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 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: A claim should be a single sentence, thus there should be only one period in a claim, the final period. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Starting in [0017], there is reference to a “Mirko” modular house. It is unclear what this is in reference to since the term has not been introduced before in the specification.
Further, [0011] recites a “shower 13” and later on [0032] recites “a shell 13”, while [0019] and [0022] also recite “shell 18”.
In addition, reference number 31 has been used as “steel profiles 31” and “struts 31”.
Also, reference element 62 has been used as “façade element 62”, “wall panel 62”, and “wooden beams 62”. Reference number 63 is also used as “wooden panels 63” and “subfloor 63”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 4 and 5 appear to indicate cross sections are taken (A and C). However, it is unclear where are these cross sections shown.
Figure 14 and 15 do not show the elements being described in the specification. For example, [0020] recites with respect to figure 14: “in this illustration you can see the four steel profiles 42, 43 each in cross section” however, figure 14 does not show profiles 43. Likewise, figure 15 is described as “the lower left corner from FIG. 14 enlarged” however that is not what is shown in the drawings. It appears that figures 14 and 15 have been mislabeled.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-11 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.
With respect to claim 1, the claim is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
there are recitations in parenthesis that render the scope of the claim unascertainable as it is unclear if what is in parenthesis is part of the claimed subject matter.
the phrase “so that the shell is nowhere from one heat-conducting part is penetrated from the inside to the outside” is unclear.
the recitation of “inherently stable steel grid frame” is indefinite because it is unclear what “inherently” encompasses.
“its outer edges” is unclear because it is not known what “it” refers to.
“the windows”, “the floor, the walls and the ceiling” and “the four upper corners” lack proper antecedent basis.
the recitation of “a continuous layer structure made of heat-insulating composite panels” is unclear. A “continuous” layer implies that the layer is uninterrupted at the connection within panels, however that is not shown. See for example, fig. 14: panels 50 are not continuous with each other.
For examining purposes, it is assumed continuous refers to each of the panels being a continuous layer.
With respect to claim 2, the claim is indefinite because it is not clear if the claim intends to claim a structural frame that is in addition to the steel grid frame recited in the preceding claim. Further, the claim is not clear on what is it that is lying flush to each other, shifted against each other or stacked on top of each other. Is it the structural frames or the steel profiles?
With respect to claim 3, the claim is indefinite because the recitation of “the windows and doors” lacks proper antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 5, the claim is indefinite because the recitation of “inherently stable steel lattice frame”. It is unclear what “inherently” encompasses.
Further, it is unclear if the steel lattice frame claimed in claim 5 is in addition to the steel grid frame recited in claim 1, or if it’s the same one. For examining purposes, it is assumed that claim 5 intends to further limit the grid frame of claim 1 as the specification does not mention two separate steel frames.
Also, “the casing” and “the cover” lack proper antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 6, the claim is indefinite because the recitation of “the front window front”, “another floor-to-ceiling window”, “the long sides” lack proper antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 7, the claim is indefinite because the recitation of “the end window front”, “the long sides”, “the front corner”, “the rear corner”, “the front side” and “the interior of the room” lack proper antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear what the scope of the “window door measuring 2 x 200 cm wide” is. Is it 2 cm tall and 200 cm wide? Or 2 cm wide and 200 cm tall or is 2 cm the length?
Furthermore, there appears to be missing text in the phrase: “and on the ins a kitchen combination with sink and stove is connected to the front side of this wet room”.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the claimed U-value and the core thickness of 100 mm is being is being claimed or not. The recitation of “the slated frame” lacks proper antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 10, the claim is indefinite because the recitation of “the wet room”, “the electrical cables”, “the built-in electrical and electronic devices” and “the cavity” lack proper antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 11, the claim is indefinite because the recitation of “the fixed and sliding windows”, “this triple glazing” and “the side end faces” lack proper antecedent basis.
Further, the scope of the claim is unascertainable because it is unclear if what is being claimed is a window with three glass panes, or a window with double glass pane. For examining purposes, it is assumed the claim intends to recite a triple pane window.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin US 2016/0069064 A1 (hereinafter ‘Martin’) in view of Clark US 4,854,094 (hereinafter ‘Clark’) and in further view of Unger US 2015/0152634 A1 (hereinafter ‘Unger’).
With regard to claim 1, Martin teaches a micro-modular house (1) that can be transported by road without special permission (see [0054] -Note that the module of Martin can be transported with or without a special permission per MPEP 2114), has a shell extending all around (see fig. 1, the shell being made from panels 7, 8, 10 and 12, see [0043]) and made of a continuous layer structure made of heat-insulating composite panels (Note that the panels of Martin are equipped with heat insulation properties (see [0021]) or laminated panels for the floor, the walls and the ceiling, and that one end face forms a full-surface window front (7 -see [0015]), so that the shell is nowhere from one heat conducting part is penetrated from the inside to the outside, with an inherently stable steel grid frame (11 -see [0026]) being integrated within this shell and parallel to all its outer edges (see fig. 6).
Although Martin teaches panels having insulation properties, it does not explicitly teach layered or laminated panels. Neither it teaches the micro-modular house at the four upper corners of this steel grid frame can be raised.
Clark teaches a modular house (21) comprising a shell made of layered panels (see fig. 7 and col. 7, ln. 25). Further, Clark teaches the module can be raised at the four upper corners (via 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide layered panels and lifting means in the module of Martin, as taught by Clark so as improve the modules weather resistance capability, and enable movability of the module with strings or cables.
With respect to a window having frames made of plastic, wood, aluminum, are made from thermo-mechanical mineral fibers and textiles OR from combinations of these materials and include double or triple laminated glass, the examiner takes the position that window frames made of the claimed materials and having double or triple laminated glass are notoriously well known in the art and therefore obvious to use because the use of conventional elements to perform their known function is prima fascia obvious.
Nevertheless, Unger teaches a modular structure (14) comprising windows (274) having a double laminated glass with a thermal break frame (see [0148]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide double laminated window with a thermal break fame (i.e. plastic frame) as taught by Unger in the windows of Martin so as to enhance the insulation properties of the wall.
With respect to claims 2-4, the combination of Martin/Clark/Unger teaches, as best understood, the frame of the house square, cube-shaped made up of steel profiles (Martin 11 -see [0007]) that can be screwed together (see [0024]). The combination, however, does not teach the claimed dimensions.
Clark teaches a micro house (73) that measures a maximum of 3 meters in width on the outside and between 6-12 meters in length and offers an internal room height of at least 2.3 m (see col. 3, ln. 48) and that its shell is everywhere except for the windows and doors (see embodiment of figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide the micro house of the combination in the size taught by Clark so as to provide for various sizes that meet users’ specific needs.
With respect to the claimed value U for thermal insulation, the combination teaches the panels provide thermal insulation but its silent regarding the specific value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed value for U since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Martin/Clark/Unger teaches, as best understood, the shell is enclosed by a frame made of square tube sections, screwed or welded together at their ends (see [0026]).
Note that Unger discloses its frame members don’t touch the outside of the shell and reach the inside of it in the same manner that applicant’s do (see Unger’s fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filling date of the instant application, to keep the frame members of the combination from touching the outside, as taught by Clark, so as to enhance the insulation properties of the house.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Martin/Clark/Unger teaches, as best understood, another floor-to-ceiling window (see Martin [0015] -Note that Martin teaches any of the windows could be a floor to ceiling window, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide another floor-to-ceiling window at right angles to the window front so as to enable the passing of natural light which enhances living conditions.
The examiner takes the position the lifting and sliding windows are notoriously well known in the art and therefore obvious to use to enable the entrance of natural light a fresh air and because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima facie obvious.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Martin/Clark/Unger teaches, as best understood, various doors (see Martin 6, 9) but does not explicitly teach sliding window doors.
The examiner takes the position that sliding window doors are notoriously well known in the art and therefore obvious to use to enable quick access to a room without taking much space and because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima facie obvious.
Further Unger teaches a wet-area including bathroom and kitchen (see [0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide bathroom and kitchen, to the house of the combination, as taught by Unger, so as to enable to house to be use in various ways and fulfill its users necessities.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Unger teaches façade elements and plasterboard attached to both sides of the composite panels (see fig. 9 and accompanying description).
Unger further teaches fire retardant, insulating panels (see [0135]) but does not explicitly teach panels with a core made of polyisocyanurate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide fire retardant insulated panels in the combination, as taught by Unger, so as to protect the structure from damage caused by fire. Further, it would have been obvious to include a core in polyisocyanurate because of its well known insulative high performance and because it is commonly use in walls.
With respect to the thickness of the boards, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed value since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, with respect to the U-values, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to arrive at the claimed value via of routine experimentation so as to provide a thermally efficient construction. See MPEP 2144.05. (In the instant case, U-value differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such distance is critical). Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (U-value) involves only routine skill in the art.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to make the shell according to the claimed code in order to allow for its wide use and commercialization.
With respect to claim 10, Unger discloses that pipes and cables are installed within spaces in the walls (see col. 4, ln. 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filling date of the instant application, to provide pipes and cables laid in the wall cavities, as taught by Unger, so as to enable the functioning of the provided fixtures.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, Clark and Unger in further view of Glover et al. US 6,401,428 B1 (hereinafter ‘Glover’).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Martin/Clark/Unger teaches, as best understood, a double pane window but does not teach the window frame is for receiving and holding three parallel, spaced-apart glass panes.
Glover teaches a triple pane window (see fig. 7) mounted on a plastic frame profile (see col. 2, ln. 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide a triple pane window in a plastic frame, as taught by Glover in the house of the combination, so as to reduce thermal conductivity and improve the window’s efficiency. Further, it would have been obvious to screw the frames to the panels so as to secure the frame to the panel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 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 E 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633