-- as more than one male post is recited. Line 3 of the clam, it appears the limitation “at least female prong receiver” should be –at least two female prong receivers-- as more than one female prong receiver is recited.
With regard to claim 8: Lines 4-5 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “said second modular wall section” should be --said adjacent second modular wall section-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 9: Lines 2-3 of the clam, it appears the limitation “said at least two male post(s)” should be --said at least two male posts-- as more than one male post is recited. Line 3 of the clam, it appears the limitation “said at least female prong(s) receiver(s)” should be --said at least two female prong receivers-- as more than one female prong receiver is recited.
With regard to claims 13: Line 2-3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “said second modular wall section” should be --said adjacent second modular wall section-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 14: Lines 3 and 5 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “said second modular wall section” should be --said adjacent second modular wall section-- for consistency of the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: at least one vertical anchoring mechanism in claim 1; a vertical wall stud locking mechanism in claim 1; and a complimentary wall stud locking mechanism in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2, 4-10 and 12-14 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.
With regard to claim 1: Line 7 of the claim, the limitation “side modular wall section vertical” is not understood and appears incomplete. It appears the limitation is referring to said first modular wall section? Lines 17-18 of the claim, it unclear if the second instance of the limitation “blades, posts or prongs” is referencing the previously recited blade, posts or prongs. Lines 18-19 of the claim, it’s unclear as to how said at least two electrical connections receiving blade, post or prone is configured to mate with at least two electrical connection blades, post or prongs of said second module wall section if said at least two electrical connections already receive blades, posts or prongs.
Claim limitations “vertical wall stud locking mechanism” and “a complimentary wall stud locking mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It’s not readily as to specific structure associated with the claim limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
With regard to claim 2: Line 2 of the claim, the limitation “said at least two electrical connection receiving blades, posts or prongs of the first modular wall section” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 6: It unclear if limitation “at least one male post” is referencing one of the previously recited posts of claim 1. Further, it’s unclear if the limitation “at least one female prong receiver” is referencing said at least two electrical connections receiving blades, posts, or prongs found in claim 1.
With regard to claim 7: It unclear if limitation “at least two male post” is referencing one of the previously recited posts of claim 1. Further, it’s unclear if the limitation “at least two female prong receiver” is referencing said at least two electrical connections receiving blades, posts, or prongs found in claim 1.
With regard to claim 8: Line 2 of the clam, it’s unclear if the limitation “at least four electrical connections” is referencing the previously recited at least one electrical connection including at least two electrical connections.
Claim 1-2, 4-10 and 12-14 are examined as best understood.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/14/25 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent 11,585,091 and U.S. Patent 11,371,242 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-10 and 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the combination of all the elements of the claimed prefabricated modular wall sections with electrical ground connectors, in particular the at least one electrical connection including at least two electrical connections set at different heights whereby the at least two electrical connections connect circuits at different points in times as the first modular wall section is slid onto the second modular wall section is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record.
Examiner notes that allowability of the claims are subject to reconsideration should the scope of the claims change.
Response to Arguments
The previous objection to the specification has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 12/15/25.
The previous objection to claims 6-9 and 15 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 12/15/25. Note that claim objections not addressed have been reiterated.
The previous rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 12/15/25. Note that 112(b) rejections not addressed have been reiterated.
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 JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633