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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/23/26 has been entered.
Functional Language Limitations
It is noted that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function and, the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus meeting all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
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, 12-14are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel US 2012/0240501 A1 (hereinafter ‘Spiegel’).
In regard to claims 1 and 13, Spiegel teaches a system comprising:
a plurality of sidewalls including a plurality of framing members (see fig. 1), the sidewalls defining a cavity configured to house one or more pieces of data center equipment, wherein the plurality of members include at least one of one or more vertical framing members (18) or one or more horizontal members, wherein the sidewalls comprise:
first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth sidewalls and including respective first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth sets of framing members of the plurality of framing members (as seen in fig. 1 showing horizontal and vertical members. Note that the six sidewalls are not explicitly disclosed for simplification purposes, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that Spiegel teaches at least six sidewalls (three shown in fig. 1) so as to provide an enclosure to the interior room (40) disclosed see [0004]); and
one or more sidewall panels (68) configured to couple to at least one framing member (see [0025]),
wherein the plurality of framing members are formed of a timber material (see [0027] Note that although Siegel does not explicitly recite timber, but discloses lumber material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use timber instead of the lumber material as timber is readily available and it’s notoriously well known for being used in framing construction for its structural capacity), and further comprising floor (44) panels configured to couple to the sidewalls and framing members (see fig. 1);
wherein the one or more sidewall panels include at least a first (rigid insulation, see [0029]) and a second layer (sheathing 22), 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 (see [0030]).
Spiegel does not explicitly disclose the material of the sheathing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide a gypsum board as the sheathing of Spiegel as it is notoriously well known in the art, and the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.07). Thus, one would want to use gypsum as the sheathing because is readily available, code compliant and a durable alternative.
Further, as noted above in the Functional Language Limitations Paragraph, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Note that the data center equipment is not part of the claimed subject matter, and the structure of Spiegel is capable of housing all kinds of equipment, including data center equipment, therefore the claim is met.
In regard to claim 8, Spiegel teaches the claimed invention wherein the one or more sidewall panels include a façade (see [0046]).
In regard to claim 9, Spiegel’s façade is not explicitly disclosed as thermowood.
However, Spiegel discloses wood siding (see [0025]). 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 (which is a type of wood boarding) as the façade of Spiegel’s system so as to provide an aesthetically pleasant appearance and durability.
In regard to claim 12, Spiegel teaches the claimed invention wherein the framing members include at least one base frame member (42).
In regard to claim 14, although not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide roof panels configured to couple to the sidewalls in the structure of Siegel, on the roof structure shown in fig. 2, so as to complete the enclosed structure.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel in view of Penland, JR. et al. US 2017/0121916 A1 (hereinafter ‘Penland’).
In regard to claim 2, Spiegel teaches conventional wood lumber (see [0027]) but 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 Spiegel in view of Reid US 2014/0259957 A1 (hereinafter ‘Reid’).
In regard to claim 3, Spiegel teaches conventional wood lumber (see [0027]) but 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 Spiegel in view of Ledwith et al. US 2022/0018083 A1 (hereinafter ‘Ledwith’).
In regard to claim 4, Spiegel teaches conventional wood lumber (see [0027]) but 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 Spiegel in view of Kerlidis US 2022/0243469 A1 (hereinafter ‘Kerlidis’).
In regard to claims 5-6, Spiegel teaches conventional wood lumber (see [0027]) but 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 Spiegel in view of Barbour US 2021/0318735 A1 (hereinafter ‘Barbour’).
In regard to claim 10, Spiegel’s façade is not explicitly disclosed as a rock panel cladding board.
Barbour discloses a portable data center system comprising sidewalls convered 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 Spiegel’s system so as to provide an aesthetically pleasant appearance and durability.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel in view of Butler et al. US 2007/0000921 A1 (hereinafter ‘Butler’).
In regard to claim 11, Spiegel does not explicitly teach the plurality of framing members include one or more diagonal framing members.
Butler teaches a structure comprising first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth sidewalls including corresponding sets of framing members (see fig. 11), wherein the framing members include one or mor diagonal members (142).
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 diagonal framing members in Spiegel’s system, as taught by Butler so as to provide additional support for the panels.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegel in view of Unger US 2015/0152634 A1 (hereinafter ‘Unger’).
In regard to claim 21, Spiegel teaches the second material comprises gypsum board (see claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach the first material comprises mineral wool.
Unger teaches a structure comprising first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth sidewalls (see fig. 2) including insulated panels comprising wool insulation (see [0149]).
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 mineral wool as the rigid wool of Spiegel, as taught by Unger, 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 argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights