DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/624,585. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 13-26 are pending.
Claims 2 and 8-12 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 13-26 are examined.
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) 1, 3-6, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serden et al. (U.S. Publication 2008/0149156) in view of Bradatsch (EP 3434848).
Regarding claim 1, Serden et al. disclose a roofing system, comprising:
a housing (#3) adapted for transportability (see figure 1a and paragraph 43);
a deployable roof (#1), configured such that in a retracted state (see figure 1a), the deployable roof is contained fully within the housing (see figure 1a, where the roof #1 is in the housing before it is moved out of the housing as depicted by the arrow in the figure), and such that in a deployed state, the deployable roof extends distally from the housing along a longitudinal axis thereof (see figure 3a, where the axis extends along the x-axis of the figure), a proximal end of the deployable roof remaining at least partially within the housing (see figures 2b and 4a and paragraph 46, where the proximal end of the roof #1 is permanently connected to the container along the entire circumference of the container opening inside of the area of the opening where door #8 would close and thus is at least partially within the housing)
Serden et al. disclose such a roof is inflatable and can fill with air to form a roof assembly. However, Serden et al. do not specifically disclose an air mover associated with the housing and in fluid communication with the roof to inflate the roof. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Bradatsch, that such deployable roof assemblies can comprise of an air mover #19 provided with supply channels #20 in order to fill chambers of an inflatable roof #6, where the air device is configured to deploy the roof since the chambers of the roof are all connected to one another, as depicted in figure 16, and where such an air mover #19 is located within the perimeter housing #3 of such an assembly, as depicted in figure 16. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an air mover with the housing of Serden et al. and fluidly connected the roof with the air mover so as to configure the roof to be deployed from the housing, as taught in Bradatsch, in order to provide an all in one package that allows deploying of the roof without having to connect or transport extra, separate elements and thus allow for easier use of the assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch render obvious the deployable roof is convexly arch shaped in the deployed state (see figure 3c of Serden et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch render obvious the deployable roof includes a plurality of tubular sections connected to one another and in fluid communication with one another (Paragraph 47 and figure 3a of Serden et al. disclose the roof is constructed from a plurality of parallel air chambers in fluid communication with one another. Figures 15 and 16 of Bradatsch similarly teach the obviousness of such features.).
Regarding claim 5, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch render obvious a tubular section axially closest to the second end of the deployable roof inflates first, and wherein each subsequent tubular section, and wherein each subsequent tubular section along the roof axis inflates one after another inflating the deployable roof and urging the deployable roof along the roof axis until a terminal tubular section axially closest to the first end of the deployable roof inflates last (Such limitations define product-by-process limitations which define the order in which the chambers are to be filled in order to deploy the roof from the collapsed to the extended configuration and thus are not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the deployable roof, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the order in which the chambers are filled for deployment. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Bradatsch teaches in figures 15 and 16 that the outer, terminal chamber #12 is to be filled first and then each subsequent chamber is filled thereafter, where figure 15 further depicts the use of valves #23 which are individually actuated in order to fill specific chambers at a time and thus the order can be reversed so that the chambers closest to the housing can be filled first, thus meeting such configured to language as broadly defined. Alternatively, figure 14 of Bradatsch depicts the air mover #19 is attached with inlets #21 first to the chambers #12 closest to the housing and thus can fill such chambers first before the chambers at the terminal end are filled, thus meeting such configured to language as well. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the chambers of the roof of Serden et al. so as be configured to inflate in the manner as defined, as taught in Bradatsch, in order to allow for proper filling of all of the chambers to effectively deploy the roof as needed.).
Regarding claim 6, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch render obvious the housing further includes a power source for powering the air mover (It is inherent that the air mover #19 of Bradatsch would be powered by electricity in order to properly turn on and provide air or activate the valves #23 for proper use. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret the air mover of Bradatsch as being powered, the Examiner takes Official Notice that air movers are commonly known to be electrically powered in order to provide sufficient air pressure and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have electrically powered the air mover of Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch, such as through an electrical cable within the housing directly connected to the air mover already in the housing, in order to allow the assembly to properly function to a deployed or retracted state.).
Regarding claim 20, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch render obvious the housing is adapted for transportation and placement by a forklift, while the deployable roof is in a retracted state within the container (Serden et al. disclose housing #1 is an ISO container and thus is configured to be transported by a forklift typically used with such ISO containers).
Regarding claim 21, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch render obvious the deployable roof is self-supporting (see figure 3B of Serden et al., where such a roof is self-supporting when in the deployed state).
Regarding claim 22, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch render obvious the deployable roof structure comprises a plurality of arcuate tubular chambers arranged sequentially axially, extending tangentially about the arch shape of the deployable roof (see figure 3a and paragraph 47 of Serden et al., where the roof is constructed from a plurality of parallel air chambers in fluid communication with one another in an arch shape when deployed).
Regarding claim 23, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch render obvious the deployable roof further comprising at least one side panel, adapted and configured to extend downwardly therefrom, when in the deployed state (figure 1a of Serden et al. depicts a side panel #8 which is configured to extend downwardly from a vertical orientation in order to deploy the roof system and thus extend below the roof as depicted in figure 3).
Regarding claim 24, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch render obvious the at least one side panel is adapted and configured to extend from a lower inside portion of the deployable roof (see figure 3a of Serden et al., where the side panel #8 extends inside and below the roof #1), and to extend beneath the deployable roof (see figure 3 of Serden et al.), and downwardly therefrom, proximal an outer surface of the deployable roof in the deployed state (see figure 3 of Serden et al., where the panel #8 extends downwardly from the vertical, retracted state to a downward, horizontal deployed state so as to be positioned proximal to the outer right end of the roof #1)
Regarding claim 25, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch render obvious the at least one side panel comprises printed indicia (The aesthetics of a product which relate to ornamentation only and have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Furthermore, the Examiner takes Official Notice that ISO containers comprise of printed indicia, such as company names in order to promote the company or other information to disclose what is within the container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided printed indicia upon the side panel of Serden et al. in order to create an aesthetically pleasing container during transportation that allows for promotion of the manufacturing company or transportation company during transportation of the assembly or to signify what element is stored within the container. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947); MPEP 2144.04.).
Claim(s) 7, 13-19, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch and Downey et al. (U.S. Publication 2016/0130795).
Regarding claim 13, Serden et al. disclose a roofing system, comprising:
a housing (#3) adapted for transportability (see figure 1a and paragraph 43);
a deployable roof (#1), configured such that in a retracted state (see figure 1a), the deployable roof is contained fully within the housing (see figure 1a, where the roof #1 is in the housing before it is moved out of the housing as depicted by the arrow in the figure), and such that in a deployed state, the deployable roof extends distally from the housing along a longitudinal axis thereof (see figure 3a, where the axis extends along the x-axis of the figure), a proximal end of the deployable roof remaining at least partially within the housing (see figures 2b and 4a and paragraph 46, where the proximal end of the roof #1 is permanently connected to the container along the entire circumference of the container opening inside of the area of the opening where door #8 would close and thus is at least partially within the housing)
Serden et al. disclose such a roof is inflatable and can fill with air to form a roof assembly. However, Serden et al. do not specifically disclose an air mover associated with the housing and in fluid communication with the roof to inflate the roof. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Bradatsch, that such deployable roof assemblies can comprise of an air mover #19 provided with supply channels #20 in order to fill the chambers of an inflatable roof #6, where the air device is configured to deploy the roof since the chambers of the roof are all connected to one another, as depicted in figure 16, and where such an air mover #19 is located within the perimeter housing #3 of such an assembly, as depicted in figure 16. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an air mover with the housing of Serden et al. and fluidly connected the roof with the air mover so as to configure the roof to be deployed from the housing, as taught in Bradatsch, in order to provide an all in one package that allows deploying of the roof without having to connect or transport extra, separate elements and thus allow for easier use of the assembly.
With respect to the limitations defining a power source adapted for powering the air mover, it is inherent that the air mover #19 of Bradatsch would be powered by electricity in order to properly turn on and provide air or activate the valves #23 for proper use. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret the air mover of Bradatsch as being powered, the Examiner takes Official Notice that air movers are commonly known to be electrically powered in order to provide sufficient air pressure and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have electrically powered the air mover of Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch, such as through an electrical cable within the housing directly connected to the air mover already in the housing, in order to allow the assembly to properly function to a deployed or retracted state.
Furthermore, Serden et al. disclose such a container roof cover assembly can be used as a shelter in multiple applications, such as mobile hospitals or command post applications, but do not specifically disclose first and second end structures and first and second side walls so as to form a perimeter of an interior volume of a modular structure and the roof cover is configured to be formed over the interior volume of the modular structure. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Downey et al., that building structures can be constructed from a plurality of ISO containers, where the containers can be oriented so as to comprise lower level containers #97 forming end walls and side walls of the enclosure and upper containers #10 stacked thereabove to form a second story, where a roof #59 can be constructed to cover the interior area formed between the containers. See figures 11 and 12. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the hospital or command post of Serden et al. to comprise of ISO containers that form first and second end structures that are configured to be transported and first and second side walls which can be used to form a perimeter of an interior volume of a modular structure, as taught in Downey et al., in order to form a transportable and easily erected structure for use where needed by the end user. It would have further been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the roof cover of Serden et al. for use as either a cover for an interior space formed between the outer perimeter containers or over the entire container structure of Serden et al. in view of Downey et al. in order to properly cover and form an enclosed interior space for purposes as needed by the end user and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 7, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch and Downey et al. render obvious in the deployed state the deployable roof extends between the first end structure and the second end structure along the longitudinal axis, wherein the distal end of the deployable roof rests on the second end structure and the housing remains on the first end structure (as depicted in figures 7 and 12 of Downey et al., the roof #22/59 is to extend between the first and second side walls of the modular structure and extend from the first end to the second end to cover the interior space formed by the outer perimeter of ISO containers, where it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have supported the housing of Serden et al. upon one end of the modular structure such that the inflatable roof can extend from the first end to the second end and between the first and second sidewalls in order to cover the interior space as needed and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).).
Regarding claim 14, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch and Downey et al. render obvious the power source is one of a PV power source or an electrical power source (as explained above, the air mover would inherently or obviously be powered by an electrical power source to properly blow air and actuate the valves).
Regarding claim 15, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch and Downey et al. render obvious the deployable roof is convexly arch shaped in the deployed state (see figure 3C of Serden et al.).
Regarding claim 16, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch and Downey et al. render obvious the deployable roof includes a plurality of tubular sections connected to one another and in fluid communication with each other (Paragraph 47 and figure 3a of Serden et al. disclose the roof is constructed from a plurality of parallel air chambers in fluid communication with one another. Figures 15 and 16 of Bradatsch similarly teach the obviousness of such features.), wherein a tubular section axially closest to the second end of the deployable roof inflates first, and wherein each subsequent tubular section along the roof axis inflates one after another inflating the deployable roof and urging the deployable roof along the roof axis until a terminal tubular section axially closest to the first end of the deployable roof inflates last (Such limitations define product-by-process limitations which define the order in which the chambers are to be filled in order to deploy the roof from the collapsed to the extended configuration and thus are not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the deployable roof, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the order in which the chambers are filled for deployment. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Bradatsch teaches in figures 15 and 16 that the outer, terminal chamber #12 is to be filled first and then each subsequent chamber is filled thereafter, where figure 15 further depicts the use of valves #23 which are individually actuated in order to fill specific chambers at a time and thus the order can be reversed so that the chambers closest to the housing can be filled first, thus meeting such configured to language as broadly defined. Alternatively, figure 14 of Bradatsch depicts the air mover #19 is attached with inlets #21 first to the chambers #12 closest to the housing and thus can fill such chambers first before the chambers at the terminal end are filled, thus meeting such configured to language as well. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the chambers of the roof of Serden et al. so as be configured to inflate in the manner as defined, as taught in Bradatsch, in order to allow for proper filling of all of the chambers to effectively deploy the roof as needed.).
Regarding claim 17, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch and Downey et al. render obvious the first side wall includes a first ledge and the second side wall includes a second ledge, wherein the first ledge is defined on a portion of the first side wall opposite a floor and the second ledge is defined on a portion of the side wall opposite the floor, wherein the deployable roof is supported only by resting on the first ledge and the second ledge (as depicted in figures 11 and 12 of Downey et al., the containers forming the sidewalls of the modular structure comprise an upper ledge for supporting the roof structure #59, where it would have been obvious to support the deployable roof of Serden et al. on top of such ledges of the containers to properly cover the interior volume of such a structure and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).).
Regarding claim 18, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch and Downey et al. render obvious one or more additional end structures and/or one or more side structures and/or one or more walls, wherein the one or more additional end structures and/or the one or more side structures and/or the one or more walls are configurable to produce one or more of: kitchen, a bathroom, classroom, an office, or an event space within the modular structure (figures 8 and 12 of Downey et al. depict an interior container #99 can separate the interior volume into two separate spaces, where such spaces, can be used for event space, bathrooms, or office space, as explained in paragraph 29, and where such features would be provided within Serden et al. as explained above).
Regarding claim 19, Serden et al. disclose a roofing system, comprising:
a housing (#3) adapted for transportability (see figure 1a and paragraph 43) and configured for placement atop a first end structure (such a structure can be placed upon an end structure where needed);
a deployable roof (#1), configured such that in a retracted state (see figure 1a), the deployable roof is contained fully within the housing (see figure 1a, where the roof #1 is in the housing before it is moved out of the housing as depicted by the arrow in the figure), and such that in a deployed state, the deployable roof extends distally from the housing along a longitudinal axis thereof (see figure 3a, where the axis extends along the x-axis of the figure), a proximal end of the deployable roof remaining at least partially within the housing (see figures 2b and 4a and paragraph 46, where the proximal end of the roof #1 is permanently connected to the container along the entire circumference of the container opening inside of the area of the opening where door #8 would close and thus is at least partially within the housing)
Serden et al. disclose such a roof is inflatable and can fill with air to form a roof assembly. However, Serden et al. do not specifically disclose an air mover associated with the housing and in fluid communication with the roof to inflate the roof. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Bradatsch, that such deployable roof assemblies can comprise of an air mover #19 provided with supply channels #20 in order to fill chambers of an inflatable roof #6, where the air device is configured to deploy the roof since the chambers of the roof are all connected to one another, as depicted in figure 16, and where such an air mover #19 is located within the perimeter housing #3 of such an assembly, as depicted in figure 16. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an air mover with the housing of Serden et al. and fluidly connected the roof with the air mover so as to configure the roof to be deployed from the housing, as taught in Bradatsch, in order to provide an all in one package that allows deploying of the roof without having to connect or transport extra, separate elements and thus allow for easier use of the assembly.
Furthermore, Serden et al. disclose such a container roof cover assembly can be used as a shelter in multiple applications, such as mobile hospitals or command post applications, but do not specifically disclose first and second end structures and first and second side walls so as to form a perimeter of an interior volume of a modular structure and the roof cover is configured to be formed over the interior volume of the modular structure. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Downey et al., that building structures can be constructed from a plurality of ISO containers, where the containers can be oriented so as to comprise lower level containers #97 forming end walls and side walls of the enclosure and upper containers #10 stacked thereabove to form a second story, where a roof #59 can be constructed to cover the interior area formed between the containers. See figures 11 and 12. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed a hospital or command post of Serden et al. to comprise of ISO containers that form first and second end structures that are configured to be transported and first and second side walls which can be used to form a perimeter of an interior volume of a modular structure, as taught in Downey et al., in order to form a transportable and easily erected structure for use where needed by the end user. It would have further been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the roof cover of Serden et al. to either cover an interior space formed between the outer perimeter containers or over the entire container structure of Serden et al. in view of Downey et al. in order to properly cover and form an enclosed interior space for purposes as needed by the end user and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 26, Serden et al. in view of Bradatsch and Downey et al. render obvious the first end structure, the second end structure, the first sidewall, the second sidewall and the roofing system are adapted and configured to facilitate assembly, disassembly, and transportation thereof (Serden et al. and Downey et al. disclose the use of ISO containers to form such structures, where such ISO containers are configured to transportation and assembly and disassembly, thus meeting such limitations as defined).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, and 13-26 have been considered but are moot because Applicant’s amendments to the claims required the use of a different primary reference and different rejection than previously used.
As a note, Applicant does not refute the Official Notice taken in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the Official Notice is considered admitted prior art.
Conclusion
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 THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635