DETAILED ACTION
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites limitations set forth in parathesis throughout the claim. It is unclear if those limitations are being positively recited or not. Appropriate correction is necessary. Claims are examined as best understood.
Claims 1 and 4 recite the limitation “at least one kind of”. It is unclear if the Applicant has intended to invoke alternative limitations. Appropriate correction is necessary. Claims are examined as best understood.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faigen (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0194786).
Regarding claim 1, Faigen discloses a building (100, Figs. 12) comprising at least one wall part (Wa, Wb, Wc, Wd) including at least one of a first wall (Wa) and a second wall (Wb), wherein the first wall is configured as a plurality of panel members (10w) having a standard size having a predetermined height and a predetermined width being connected in a plane direction, panel members (10w) are arranged side by side in a width direction, and includes a window portion (136, Fig. 13), the second wall (Wb) is configured as the plurality of panel members (10w) being connected in the plane direction, and includes a window portion (136) corresponding to a sum of an area of β panel members and an area corresponding to the remainder, and the panel member contains pipes for heating/cooling (Para [0016]). The Examiner considers the panels to be heating and/or cooling panels that are capable of allowing heat transmission from one surface side to the other surface side while preventing heat transmission from the other surface side to the one surface side or capable of exhibiting a refrigerating function by absorption or adsorption. Faigen discloses the first and second walls having widths, but does not disclose wherein a width of the first wall is N times the predetermined width (N is an integer of 2 or more), and (N−α (α is an integer of 0 or more and less than N)), the window portion corresponding to an area of the α panel members or wherein, when a width of the second wall has a remainder of less than a predetermined width with respect to M times the predetermined width (M is an integer of 2 or more), the (M - β) panel members are arranged side by side in the width direction (β is an integer of 0 or more and a number less than M). However, it would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the widths of the walls and area of the window portion to be of any dimension and ratio as desired as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved for a difference in changes in size or dimensions.
Regarding claim 2, Faigen discloses wherein the at least one wall part (10w) includes a specific wall (10c), an opposing wall (10a, Fig. 11) facing the specific wall, and a connection wall (10b) connecting the specific wall and the opposing wall, a height of the specific wall is an integer multiple of the predetermined height, and the corresponding integer number of panel members are stacked, and when the specific wall is different in height from the opposing wall (Figs. 11-12) the connection wall includes a plurality of the panel members (10w1, Fig. 12) and a triangular or trapezoidal panel portions (10W3) disposed at an upper end, but does not disclose the panel portions being windows. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have inserted windows along any portion of any wall as desired as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 3, Faigen discloses wherein the window portion (136), but does not disclose the window portion including a window glass installation part for installing a window glass, and a through plate installation part for installing a plate material having a through hole penetrating indoors and outdoors. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have a window that comprised of a window glass installation part and a through plate having a through hole to help facilitate the installation of the window as routinely done in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Faigen discloses wherein the panel member is an air conditioning panel (Para [0070]) that is at least one kind of the heat pipe panel and the cooling panel (Para [0016]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a building comprising an air conditioning panel, a plurality of atria that face each of the one wall and the other wall facing each other among the at least one wall part and vertically extend across a plurality of floors, an upper communication pat, a lower communication pat, wherein at least the plurality of atria and upper communication pat is air conditioned by the air conditioning panel as recited in claim 5 in combination with claims 1 and 4 in its entirety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J BUCKLE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST.
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 Glessner can be reached at 5712726754. 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.
/JAMES J BUCKLE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3633