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 .
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 1-6, 8-14 and 21 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.
In regard to claim 1, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what the scope of the bottom and top sidewalls is. Are they included within the first to sixth sidewalls or are they in addition to the first to sixth sidewalls?
For examining purposes it is assumed the top and bottom sidewalls are included in the first to sixth sidewalls.
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 1, 8-9, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen US 2014/0213169 A1 (hereinafter ‘Rasmussen’) in view of Keegan US 2022/0400574 A1 (hereinafter ‘Keegan’).
In regard to claims 1 and 13, Rasmussen teaches a system comprising:
a plurality of sidewalls (see [0135]) including a plurality of framing members (see fig. 5A), the sidewalls defining a cavity (enclosed interior space, see Abstract) configured to house one or more pieces of data center equipment (see [0091]), wherein the plurality of members include at least one of one or more vertical framing members (fig. 5A) or one or more horizontal members, wherein each sidewall is formed by one or more framing members (note that each sidewall comprises at least one framing member as noted in [0135]); wherein the sidewalls comprise:
first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth sidewalls (see [0098]) and including respective first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth sets of framing members of the plurality of framing members (see [0135]) including a top and a bottom sidewall (110, 174);
one or more sidewall panels configured to couple to at least one framing member (see [0028]),
and further comprising floor (174) panels configured to couple to the sidewalls and framing members (see fig. 5B and [0127]);
wherein the one or more sidewall panels are formed of at least a first layer and a second layer (see “insulated metal panels” in [0176]) wherein the first layer is of a material for thermal protection (insulation) and the second layer is formed of a second material for fire resistance (metal is fire resistant).
Although Rasmussen does not explicitly recite timber, it does disclose its members can be made of any “suitable material”.
Keegan teaches a modular data center comprising a frame structure made of timber (see [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date, to use timber, as taught by Keegan, to minimize the impact on the environment (see Keegan [0064]).
In regard to claim 8, the combination of Rasmussen/Keegan teaches the claimed invention wherein the one or more sidewall panels include a façade (see Rasmussen fig. 1).
In regard to claim 9, the combination of Rasmussen/Keegan’s façade is not explicitly disclosed as thermowood.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the of the instant application to provide thermowood as the façade of the combination so as to provide an aesthetically pleasant appearance and durability.
In regard to claim 11, the combination of Rasmussen/Keegan teaches the framing members include at least one or more diagonal framing members (see Rasmussen fig. 5A).
In regard to claim 12, the combination of Rasmussen/Keegan teaches the claimed invention wherein the framing members include at least one base frame member (Rasmussen 178).
In regard to claim 14, the combination of Rasmussen/Keegan teaches the claimed invention further comprising one or more roof panels (Rasmussen 114) configured to coupled to at least one framing member of the plurality of sidewalls (see [0100]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen and Keegan and in further view of Penland, JR. et al. US 2017/0121916 A1 (hereinafter ‘Penland’).
In regard to claim 2, the combination of Rasmussen/Keegan does not teach a specific type of timber, thus leaving it up to the person of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable timber. Softwood timber is widely known in the art for being used in the construction of frame members due to being inexpensive and easy to work with, and therefore obvious to use because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima-facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.07).
Nevertheless, Penland teaches the use of softwood timbers in structural framing members (see [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling application of the instant application, to provide the framing members formed of softwood timber, as taught by Penland, to reduce overall cost of the structure.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen and Keegan in view of Reid US 2014/0259957 A1 (hereinafter ‘Reid’).
In regard to claim 3, the combination of Rasmussen/Keegan does not teach a specific type of timber, the combination of Rasmussen/Keegan does not teach a specific type of timber, thus leaving it up to the person of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable timber. Poplar timber is widely known in the art for being used in the construction of frame members due to being inexpensive and providing structural strength, and therefore obvious to use because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima-facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.07).
Nevertheless, Reid teaches the use of poplar timbers in structural framing members (see [0017] and [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling application of the instant application, to provide the framing members formed of poplar, as taught by Reid, to reduce overall cost of the structure while providing structural strength.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen and Keegan and in further view of Ledwith et al. US 2022/0018083 A1 (hereinafter ‘Ledwith’).
In regard to claim 4, the combination of Rasmussen/Keegan does not teach a specific type of timber, thus leaving it up to the person of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable timber. Cross-laminated timber is widely known in the art for being used in the construction of frame members due to being inexpensive and environmentally friendly, and therefore obvious to use because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima-facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.07).
Nevertheless, Ledwith teaches the use of cross-laminated timbers in structural framing members (see [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling application of the instant application, to provide the framing members formed of cross-laminated timber, as taught by Ledwith, so as to provide environmentally friendly and sustainable structures.
Claims 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen and Keegan and in further view of Kerlidis US 2022/0243469 A1 (hereinafter ‘Kerlidis’).
In regard to claims 5-6, the combination of Rasmussen/Keegan does not explicitly teach glulam (glue laminated timber).
Kerlidis teaches members used in frame construction are typically constructed from glulam (see [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling application of the instant application, to provide the framing members formed of glulam, as taught by Kerlidis, because it provides high strength and stiffness (see Kerlidis [0027]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen and Keegan and in further view of Barbour US 2021/0318735 A1 (hereinafter ‘Barbour’).
In regard to claim 10, the combination does not explicitly disclosed a façade including a rock panel cladding board.
Barbour discloses a portable data center system comprising sidewalls covered by cladding panels (see [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the of the instant application to provide a rock panel cladding board as the façade of the combination so as to provide an aesthetically pleasant appearance and durability.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen and Keegan and in further view of Roberts US 3,908,062 (hereinafter ‘Roberts’).
In regard to claim 21, the combination does not explicitly disclose the first material comprises mineral wool and the second material comprises gypsum board.
Roberts eaches construction panel comprising a first material of mineral wool (18) and a second material of gypsum board (sheets 19, 20. See fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the of the instant application to provide gypsum panels, and mineral wool as the rigid wool of the sidewalls of the combination, so as to provide fire resistant properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Conclusion
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 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.
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 PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 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 E 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
