DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-10, 15 and 22 are pending.
Claims 2, 11-14, 16-21 are cancelled.
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 15, 1, 3-10 and 22 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.
Re claim 15, claim 15 recites, “the interlockable wall panels” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the interlockable panels” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 3, claim 3 recites, “each interlockable wall panels” in line 2 and again in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “each interlockable panel” in both instances and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 4, claim 4 recites, “each interlockable wall panels” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “each interlockable panel” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 5, claim 5 recites, “each interlockable wall panels” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “each interlockable panel” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 22, claim 22 recites, “box-like structure” in lines 3. The term “box-like” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “box-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is sufficiently like a box to be “box-like” to one of ordinary skill may not be to another and thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. In view of the remarks, this language will be interpreted as requiring at least a floor, wall and ceiling panel.
Claims 1, 6-10 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bozidar (DE102020119771).
Re claim 15 as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 above, Bozidar discloses a building stabilization assembly (Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of subsets of interlockable wall panels (10; Page 2 of the English translation, the paragraph beginning with, “in order to achieve” discloses the panels used as at all of ceilings, walls and floors), the plurality of subsets of interlockable panels (10) comprising:
- at least one wall subset of interlockable panels (10; Page 2 of the English translation, the paragraph beginning with, “in order to achieve”), wherein each of the interlockable wall panels (10) is configured to be associated with and connected to a side wall (Page 2 of English translation) of a building that is to be reinforced (10 is capable of use to be “associated with and connected” to a side wall of a building to be reinforced, as this is a statement of intended use);
- a floor subset (10; Page 2 of the English translation, the paragraph beginning with, “in order to achieve” discloses the panels used as at floors) of interlockable panels that is configured to be connected to a floor of the building that is to be reinforced (10 is capable of being connected to a floor of a building that is to be reinforced, as this is a statement of intended use), wherein each of the interlockable panels (10) of the floor subset (Page 2 English translation) have a side edge (edge of 10, see Fig. 1) comprising one or more indentations (22) and/or projections (20) that are shaped to provide a mating and interlocking connection (Fig. 2) with one or more interlockable panels (10) of the at least one wall subset (10, as 10 is capable of connection to each additional 10); and
- a ceiling subset (10; Page 2 of the English translation, the paragraph beginning with, “in order to achieve” discloses the panels used as at ceilings) of interlockable panels that is configured to be connected to a ceiling of the building that is to be reinforced (10 is capable of being connected to a ceiling of a building that is to be reinforced, as this is a statement of intended use), wherein each of the interlockable panels (10) of the ceiling subset (Page 2 English translation) have a side edge (Fig. 1, edge of 10) comprising one or more indentations (22) and/or projections (20) that are shaped to provide a mating and interlocking connection with (Fig. 2) one or more interlockable panels (10) of the at least one wall subset (10, as 10 is capable of connection to each additional 10).
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) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozidar (DE102020119771) in view of Houk (US 5,746,038).
Re claim 22, Bozidar discloses the building stabilization assembly according to claim 15, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one wall subset, the ceiling subset, and the floor subset of interlockable panels, when in an assembled position, provide a box-like structure to the building to be reinforced.
However, Houk discloses wherein the at least one wall subset (104), the ceiling subset (101), and the floor subset (110) of interlockable panels (Fig. 3), when in an assembled position (Fig. 3), provide a box-like structure (Fig. 3) to the building to be reinforced (per the above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building stabilization assembly of Bozidar wherein the at least one wall subset, the ceiling subset, and the floor subset of interlockable panels, when in an assembled position, provide a box-like structure to the building to be reinforced in order to provide a rigid, better secured structure. As in the above, Bozidar does not disclose that the wall subset, floor subset, and ceiling subset are connected directly together. Instead, they are considered loose-laid with respect to each other. Interconnected the wall, ceiling and floor subsets as in Houk would provide a more rigid, secure structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-10 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 (for the reasons stated in the previous rejection) is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102 and/or 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bozidar teaches, in effect, inetrlockable panels only on a wall, ceiling or floor. Applicant argues that the panels thereof are not interlocked inasmuch as a floor subset does not interlock to the wall subset, and the ceiling subset does not interlock to the wall subset. Claim 15 requires a wall subset of interlockable panels, a floor subset of interlockable panels, and a ceiling subset of interlockable panels. Page 2 of the English translation, the paragraph beginning with, “in order to achieve” discloses the panels used as at all of ceilings, walls and floors. In other words, one subset of panels is on the ceiling, another subset is on the wall, and another subset is on the floor. It does not disclose that the floor subset interlocks to the wall subset, and does not disclose the ceiling subset does not interlock to the wall subset. However, this is a feature which is not claimed. Claim 15 requires 3 panel subsets including a ceiling/wall/floor subset, and that both the floor subset and ceiling subset are configured to matingly and interlockingly connect with the wall subset. No language dictates the relative juxtaposition of those subsets with respect to each other. Because the panels of the floor/ceiling/wall subsets are identical panels, they are all “configured to matingly and interlocking connect” with each other. The claim does not positively require, for example, that the ceiling subset is connected to the wall subset and is perpendicular thereto, and that the floor subset and connected to the wall subset and is perpendicular thereto. Further, although Applicant cites page 4 disclosing lining floors, walls or ceilings, page 2 also discloses lining floors, walls and ceilings.
Applicant’s arguments regarding new claim 22 are addressed by the above.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the remaining dependent claims are moot in view of the indication of allowable subject matter above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 Mattei can be reached at (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 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635