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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a second Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-20, as amended 19 FEB. 2026 are pending and have been considered as follows:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.83 or 1.84 because of the following informalities:
1. The drawings fail to show the following as described in the specification:
“central corridors 24, 25, 26, 27”
2. FIG(s) 1-2 and 21: reference character(s) "1" has/have been used to designate both “insulated exterior wall 1” and “modular unit 1”;
3. The drawings are objected to because marked-up copies must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1).
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 Objections
Claims 1, 11, 15 and 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 1 ln. 10: after “, and wherein the first“ replace [[wall]] with --one of the walls-- as no “first wall” was introduced
Cl. 11 ln. 2: after “securing plates” insert --at-- before “ends” as this appears to be a typographical error
Cl. 15 ln. 3; Cl. 16 ln. 3: after “extending through the securing” replace [[plate]] with --plates-- because multiple plates were introduced in Cl. 10 and Cl. 11
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-18 and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Cl. 17, ln. 2: the recitation(s) of “adjacent prefabricated modular unit similar to a first one” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear how “similar” is defined as the term “similar to a first one” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, parameter, quantity, or other limitation and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 18 and 20 though not particularly referenced in this section are nonetheless rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
CLAIMS PRESENTED BELOW IN ORDER OF DEPENDENCE
Claim 1, 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner US 4592175 A
As per claim 1 Werner teaches modular units to be assembled together into a multistory building comprising living dwellings, a first one and a second one of the prefabricated modular units comprising:
longitudinal beams (proximal and distal beams 12, FIG. 1), a horizontal slab (floor 24, FIG. 1) spanning between the longitudinal beams (proximal and distal beams 12, FIG. 1), and walls (wall members 14, 16, 18, and 20, FIGs. 1 through 5) extending vertically from the horizontal slab (floor 24, FIG. 1), with the horizontal slab (floor 24, FIG. 1) extending beyond a first one of the walls (wall member 18, FIG. 1) into a slab (floor 24, FIG. 1) exceeding portion (portion of 24, left side, FIG. 1),
wherein the slab (floor 24, FIG. 1) exceeding portion (portion of 24, left side, FIG. 1) of the first prefabricated modular unit being adapted to be coupled to the slab (floor 24, FIG. 1) exceeding portion (portion of 24, left side, FIG. 1) of the second prefabricated modular unit to border an interior corridor of the multistory building (see FIG. 1; this is recognized as being adapted or “capable” of bordering a later defined “corridor” for example as defined by two mating portions of 24), and
but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the first [[wall]] --one of the walls-- borders the interior corridor and one of tile living dwellings.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate and place the modules facing one another forming a corridor as is old and well known in the art for hotels and apartments to make a larger building more efficiently.
As per claim 4 Werner teaches the limitations according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of perpendicular beams (left and right side beams 12, 12 FIG. 2) extending transversally that couple the longitudinal beams (proximal and distal beams 12, FIG. 1).
Claim 2-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wilby US 11767668 B2
As per claim 2 Werner teaches the limitations according to claim 1, wherein the walls (wall members 14, 16, 18, and 20, FIGs. 1 through 5) join at room corners (see “corners” FIGs. 1 through 5) and form together a closed living space, but fails to explicitly disclose:
the prefabricated modular units comprising a corner structural column about at least one of the room corners.
Wilby teaches structural columns at an intermediate point of a wall and at corners, specifically:
structural column (corner columns at 22c, FIG. 7) about at least one of the room corners.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Werner by including a structural column at least at a corner as taught by Wilby in order to laterally and vertically reinforce the assembly against loads.
As per claim 3 Werner teaches the limitations according to claim 1, wherein the walls (wall members 14, 16, 18, and 20, FIGs. 1 through 5) join at room corners (see “corners” FIGs. 1 through 5) and form together a closed living space, but fails to explicitly disclose:
the prefabricated modular units comprising at least one intermediary structural column distant from the room corners.
Wilby teaches structural columns at an intermediate point of a wall and at corners, specifically:
intermediary structural column (intermediate columns at 22d, FIG. 7) about at least one of the room corners.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Werner by including a structural column at least at an intermediate point as taught by Wilby in order to laterally and vertically reinforce the assembly against loads.
Claim 10, 15, 5, 11, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Wilby as applied to claim 2 and 3 above, respectively, and further in view of Kelbish US 3835601 A.
As per claim 10, 15, 5, 11, and 16 Werner in view of Wilby teaches the limitations according to claim 2 and 3, respectively, but the combination fails to explicitly disclose securing pins —or rods— and securing plates between point interfaces of stacked members, specifically:
(Cl. 10) wherein the prefabricated modular units further comprise securing plates at ends of the corner structural columns for securing above-story prefabricated modular units on top of the prefabricated modular units;
(Cl. 15) the building comprising securing pins extending through the securing [[plate]] --plates--, the securing pins securing the above-story prefabricated modular units to the prefabricated modular units;
(Cl. 5) a rod coupling the intermediary structural column to one of the longitudinal beams;
(Cl. 11) the prefabricated modular units further comprise securing plates --at-- ends of the intermediary structural columns for securing above-story prefabricated modular units on top of the prefabricated modular units; and
(Cl. 16) the building comprising securing pins extending through the securing [[plate]] --plates--, the securing pins securing the above-story prefabricated modular units to the prefabricated modular units.
Kelbish teaches the use of such pins and plates as claimed for connecting modules, specifically:
(Cl. 10) wherein the prefabricated modular units further comprise securing plates (steel bearing plates 39, FIG. 11) at ends of the corner structural columns for securing above-story prefabricated modular units on top of the prefabricated modular units;
(Cl. 15) the building comprising securing pins (alignment prongs 40, FIG. 11) extending through the securing [[plate]] --plates-- (steel bearing plates 39, FIG. 11), the securing pins (alignment prongs 40, FIG. 11) securing the above-story prefabricated modular units to the prefabricated modular units;
(Cl. 5) a rod (prong 40, FIG. 11) coupling the intermediary structural column to one of the longitudinal beams;
(Cl. 11) the prefabricated modular units further comprise securing plates (steel bearing plates 39, FIG. 11) --at-- ends of the intermediary structural columns for securing above-story prefabricated modular units on top of the prefabricated modular units; and
(Cl. 16) the building comprising securing pins (alignment prongs 40, FIG. 11) extending through the securing [[plate]] --plates-- (steel bearing plates 39, FIG. 11), the securing pins (alignment prongs 40, FIG. 11) securing the above-story prefabricated modular units to the prefabricated modular units.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Werner in view of Wilby by including the alignment prongs and plates as taught by Kelbish in order to provide a strong and secure link between connected modules.
Claim 6-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Hamy US 3871146 A.
As per claim 6-7 Werner teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and further discloses longitudinal beams, but fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 6) the beam includes a ventilated duct extending at least partially therein; and
(Cl. 7) the beam includes a ventilated duct extending in at least a portion thereof.
Hamy teaches such a duct in an elongated separating member serving as a beam, specifically:
(Cl. 6) the beam (members 28 and 30, FIG. 1) includes a ventilated duct (ducts 50, tube 100, FIG. 1) extending at least partially therein; and
(Cl. 7) the beam (members 28 and 30, FIG. 1) includes a ventilated duct (ducts 50, tube 100, FIG. 1) extending in at least a portion thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Werner by including the conduit and tensioning tube as taught by Hamy in order to allow elongated members to be extended across the beam member such as tensioning members.
Claim 8, 9, 14 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Neufingerl US 6363586 B1.
As per claim 8 Werner teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the beams of the prefabricated modular units extend longitudinally between two ends, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the prefabricated modular units further comprising a securing plate at at least one end for securing the prefabricated modular units together.
Neufingerl teaches the separating member can comprise a void forming slot with a connecting member extending between adjacent modular units, specifically:
wherein the prefabricated modular units (two containers 6, 6, FIG. 7) further comprising a securing plate (face of spacer portion 40, FIG. 7) at at least one end for securing the prefabricated modular units together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Werner by including the spacer between modular units as taught by Neufingerl in order to allow selective yet robust joining of the modular units to create a larger structure, as desired.
As per claim 9, 14, and 19 Werner in view of Neufingerl teaches the limitations according to claim 8, and Neufingerl further discloses:
(Cl. 9) wherein the securing plate comprises a hole (openings 30, FIG. 7) for a securing member to extend across;
(Cl. 14) the building comprising securing pins (hammer portions 18, 42, FIG. 7) extending through the securing [[plate]] --plates--, the securing pins (hammer portions 18, 42, FIG. 7) securing the prefabricated modular units to each other; and
(Cl. 19) a securing pin (hammer portions 18, 42, FIG. 7) comprising a first member comprising a threaded bore, and a second member comprising a threaded shaft for screwing in the threaded bore (see “screwthreaded rod 16 is inserted through the through bore 28 in the tightening sleeve 24 and non-rotatably connected to the tightening sleeve 24 by means of at least one pin 32” 5:53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Werner in view of Neufingerl by including the threaded members for engaging the securing plate as taught by Neufingerl in order to precisely allow for placement or removal of the connecting members.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Willingham US 4136492 A.
As per claim 12 the primary reference of Werner teaches the limitations according to claim 1 above but fails to explicitly disclose:
a cast interior dividing wall with a cast door frame and a finishing molding.
Willingham teaches such a door and molding can be provided by casting, specifically:
a cast interior dividing wall (stem 30, FIG. 7b) with a cast door frame (door bucks 109, FIG. 9) and a finishing molding (cove molding 88b, FIG. 7b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Werner by including the various elements of interior finishing trades as taught by Willingham in order to improve the habitability of the interior of the assembly and thereby increase the value thereof.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klett et al. US 3703058 A (Klett).
As per claim 13 the primary reference of Werner teaches the limitations according to claim 1 above but fails to explicitly disclose:
further comprising a vertical plumbing shaft and an extruded insulation blanket cast together.
Klett teaches such a shaft, specifically:
further comprising a vertical plumbing shaft and an extruded insulation blanket cast together (“when four modular units are properly oriented to be interconnected… such vertical space may be left open to receive therein electrical conduits, plumbing pipes or the like, or the same may be filled with insulation or grouting applied after the modules are in place but before adjacent modules are horizontally interconnected in the manner shown” 11:64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly Werner by including the vertical insulation and conduit and as taught by Klett in order to allow utilities to be integrally provided when casting modules to later provide plumbing, thereby making the assembly more habitable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17-18 and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record 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.
US 10865582 B2 granted to Roberts et al. teaches “FIG. 2 depicts an array 200 of four shelter modules 210, 220, 230, and 240. The array also includes a top flashing assembly 250 that operates to fortify or harden a top seam 252 between modules 210 and 220”
PNG
media_image1.png
519
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 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 D MATTEI can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights