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
Claim16 objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, in the first instance, the word opposing appears to be a typographical error. 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 8, 14-20 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the opposing foundation walls" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the one or more rim joists" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15-20 rejected under 35 USC 112 as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5, 7-8, 10, 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raasakka et al., U.S. Patent 4,439,957 in view of Clus et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/1124779.
Regarding claim 1, Raasakka discloses a modular building structure comprising: interconnecting a floor structure (floor components 26, 104, upper floor sheathing as shown in Fig. 6) and a ceiling structure (roof components 50, 56, 88) with opposing side wall structures (wall components shown in Fig. 5) and opposing end wall structures (wall components shown in Fig. 6), wherein a plurality of floor trusses (26) are disposed within the floor structure, a plurality of ceiling trusses (50) are disposed within the ceiling structure, and a plurality of wall studs (30, 32, 34) are disposed within the opposing side wall structures and the opposing end wall structures; but does not specifically disclose attaching one or more rim joists to the ceiling structure atop of the plurality of wall studs; and attaching one or more multiple laminated lumbers to the floor structure between and extending to the opposing end wall structures, wherein the one or more laminated lumbers form a portion of the opposing side wall structures and a bottom of the opposing side wall structures abuts a top edge of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers. Clus teaches rim joists (3) at ends of horizontally extending structural members (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include rim joists rather than the blocking element (58) of Raasakka for a ceiling structure with increased strength. It would also have been obvious to include a rim joist at the horizontal floor member ends for a stronger floor, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Clus teaches a laminated wood for structural members (paragraph 27). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize laminated lumber for the upper and lower rim members for a sufficiently strong structure, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416. As modified, the one or more laminated lumbers form a portion of the opposing side wall structures and a bottom of the opposing side wall structures abuts a top edge of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Raasakka in view of Clus, as modfied, discloses a modular building structure further comprising: forming a lower portion of the opposing side wall structures with an upper portion of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers (see Fig. 3 of Raasakka, the wall structure extends the entire height of the floor structure).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 17, Raasakka in view of Clus, as modified, discloses a modular building structure further comprising: attaching the floor structure to middle and lower side portions of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers (see for example Fig. 1 of Clus).
Regarding claim 7, Raasakka discloses a modular building structure comprising: assembling a plurality of volumetric modular units (10, 12) together on top of a foundation (96) to provide the modular building having one or more floor levels with one or more rooms (see Fig. 1); constructing at least one of the plurality of volumetric modular units by: interconnecting a floor structure (floor components 26, 104, upper floor sheathing as shown in Fig. 6) and a ceiling structure (roof components 50, 56, 88) with opposing side wall structures (wall components shown in Fig. 5) and opposing end wall structures (wall components shown in Fig. 6), wherein a plurality of floor trusses (26) are disposed within the floor structure, a plurality of ceiling trusses (50) are disposed within the ceiling structure, and a plurality of wall studs (30, 32, 34) are disposed within the opposing side wall structures and the opposing end wall structures; but does not specifically disclose attaching one or more rim joists to the ceiling structure atop of the plurality of wall studs; and attaching one or more multiple laminated lumbers to the floor structure between and extending to the opposing end wall structures, wherein the one or more laminated lumbers form a portion of the opposing side wall structures and a bottom of the opposing side wall structures abuts a top edge of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers. Clus teaches rim joists (3) at ends of horizontally extending structural members (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include rim joists rather than the blocking element (58) of Raasakka for a ceiling structure with increased strength. It would also have been obvious to include a rim joist at the horizontal floor member ends for a stronger floor, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Clus teaches a laminated wood for structural members (paragraph 27). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize laminated lumber for the upper and lower rim members for a sufficiently strong structure, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416. As modified, the one or more laminated lumbers form a portion of the opposing side wall structures and a bottom of the opposing side wall structures abuts a top edge of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art as modified discloses a modular building structure but does not specifically disclose supporting a first supported end of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers atop a first one of the opposing foundation walls and a second supported end of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers supported atop a second one of the opposing foundation walls, wherein an unsupported portion of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers extends between the first and second supported ends above an open space. Raasakka teaches two opposing foundation walls (see Fig. 2) on sides of a crawl space (100). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the foundation walls along all four sides of the modules, thereby supporting a first supported end of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers atop a first one of the opposing foundation walls and a second supported end of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers supported atop a second one of the opposing foundation walls, wherein an unsupported portion of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers extends between the first and second supported ends above an open space, to provide adequate support for the structure.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art as modified discloses a modular building structure further comprising: forming a portion of the opposing side wall structures extending above the floor structure with the one or more multiple laminated lumbers (see Raasakka Fig. 2, generally).
Regarding claim 14, Raasakka discloses a modular building structure comprising: interconnecting a floor structure (floor components 26, 104, upper floor sheathing as shown in Fig. 6) and ceiling structure (roof components 50, 56, 88) with opposing side wall structures (wall components shown in Fig. 5) and opposing end wall structures (wall components shown in Fig. 6), wherein a plurality of floor trusses (26) are disposed within the floor structure, a plurality of ceiling trusses (50) are disposed within the ceiling structure, and a plurality of wall studs (30, 32, 34) are disposed within the opposing side wall structures and opposing end wall structures, but does not disclose providing one or more multiple laminated lumbers having opposing top and bottom edges; and attaching opposing ends of the plurality of ceiling trusses to opposing ones of the one or more rim joists and opposing ends of the plurality of floor trusses to opposing ones of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers, wherein a lower most portion of the opposing side wall structures are formed with an upper portion of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers. Clus teaches rim joists (3) at ends of horizontally extending structural members (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include rim joists rather than the blocking element (58) of Raasakka for a ceiling structure with increased strength. It would also have been obvious to include a rim joist (with a top and a bottom, inherently) at the horizontal floor member ends for a stronger floor, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Clus teaches a laminated wood for structural members (paragraph 27). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize laminated lumber for the upper and lower rim members for a sufficiently strong structure, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416. As modified, a lower most portion of the opposing side wall structures are formed with an upper portion of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art as modified discloses a modular building structure wherein a portion of the opposing side wall structures and the lower most portion of the opposing side wall structures abuts the top edge of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers above the floor structure (as modified, see for example Raasakka Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art as modified discloses a modular building structure wherein the step of opposing attaching opposing ends of the plurality of ceiling trusses to opposing ones of the one or more rim joists and opposing ends of the plurality of floor trusses to opposing ones of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers comprises: attaching first one of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers to a first end of the plurality of floor trusses; and attaching a second one of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers to a second end of the plurality of floor trusses (as modified, the floor trusses extend between/attach to the laminated wood members at each truss end).
Claim(s) 2, 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raasakka et al., U.S. Patent 4,439,957 in view of Clus et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/1124779 and Quinn et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0322668.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 19, the prior art discloses a modular building structure, but does not specifically disclose attaching above the floor structure the top edge of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers to the bottom of the opposing side wall structures. Quinn teaches vertical wall elements attached at a top of a rim element of the floor structure (see Fig. 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to support the wall structure above the laminated wood rim, as modified, as it is a typical method of construction to assemble the walls atop the assembled floor.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 11, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raasakka et al., U.S. Patent 4,439,957 in view of Clus et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/1124779 and Rizk, U.S. Patent 4,545,159.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, the prior art discloses a modular building structure but does not specifically disclose attaching a lower portion of an interior wall to an upper portion of the one or more multiple laminated lumbers. Rizk teaches interior walls in a modular structure (see Fig. 7) which extend from an edge of a modular structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the structure with interior walls extending to an exterior edge of the structure, therefore having a lower portion which attaches to an upper portion of the laminated wood rim, as modified, as it is a typical method of construction to assemble the walls atop the assembled floor.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the prior art as modified discloses a modular building structure but does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of wall studs disposed within the opposing side wall structures have a height less than the height between the floor and ceiling structure. Rizk teaches studs having a height less than the height between the floor and ceiling structure (see Fig. 3 showing a wall placed between the upper and lower structure). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the module in such a way that the floor assembly is constructed first, the wall assembly constructed on the floor assembly, the ceiling structure then placed above the walls, thereby providing the wall structures within the space between the lower and upper structures, as it is a typical method of construction to assemble the walls atop the assembled floor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633