DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/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.
Re claim 16, claim 16 recites, “the first flooring material” and “the second flooring material” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “a first flooring material” and “a second flooring material” and will be interpreted as such.
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) 1-12, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (US 2018/0291615) in view of Exploring Alternatives (Garage Converted into AMAZING Modern Living Space - Tiny Home Tour) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9kle5Abfyw).
Re claim 1, Baker discloses a method of architecture design and construction (Fig. 37), comprising:
e) generating a design (Fig. 37) of a garage (102) for the residential structure (100);
wherein the design (Fig. 37) of the garage (102) comprises:
a plurality of interior walls ((Fig. 4) 106);
wherein the plurality of interior walls (106) further comprises a front wall (106b), a back wall (131) and two side walls (106a);
wherein the front wall (106) is adjacent to (Fig. 2-4) the residential structure (100);
wherein one or more of the plurality of interior walls (106) are configured to be cladded with the one or more exterior wall surface materials (106 are capable of being cladded with one or more exterior wall surface materials, as this is a statement of intended use) of the residential structure (100);
a garage door entry way (112);
wherein the garage door entry way (112) is positioned at the front wall (106b);
at least one door (at 112, see Fig. 4);
wherein the at least one door (Fig. 4) is positioned within the garage door entry way (112);
a floor (114);
wherein the floor (114) comprises one or more flooring materials (any material thereof) of the residential structure (100);
a set of recessed cabinets (256, 238);
wherein the set of recessed cabinets (256, 238) are attached within one or more of the interior walls (106);
but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of interior walls are cladded with the one or more exterior wall surface materials by a predetermined percentage, wherein the garage door entry way comprises at least one of the one or more architectural design elements of the front entryway of the residential structure, wherein the door comprises the one or more architectural design elements of the front door of the residential structure, wherein the set of recessed cabinets comprises the style of trim work used on the cabinetry in the kitchen of the residential structure, a) identifying one or more exterior wall surface materials used on an exterior wall of a residential structure; b) identifying one or more architectural design elements of a front entryway and a front door of the residential structure; c) identifying one or more flooring materials used within the residential structure; d) identifying a style of trim work used on cabinetry in a kitchen of the residential structure; and f) constructing the garage for the residential structure based on the design of the garage.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baker with a) identifying one or more exterior wall surface materials used on an exterior wall of a residential structure; b) identifying one or more architectural design elements of a front entryway and a front door of the residential structure; c) identifying one or more flooring materials used within the residential structure; d) identifying a style of trim work used on cabinetry in a kitchen of the residential structure; and f) constructing the garage for the residential structure based on the design of the garage in order to increase aesthetic appeal of the garage, or to save money by using the same materials as the interior of the residential structure. It has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 (I). In addition, the identification, generation and construction based on the interior materials of the residential structure of the claims is purely aesthetic and provides no additional functions or structure associated with the method.
In addition Exploring Alternatives discloses wherein the plurality of interior walls (walls at 1:18) are cladded with the one or more exterior wall surface materials (1:18) by a predetermined percentage (approximate 100%), wherein the garage door entry way (1:20) comprises at least one of the one or more architectural design elements (see trim thereof) of the front entryway of the residential structure (as modified above), wherein the door (1:20) comprises the one or more architectural design elements (see trim on door itself) of the front door of the residential structure (as modified above), wherein the set of recessed cabinets (5:41, see kitchen cabinets) comprises the style of trim work (5:41) used on the cabinetry in the kitchen of the residential structure (as modified above).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baker with wherein the plurality of interior walls are cladded with the one or more exterior wall surface materials by a predetermined percentage, wherein the garage door entry way comprises at least one of the one or more architectural design elements of the front entryway of the residential structure, wherein the door comprises the one or more architectural design elements of the front door of the residential structure, wherein the set of recessed cabinets comprises the style of trim work used on the cabinetry in the kitchen of the residential structure as disclosed and suggested by Exploring Alternatives in order to increase aesthetic appeal of the garage. It has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 (I). In addition, ornamentation claimed is purely aesthetic and provides no additional functions or structure associated with the method.
Re claim 2, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 1, Exploring Alternatives discloses wherein the one or more exterior wall surface materials (walls at 1:18) comprises a primary exterior wall surface material (walls at 1:18) and a secondary exterior wall surface material (tile; 5:07).
Re claim 3, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of interior walls are covered by the primary exterior wall surface material by 15 percent to 25 percent.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baker wherein the plurality of interior walls are covered by the primary exterior wall surface material by 15 percent to 25 percent in order to reduce the amount of wall surface material (in this case, shiplap) required, which saves installation and material costs. In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Re claim 4, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 2, Exploring Alternatives discloses wherein the front wall (wall with door) and the back wall (bedroom wall) are cladded by the primary exterior wall surface material (1:18), and the two side walls (side walls tile; 5:07) are cladded with the secondary exterior wall surface material (tile; 5:07).
Re claim 5, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 1, wherein the design of the garage (102) further comprises one or more exterior access openings (133) within the back wall (131).
Re claim 6, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 5, wherein a number of the one or more of exterior access openings (133) is in odd numbers (as only 1 element 133 is shown), but fails to disclose the garage entryway is centered within the front wall.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baker with the garage entryway is centered within the front wall (instead of offset to the right) in order to order to increase aesthetic appeal of the garage, especially when looking from the entrance 133. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019.
Re claim 7, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 5, the garage entryway (112) is off centered (Fig. 4) within the front wall (106b), but fails to disclose wherein a number of the one or more of exterior access openings is in even numbers.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baker wherein a number of the one or more of exterior access openings is in even numbers (such as by addition of another 133) in order to provide more points of entry / exit into the garage, such as private bedroom entrances. It has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 8, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 5, wherein the set of recessed cabinet (at least 238 of 256 and 238) is located closer in proximity to (Fig. 4) the one or more exterior access openings (133) than the garage entryway (112).
Re claim 9, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 1, wherein the design of the garage (102) further comprises a skylight (543) within a ceiling (502) of the garage (102).
Re claim 10, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 9, wherein the skylight (534) is aligned horizontally with (Fig. 23) the garage entryway (524).
Re claim 11, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 1, Exploring Alternatives discloses wherein the garage entryway (door; 1:39) is elevated relative to (1:39, via a sweep, and because the door extends vertically above the floor) an elevation of the floor (1:39).
It would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baker wherein the garage entryway is elevated relative to an elevation of the floor as disclosed by Exploring Alternatives in order to add a sweep for sealing and prevention of the intrusion of insects.
Re claim 12, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 1, wherein the garage entryway (112) is recessed relative to (Fig. 4) the front wall (106a).
Re claim 18, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 1, wherein the design of the garage (102) further comprises at least one cabinet island (258, 236, 238c-d); but fails to disclose wherein the at least one cabinet island comprises the style of trim work used on the cabinetry in the kitchen of the residential structure.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baker wherein the at least one cabinet island comprises the style of trim work used on the cabinetry in the kitchen of the residential structure in order to increase aesthetic appeal of the garage, or to save money by using the same materials as the interior of the residential structure. It has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 (I). In addition, the identification and installation based on the interior materials of the residential structure of the claims is purely aesthetic
Re claim 20, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 1, wherein the design of the garage (102) comprises an attached garage (Fig. 1; 102) or a detached garage (Fig. 23, 862).
Claim(s) 13-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (US 2018/0291615) in view of Exploring Alternatives (Garage Converted into AMAZING Modern Living Space - Tiny Home Tour) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9kle5Abfyw) and Manterfield (US 9,097,030).
Re claim 13, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the one or more flooring materials comprises a first flooring material and a second flooring material.
However, Manterfield discloses wherein the one or more flooring materials (372) comprises a first flooring material (373: Col 5 line 59-Col 6 line 6) and a second flooring material (374: Col 5 line 59-Col 6 line 6).
It would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baker wherein the one or more flooring materials comprises a first flooring material and a second flooring material as disclosed by Manterfield in order to allow for the use of waterproof flooring materials, where needed, or to provide softer material (like carpet) where needed.
Re claim 14, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 13, and Manterfield discloses installing the flooring material (373, 374), but fails to disclose wherein the method further comprises identifying a kitchen flooring material of the residential structure; and installing the first flooring material to be substantially the same as the kitchen flooring material.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baker wherein the method further comprises identifying a kitchen flooring material of the residential structure; and installing the first flooring material to be substantially the same as the kitchen flooring material in order to increase aesthetic appeal of the garage, or to save money by using the same materials as the interior of the residential structure. It has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 (I). In addition, the identification and installation based on the interior materials of the residential structure of the claims is purely aesthetic and provides no additional functions or structure associated with the method.
Re claim 15, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 13, and Manterfield discloses installing the flooring material (373, 374), but fails to disclose wherein the method further comprises identifying a foyer flooring material of the residential structure, and installing the second flooring material to be substantially the same as the foyer flooring material.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baker wherein the method further comprises identifying a foyer flooring material of the residential structure, and installing the second flooring material to be substantially the same as the foyer flooring material in order to increase aesthetic appeal of the garage, or to save money by using the same materials as the interior of the residential structure. It has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 (I). In addition, the identification and installation based on the interior materials of the residential structure of the claims is purely aesthetic and provides no additional functions or structure associated with the method.
Re claim 16, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the floor comprises a flooring material transition line, and wherein the flooring material transition line demarcates transition of the first flooring material to the second flooring material.
However, Manterfield discloses wherein the floor (372) comprises a flooring material transition line (Fig. 3, between 373 and 374), and wherein the flooring material transition line (Fig .3) demarcates transition of the first flooring material (373) to the second flooring material (374).
It would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baker wherein the floor comprises a flooring material transition line, and wherein the flooring material transition line demarcates transition of the first flooring material to the second flooring material as disclosed by Manterfield in order to allow for the use of waterproof flooring materials, where needed, or to provide softer material (like carpet) where needed.
Re claim 17, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 14, but fails to disclose wherein the first flooring material covers less than 50 percent of a total surface of the floor.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baker wherein the first flooring material covers less than 50 percent of a total surface of the floor in order to reduce the amount of carpeting used, in favor of the second flooring material, such as hardwoods disclosed by Manterfield (see Col 5 line 59-Col 6 line 6). In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Re claim 19, Baker as modified discloses the method as described in claim 18, wherein the one or more cabinet island (258, 236, 238c-d) is positioned on the first flooring material (any flooring material thereof), but fails to disclose wherein the one or more flooring materials comprises a first flooring material and a second flooring material; wherein the method further comprises identifying a kitchen flooring material of the residential structure; installing the first flooring material to be substantially the same as the kitchen flooring material.
However, Manterfield discloses wherein the one or more flooring materials (372) comprises a first flooring material (373) and a second flooring material (374).
It would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baker wherein the one or more flooring materials comprises a first flooring material and a second flooring material as disclosed by Manterfield in order to allow for the use of waterproof flooring materials, where needed, or to provide softer material (like carpet) where needed.
In addition, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baker wherein the method further comprises identifying a kitchen flooring material of the residential structure; installing the first flooring material to be substantially the same as the kitchen flooring material in order to increase aesthetic appeal of the garage, or to save money by using the same materials as the interior of the residential structure. It has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 (I). In addition, the identification and installation based on the interior materials of the residential structure of the claims is purely aesthetic and provides no additional functions or structure associated with the method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635