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 .
Response to Amendment
The following office action is in response to the amendment and request for reconsideration filed on December 8, 2025. The amendment to claim 11 has overcome the previous 112b rejection. The examiner would like to suggest that the applicant include “is” before “on” in line 3 of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 is a duplicate of claim 11. Both claims are dependent upon claim 1. Therefore, claim 21 does not further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-4, 6-15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe (6944996) in view of Nord (20050252100).
In regard to claims 1, 11, and 21, Rowe discloses a facility 20 comprising: a connecting ring (ring surrounding 50 and/or 104, figures 2 and 3); and a plurality of residences (at least some of 22A-22F) disposed about the connecting ring, each residence of the plurality of residences comprising: a shared area having a care bedroom (figure 8, room between the stairway and the bathroom) connected to the connecting ring (i.e. by the family room), the care bedroom accessible directly from the connecting ring (one could walk directly from the connecting ring to the care bedroom), the care bedroom having a care closet (figure 8, see small area by stairs with door connected thereto) directly accessible from the care bedroom; a private area including a private bedroom (figure 8, room to right or above the bathroom) connected to the care bedroom (they are connecting through the doorways) and separated from the connecting ring, the private bedroom having a private closet (figure 8, see closet with double doors or single door inside the room, there are two closets in the private room) directly accessible from the private bedroom, the care bedroom accessible directly from the private bedroom through a residence entrance (figure 8, the private bedroom and care bedroom have sliding doors, column 3, lines 44-47, that lead to each other. Therefore, they are directly accessible through a residence entrance), the residence entrance being securable to prevent access from the care bedroom and the connecting ring; and an exterior entrance (garage 140, figure 7) that provides access to the private bedroom separate from the connecting ring. The examiner takes official notice that placing locks on sliding glass doors or any other door in a home is well-known and would have been obvious to make the sliding glass doors securable to prevent unwanted entry.
If the applicant disagrees that the sliding glass doors are residence entrances because they connect to a balcony, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provide stair access to the balcony for a second story entrance because doing so would allow users to enter directly to the second floor. Further, the examiner takes official notice that providing stairs to access a second story balcony or deck of a building is well-known in the building art.
Rowe does not specifically disclose the use of a central building disposed outside of and connected to the connecting ring. Nord teaches that it is known to provide a central building 3 outside of and connected to a connecting ring 2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nord’s teaching into Rowe’s invention, because the central building could be used as a common reception area for the residents and placed opposite service entrance 54 so that there would be an entrance on each side of the building.
Finally, the examiner would like to comment that the term “care” facility in the preamble of the claim is afforded little patentable weight. The term is merely an intended use and does not impose any structural limitations to the claim.
In regard to claims 2 and 3, Rowe in view of Nord disclose the basic claimed invention, further comprising a plurality of rooms, the rooms are accessible from the exterior entrance or the private bedroom entrance. The examiner would like to point out that all the rooms inside of any of the units are accessible through exterior entrances. The rooms further include a kitchen 142, figure 7.
In regard to claim 4, Rowe in view of Nord disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the private area includes a private bathroom (figure 8, 160) accessible from the private bedroom. Rowe in view of Nord do not specifically disclose that the shared area includes a care bathroom accessible from the care bedroom. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a second bathroom into the care bedroom because ensuite bathrooms are notoriously well-known. By having a bathroom in the care bedroom, the person using that bedroom would not have to share a bathroom with the occupant of the private bedroom. This would be more convenient for everyone.
In regard to claim 6, Rowe in view of Nord disclose the basic claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing the size of the care closet. It would have been within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the closet in the room of a dwelling any desired size. One having ordinary skill in the art is capable of determining the size of a closet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to make it only a small closet so the living space inside the room could be increased.
In regard to claims 7 and 8, Rowe in view of Nord disclose the basic claimed invention, further comprising a courtyard 50, the connecting ring disposed about the courtyard such that the courtyard is disposed within a space defined by the connecting ring. The connecting ring defines a substantially circular shape for the courtyard (figures 2 and 3).
In regard to claim 9, Rowe in view of Nord disclose the basic claimed invention except for specifically disclosing that the courtyard is only accessible from the central building. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to restrict access to the courtyard by having to go through the central building so that the courtyard could be monitored for safety to prevent any unwanted visitors from gaining access to that part of the facility.
In regard to claim 10, Rowe in view of Nord disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the central building defines a main entrance 54 that provides access to the central building, the connecting ring, and the shared areas via the connecting ring. The examiner would like to note that claims 10 and 11 both depend from claim 1. Therefore, only one entrance is needed for claims 1 and 10 and for claims 1 and 11. Thus, the entrance 54 could serve as both the service entrance or main entrance.
In regard to claims 12 and 13, Rowe in view of Nord disclose the basic claimed, wherein the shared area includes a care entrance (the doorway entering the care bedroom, figure 8) between the care bedroom and the connecting ring. Rowe in view of Nord do not specifically disclose that the care entrance securable from the care bedroom or the connecting ring to limit access to the care bedroom from the connecting ring. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a lock on the bedroom door so that the occupant of the bedroom can ensure privacy when desired. Further, the examiner takes official notice that placing a lock on a bedroom door is notoriously well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to claim 14, Rowe in view of Nord disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the care bedroom is configured to care for a memory care patient. The room is a bedroom that would obviously be configured to hold at least a bed, which could be used in the care of a memory care patient.
In regard to claim 15, Rowe in view of Nord disclose the basic claimed invention except for specifically disclosing that the plurality of residences includes 12 residences disposed about the connecting ring. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include 12 residences instead of 8 because the mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Further, by providing 12 residences, the structure could accommodate more people.
Claim(s) 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe (6944996).
In regard to claim 16, Rowe disclose facility 20 comprising: common areas (living room on first floor and/or areas 104, 50, 52, and/or 54); and a plurality of residences 22A-22F, each residence of the plurality of residences comprising: a shared area having a care bedroom (figure 8, room between the stairway and the bathroom) connected to the common areas such that the shared area is accessible from the common areas (there are doors on the first and second floors of the residences that access the common areas that one could pass through and go to the shared area), the care bedroom having a care closet (see figure 8, the closet is by the stairs in the figure) directly accessible from the care bedroom;
a private area including a private bedroom(figure 8, room to right or above the bathroom) connected to the care bedroom and separated from the common areas by the care bedroom (if one entered the living room on the first floor, the stairs and care bedroom on the second floor separates the common area from the private bedroom), the private bedroom having a private closet directly accessible from the private bedroom (figure 8, see closet with double doors or single door inside the room, there are two closets in the private room), the care bedroom accessible directly from the private bedroom through a residence entrance, the residence entrance being securable to prevent access from the care bedroom and the common areas; and an exterior entrance (garage 140, figure 7) that provides access to the private bedroom separate from the common areas (figure 8, the private bedroom and care bedroom have sliding doors, column 3, lines 44-47, that lead to each other. Therefore, they are directly accessible through a residence entrance). The examiner takes official notice that placing locks on sliding glass doors or any other door in a home is well-known and would have been obvious to make the sliding glass doors securable to prevent unwanted entry.
If the applicant disagrees that the sliding glass doors are residence entrances because they connect to a balcony, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provide stair access to the balcony for a second story entrance because doing so would allow users to enter directly to the second floor. Further, the examiner takes official notice that providing stairs to access a second story of a building is well-known in the building art.
Finally, the examiner would like to comment that the term “care” facility in the preamble of the claim is afforded little patentable weight. The term is merely an intended use and does not impose any structural limitations to the claim.
In regard to claim 17, Rowe discloses the basic claimed invention, wherein the common areas include a connecting hall, each care bedroom accessible directly from the connecting hall (the care bedroom is accessible directly from the living room by the stairs, which are essentially a hallway, or the hall 104 through the door on the second floor).
In regard to claim 18, Rowe discloses the basic claimed invention, wherein the common areas include a central building 50, the central building providing access to the exterior of the care facility via 54 and to the connecting hall (at least 104).
In regard to claim 19, Rowe discloses a private residence comprising: a care suite comprising: a shared area having a care bedroom (figure 8, room between the stairway and the bathroom) and a care bathroom (160, figure 8), the care bedroom having a care entrance (door shown in figure 8 connected to the care bedroom) configured to connect to a common area (family room figure 8 or courtyard 50) of a care facility to allow access to the care bedroom separate from the rest of the private residence (the second floor in figure 8 is separated from the first floor), the care bathroom accessible from the care bedroom; and a private area including a private bedroom (figure 8, bedroom to right or above bathroom), the private bedroom having a residence entrance (interior door, or sliding glass door. Both allow direct access to the care bedroom figure 8, the private bedroom and care bedroom have sliding doors, column 3, lines 44-47, that lead to each other.) defined between the care bedroom and the private bedroom allowing access directly to the care bedroom from the private bedroom, the private bedroom having a bedroom entrance (the other of the interior door or sliding door) separate from the residence entrance, the private bedroom having a private closet (figure 8, see area inside the private bedroom separated by the double doors or the area by the bathroom that has a single door. Both are closets.) directly accessible from the private bedroom; and an exterior entrance (garage 140) that is connected to the residence entrance allowing access to the private bedroom from an exterior of the private residence without passing through the shared area of the care suite.
Rowe does not specifically disclose in the figure 8 embodiment that the care bathroom is directly accessible from the care bedroom. However, Rowe’s figure 6 second floor embodiment teaches that it is know to provide direct access from a bedroom to a bathroom. Figure 6 shows the bathroom directly connected to the bedroom 164. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide direct access from the care bedroom to the care bathroom for privacy. By doing so, the occupant does not have to walk into a common area where others may be to go into the bathroom. This is also notoriously well-known in the art.
In regard to claim 20, Rowe discloses the basic claimed invention, further comprising a plurality of rooms between the exterior entrance 140 and the bedroom entrance. The garage is on the first floor so one would have to pass through at least the kitchen, dining room, living room (figure 7) to get upstairs to the bedroom entrance (figure 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the new ground of rejection presented in this office action was necessitated by the applicant’s amendment. In regard to claim 1, at least the limitation “a central building disposed outside of and connected to the connecting ring” was not previously considered. Previously, the central building did not have to be “disposed outside of” the connecting ring. Thus, this prompted a new rejection as seen above.
Second, in regard to claim 16, the limitations of “the care bedroom having a care closet directly accessible from the care bedroom” and “the private bedroom having a private closet directly accessible from the private bedroom” were never considered in combination with claim 16 before. Although a form of these limitations, i.e. they previously did not include “directly”, was considered with respect to claims 1 and 5 in the last rejection, again, the limitations were not considered in combination with respect to all the limitations of claim 16. They were also not considered with respect to the term “directly”.
Third, in regard to claim 19, again, as described above, the newly added limitations were not previously considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 19. Neither claim 19, nor any claim dependent thereon ever previously claimed a care bathroom, the care bathroom being “directly” accessible from the care bedroom, or the private bedroom having a closet “directly” accessible from the private bedroom.
Therefore, based on the changes to the claims, the ground of rejection needed to be changed and the examiner took a different position on the interpretation of the Rowe reference.
In response to the applicant’s argument that any room of Rowe being referred to as a bedroom was overly broad in the previous rejection, the examiner would like to point out that in the new ground of rejection above that was necessitated by the amendment, the examiner only relied on actual bedrooms of Rowe when matching the bedroom claim language to the reference. Thus, a bedroom in the claim is mapped to a conventional bedroom in the reference.
In regard to the 103 arguments and the limitations of claim 5 being incorporated into the amended claims, the current office action is made final for the reasons pointed out above. The applicant included more limitations into the independent claims than were present in claim 5. Thus, the current office action is properly made final.
In regard to the newly added claim 21, as pointed out above, this claim is a duplicate of claim 11. Both claim 11 and 21 are identical and both depend from claim 1. Thus, claim 21 fails to further limit claim 1.
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 Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633