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 first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-18 and 25, as originally filed 30 NOV. 2023, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 NOV. 23 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 3, 6, 8-11, 14-18, and 25 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 1 ln. 1-2: after “modular structure;” and after “variable by” insert --a--
Cl. 1 ln. 2: after “elements; the” insert --plurality of-- and after “elements” insert --being--
Cl. 3 ln. 2: after “includes upright members;” insert --wherein the-- and after “members” insert --are--
Cl. 6 ln. 2-3: after “stringers and the” insert --end-- and after “both stringers and” insert --end--
Cl. 8 ln. 2: after “projecting tabs at” insert --a--
Cl. 9 ln. 2: after “in both” replace “the” with --a-- and after “web and” delete “the”
Cl. 10 ln. 3: after “outer ends of the” insert --end--
Cl. 11 ln. 3: after “plates and” delete “the”
Cl. 14 ln. 6: after “structural profile;” insert --and-- and after “auxiliary plate” insert --being--
Cl. 15 ln. 6: after “the RHS;” insert --the-- and after “auxiliary plate” insert --being--
Cl. 16 ln. 2: after “to that of” insert --the-- and replace “uprights” with --upright members--
Cl. 17 ln. 1-2: after “wherein” insert --the-- and after “diagonal bracing” replace “elements” with --members--
Cl. 18 ln. 3: after “webs of” replace “the” with --a--
Cl. 25 ln. 3, 5, 8 and 10: delete “-“ as this could be confusing
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 15-16, and 25 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. 15 ln. 4: the recitation(s) of ”length so as to extend” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear as the phrase “so 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).
Cl. 25 ln. 8: the recitation of “intermediate upright members” followed by “.” (a period) is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear if this is intended to end the claim or if the recitations which follow are part of another claim. It is suggested to replace “.” with --, and--.
Claims 16 not particularly referenced in this section are rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite 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 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SIMS EDGAR H et al. US 2711180 A (Sims) .
As per claim 25 Sims teaches a method of constructing a rectangular parallelepiped modular structure (demountable prefabricated frame structure 10, FIG. 1);
the method including the steps of:
[[-]] selecting a set of dimensions (“varying the size of the frame structure by merely selecting frame members of the desired length” 1:31) from available dimensions of height width and length of the modular structure (demountable prefabricated frame structure 10, FIG. 1), assembling a lower rectangular perimeter frame (sill members 12 and 13, FIG. 1) and an upper (“frame 16 comprising longitudinal side tubular frame members 17 and transverse end tubular frame members 18” 2:27) rectangular perimeter frame
from pairs of stringers (longitudinal sill members 12, FIG. 1), pairs of end cross members (transverse sill members 13, FIG. 1) and one or more intermediate cross members (frame members 19, FIG. 1),
[[-]] separating the lower (sill members 12 and 13, FIG. 1) and upper (“frame 16 comprising longitudinal side tubular frame members 17 and transverse end tubular frame members 18” 2:27) rectangular perimeter frames by insertion of corner and intermediate upright members (upright members 15, FIG. 1)[[.]]--, and--
[[-]] arranging diagonal bracing elements (brace rods 40, 40 FIG. 1) between diagonally opposite brackets (“clamping bracket 23 comprises a pair of plates 24 and 25” 2:56; and “each bracket 30 comprises three plates 31, 31’ and 32” 3:13 of corner and intermediate upright members (upright members 15, FIG. 1) and intermediate cross members (frame members 19, FIG. 1).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 6-7, 3, 12, 13-16, 4, 17, and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims in view of Downey et al. US 20160130795 A1 (Downey).
As per claim 1 Sims teaches a load bearing rectangular parallelepiped modular structure (demountable prefabricated frame structure 10, FIG. 1);
--a-- size of the structure variable (“varying the size of the frame structure by merely selecting frame members of the desired length” 1:31) by --a-- selection of elements from a plurality of elements;
the --plurality of-- elements --being-- adapted for interconnection (see elements “adapted for interconnection” FIG. 1) to form the structure;
the modular structure (demountable prefabricated frame structure 10, FIG. 1) collapsible for transport and storage;
the modular structure (demountable prefabricated frame structure 10, FIG. 1) providing stability and support for an overarching roof assembly (roof rail 20, rafter members 21, rafter members 22, FIG. 1) but fails to explicitly disclose:
two or more of the modular structures used to support a roof.
Downey teaches two like structures used to support a roof therebetween, specifically:
two or more of the modular structures (intermodal containers 10, 10, FIG. 10) used to support a roof (see the truss forming a peak at top of FIG. 10; this element is considered a roof as broadly claimed) therebetween
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Sims by including two of the buildings as taught by Downey in order to support a chosen member therebetween, such as a truss forming a peak to allow the supporting of roof panels for the purpose of deflecting water away from the subjacent so enclosed space.
As per claim 2 Sims in view of Downey teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and Sims further discloses wherein the selection of elements includes longitudinal stringers (longitudinal sill members 12, FIG. 1) and end cross members (transverse sill members 13, FIG. 1);
pairs of the longitudinal stringers (longitudinal sill members 12, FIG. 1) and pairs of the end cross members (transverse sill members 13, FIG. 1) adapted for interconnection to form rectangular perimeter frames (see “upper” frame at “frame 16 comprising longitudinal side tubular frame members 17 and transverse end tubular frame members 18” 2:27 and “lower” frame at sill members 12 and 13, FIG. 1).
As per claim 6 Sims in view of Downey teaches the limitations according to claim 2 and Sims further discloses wherein the longitudinal stringers (longitudinal sill members 12, FIG. 1) and the --end-- cross members comprise lengths of channel section (see “The sill members are channel-shaped in cross-section, and the adjacent ends thereof are arranged in overlapping relationship” 1:68-70);
cross sections of both --the-- stringers and --the-- cross members being the same (see :The sill members are channel-shaped in cross- section, and the adjacent ends thereof are arranged in overlapping relationship” 1:68-70; this is recognized as teaching “the same” as the members wouldn’t overlap; compare sill members 12 and 13 FIG. 7).
As per claim 7 Sims in view of Downey teaches the limitations according to claim 6 and Sims further discloses wherein the lengths of channel section (see “The sill members are channel-shaped in cross-section, and the adjacent ends thereof are arranged in overlapping relationship” 1:68-70) of the, longitudinal stringers (longitudinal sill members 12, FIG. 1) are provided with attachment plates (“clamping bracket 23 comprises a pair of plates 24 and 25” 2:56; and “each bracket 30 comprises three plates 31, 31’ and 32” 3:13 at opposing outer ends of the channel sections (see “The sill members are channel-shaped in cross-section, and the adjacent ends thereof are arranged in overlapping relationship” 1:68-70);
the attachment plates provided with bolt holes (see “…plates 24 and 25 removably secured together by fastener elements in the form of bolts 26 and nuts 27” 2:56; these bolts are recognized as being located at holes in the above identified “plates 24 and 25”).
As per claim 3 Sims in view of Downey teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and Sims further discloses the selection of elements includes upright members (upright members 14 and 15, FIG. 1);
--wherein the-- upright members (upright members 14 and 15, FIG. 1) --are-- adapted to extend (see FIG. 1) between pairs of upper (“frame 16 comprising longitudinal side tubular frame members 17 and transverse end tubular frame members 18” 2:27) and lower (sill members 12 and 13, FIG. 1) rectangular perimeter frames .
As per claim 12 Sims in view of Downey teaches the limitations according to claim 3 and Sims further discloses the upright members (upright members 14 and 15, FIG. 1) include corner upright members (upright members 14, FIG. 1) and intermediate upright members (upright members 15, FIG. 1);
each of the corner (upright members 14, FIG. 1) and intermediate upright members (upright members 15, FIG. 1) comprising a length of rectangular hollow section (RHS) or other structural profile (see FIG. 1; these are recognized as being of “other” profile, as broadly claimed) and a bracket (“clamping bracket 23 comprises a pair of plates 24 and 25” 2:56; and “each bracket 30 comprises three plates 31, 31’ and 32” 3:13 at each outer end of the length of RHS or other structural profile.
As per claim 13 Sims in view of Downey teaches the limitations according to claim 12 and Sims further discloses corner upright members (upright members 14, FIG. 1) are provided at opposing outer ends (see outer ends, FIG. 1) with a corner bracket (“clamping bracket 23 comprises a pair of plates 24 and 25” 2:56; and “each bracket 30 comprises three plates 31, 31' and 32” 3:13).
As per claim 14 Sims in view of Downey teaches the limitations according to claim 13 and Sims further discloses each corner bracket (“clamping bracket 23 comprises a pair of plates 24 and 25” 2:56; and “each bracket 30 comprises three plates 31, 31’ and 32” 3:13) comprises an ‘L’ shaped main plate (see plate 37 FIG. 3; this is recognized as at least somewhat L-shaped, as broadly claimed) affixed at the respective outer ends of the corner upright member RHS or other structural profile;
auxiliary plates normal to the ‘L’ shaped main plate (see plate 37 FIG. 3; this is recognized as at least somewhat L-shaped, as broadly claimed) affixed at an inner edge of each leg of the ‘L’ shaped main plate (see plate 37 FIG. 3; this is recognized as at least somewhat L-shaped, as broadly claimed);
the width of the leg equal in width to width of the RHS or other structural profile (see “width” of socket 37 around frame member 17; this is recognized as teaching the leg is equal to the profile 17);
each leg extending outwardly (see upper rightward and downward extending portions of plate 37, FIG. 3) from adjacent sides of the RHS or other structural profile;
each leg and each auxiliary plate provided with bolt holes (see bolt holes, FIG. 3).
As per claim 15 Sims in view of Downey teaches the limitations according to claim 12 and Sims further discloses each bracket (“clamping bracket 23 comprises a pair of plates 24 and 25” 2:56; and “each bracket 30 comprises three plates 31, 31’ and 32” 3:13) of intermediate upright members (upright members 15, FIG. 1) and intermediate cross members (see brackets 30, 30, upper middle of FIG. 1A) comprises a length of main plate (see plate 37 FIG. 3) affixed at opposing outer ends the RHS or other structural profile;
the main plate being of a length [[so as]] to extend outwardly (see plate 37 FIG. 3; this is recognized as extending outwardly from the sides) from opposing sides of the RHS or other structural profile;
auxiliary plates normal to the main plate affixed along edges of the main plate extending from the RHS;
--the-- main plate and auxiliary plates provided with bolt holes (see bolt holes, FIG. 3).
As per claim 16 Sims in view of Downey teaches the limitations according to claim 15 and Sims further discloses wherein configuration of the intermediate cross members (frame members 19, FIG. 1) is identical to that of intermediate [[uprights]] --upright members-- (see member 17 and 15, FIG. 1A; these are recognized as “identical” to member 19).
As per claim 4 Sims in view of Downey teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and Sims further discloses wherein the selection of elements includes diagonal bracing members (brace rods 40, 40 FIG. 1).
As per claim 17 Sims in view of Downey teaches the limitations according to claim 4 and Sims further discloses wherein --the-- diagonal bracing [[elements]] --members-- (brace rods 40, 40 FIG. 1) include lengths of angle and lengths of flat material (see clips 41, FIG. 1; these are recognized as “flat material” included with rods 40);
each length of angle and length of flat material provided with bolt holes (see bolt holes at 41, at bottom of FIG. 1) proximate outer ends.
As per claim 5 Sims in view of Downey teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and Sims further discloses wherein the selection of elements includes intermediate cross members (frame members 19, FIG. 1);
the intermediate cross members (frame members 19, FIG. 1) adapted to extend between the pairs of longitudinal stringers (longitudinal sill members 12, FIG. 1) of a rectangular perimeter frame (see members 19, FIG. 1).
Claim 8 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims in view of Downey as applied to claim 7 and 1 above, respectively, and further in view of Anderson et al. US 20180347175 A1 (Anderson).
As per claim 8 Sims in view of Downey teaches the limitations according to claim 7 and Sims further discloses wherein the length of channel section (see “The sill members are channel-shaped in cross-section, and the adjacent ends thereof are arranged in overlapping relationship” 1:68-70) can be mated to adjacent members (see mated sill members 12 and 13 FIG. 7) but fails to explicitly disclose:
the longitudinal stringer is further provided at opposing outer ends with projecting tabs at --a-- centre of and normal to an external surface of a web of the channel section.
Anderson teaches a projecting tab as claimed, specifically:
the longitudinal stringer is further provided at opposing outer ends with projecting tabs (see connector plates 160, upper right corner, FIG. 4) at --a-- centre of and normal to an external surface of a web of the channel section (upper structure 114, FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Sims in view of Downey by including the connector plates as taught by Anderson in order to secure adjacent like structures.
As per claim 18 Sims in view of Downey teaches the limitations according to claim 1 but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the selection of elements further includes a plurality of equi-spaced floor joists;
each floor joist comprising a length of channel section of a length to fit between opposing inward facing webs of the pair of stringers of a rectangular perimeter frame.
Anderson teaches such joists, capable of being included with the assembly of Sims in view of Downey for supporting a floor, specifically:
wherein the selection of elements further includes a plurality of equi-spaced floor joists (reinforcement members 126, FIG. 4);
each floor joist (reinforcement members 126, FIG. 4) comprising a length of channel section of a length to fit between opposing inward facing webs of the pair of stringers of a rectangular perimeter frame (see members 126 between elongated members, as claimed, FIG. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Sims in view of Downey by including the transversely extending reinforcement members as taught by Anderson in order to support the perimeter frame to accept a floor.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims in view of Downey as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of
Hays US 5983577 A.
As per claim 11 Sims in view of Downey teaches the limitations according to claim 7 and Sims further discloses the pair of longitudinal stringers (longitudinal sill members 12, FIG. 1) and the pair of cross members are assembled into the rectangular frames by bolts passing through the bolt holes (see holes in brackets 30, FIG. 1) of the end plates but fails to explicitly disclose:
holes in [[the]] webs of the cross members.
Hays teaches webs in cross members which receive fastener holes, specifically:
holes (holes 165, FIG. 10) in [[the]] webs (side 170, FIG. 10-11) of the cross members (member 142 FIG. 10; note “principal structural members 142 are also employed as components in trusses 160” 15:49; this is equivalent to the cross members of Sims).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Sims in view of Downey by replacing the cross members of Sims with the C-shaped cross elements as taught by Hays in FIGs. 10 and 11 of Hays in order to allow the cross members to be fastened to a perpendicular member without requiring the plates of Sims in order to save material.
Claim 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims in view of Downey as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of
Sugihara et al. US 8925278 B2 (Sugihara).
As per claim 9-10 Sims in view of Downey teaches the limitations according to claim 6 and Sims further discloses wherein bolt holes are provided in [[the]] --a-- web (see holes in 12 proximate upright members 15, FIG. 1) but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 9) holes in both the web and the flanges of the longitudinal stringers;
the bolt holes providing for bolted connection with intermediate cross members and with upright members; and
(Cl. 10) bolt holes are provided through a web and flanges of the channel sections of the end cross members proximate opposing outer ends of the --end-- cross members.
Sugihara teaches a bearing wall with fastener holes as claimed, specifically:
(Cl. 9) holes in both the web (holes 27e, FIG. 8) and the flanges (holes 27f, FIG. 8) of the longitudinal stringers (27A, 27B, FIG. 8);
(Cl. 10) bolt holes are provided through a web (holes 27e, FIG. 8) and flanges (holes 27f, FIG. 8) of the channel sections of the end cross members proximate opposing outer ends of the --end-- cross members (27a, FIG. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Sims in view of Downey by substituting the C-shaped members having holes in the web and flanges as taught by Sugihara in order to enable additional connecting options which would enable the assembly to be used as a bearing wall.
Regarding the bolt holes being used for providing for bolted connection with intermediate cross members and with upright members, a skilled artisan would be able to employ the different shapes of members with various fastener holes taught by Sims, Downey and Sugihara because fastener holes do not suggest novelty.
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 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