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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, at the beginning of the line, please insert – A --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 10, at the beginning of the line, please delete [ply] and insert – plies --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-5 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 4-5 have not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 6 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 9-12, 15, 17-20 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, claims 9-12 have not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1 line 14, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number and section of plies" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the load-bearing capacity" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the required vertical force" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4 line 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the local load-bearing capacity" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the values" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, line 3, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the stacks" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘762 (WO2016176762).
For claim 21, ‘762 discloses a construction system (fig. 1, 10), comprising a set of levels (see figure 1, there are multiple levels shown). which include a floor [0014], a ceiling [0076] and load-bearing walls (figs. 2-3), wherein: at least one of the load-bearing walls (fig. 1, walls of 10) include(s) a first wood-based load-bearing panel (panels interior of the building) and a second wood-based load-bearing panel (panels at the perimeter of the building), the first panel is located at a first position in the construction system (interior) the second panel is located at a second position (perimeter of house) in the construction system the first position is different from the second position, the first position is associated with a first required vertical force to be supported by the first panel (inherent), the second position is associated with a second required vertical force to be supported by the second panel (inherent), the first vertical force is different from the second vertical force (the forces required to support the interior are different from those of the exterior), each of the first and second panels includes at least three superimposed plies (fig. 3, 73, 32, 36), at least two plies of which includes a series of wood-based strips distributed along the ply, the wood-based strips of at least one ply being substantially vertically oriented (32) within the construction system.
‘762 does not explicitly disclose that the load-bearing capacity of the first panel is comprised between 1 and 4 times the first required vertical force and the load-bearing capacity of the second panel is comprised between 1 and 4 times the second required vertical force.
However ‘762 discloses the obviousness of reinforcing the panels to avoid buckling [0043] and it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the load-bearing capacity of the first panel comprise between 1 and 4 times the first required vertical force and make the load-bearing capacity of the second panel comprise between 1 and 4 times the second required vertical force since this merely involves reinforcing the panels according to design specifications to achieve expected and predictable results like increased strength of the construction system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA K IHEZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5347. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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 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.
/JOSHUA K IHEZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights