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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2, 4-5, 7-12, and 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species (claim 2 (octahedral framework), species 4; claims 4-5 (octahedral framework), species 5; claims 7-8, claim 9 (cutouts), species 2; claims 10-12 (gusset plate), species 4; claim 14 (octahedral framework), species 4; claim 15 (parallel frames), species 5) there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of Species 1 representing frame members connected via joint members to form regular tetrahedron unit modules, the modules configured to be connected at adjacent elongated joining surfaces was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/27/2026. Upon review, the embodiment associated with species 3, figs. 13-15, is now considered to be part of elected species 1, the embodiments of figs. 13-15 representing regular tetrahedral modules formed from frame members, the modules forming octahedral framework upon interconnection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “A modularized framework structure of a three-dimensional truss structure obtained as a result of making unit modules as three-dimensional truss structured unit frameworks and interconnecting the unit modules comprising” should be, for example, “A three-dimensional modularized framework truss structure made of interconnected three-dimensional unit modules comprising”. In addition, “each of the unit modules is made of frames, having respective elongated joining surfaces thereof and connected mutually at end portions thereof” should be --the unit modules made of frame members having elongated joining surfaces, the frame members connected at mutual frame member end portions--.
Claim 13 is objected to because “A unit module for use in a modularized framework structure obtained as a result of assembling a plurality of unit modules, comprising” should be –A unit module configured to form a modularized framework structure by assembling a plurality of the unit modules, comprising--. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Figures 40-44 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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, 3, 6, and 13 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.
Claim 1 recites that the unit modules “imaginarily conform to” a tetrahedron or octahedron, the joining surfaces obtained as a result of “imaginarily” planarly truncating surfaces of edges of the frames corresponding to ridgelines of the tetrahedron or octahedron, which is confusing. How do the modules imaginarily conform to a tetrahedron or octahedron? It is assumed the claim recites the elongated joining surfaces forming planarly truncating surfaces frame edges corresponding to the tetrahedron or octahedron edges such that the elongated joining surfaces can be joined mutually between the unit modules.
Claim 1 recites “the elongated joining surfaces of the unit module are oriented orthogonally to perpendiculars drawn imaginarily from the center of the unit module to the corner centers of the elongated joining surfaces of the unit module, respectively, so as to form a Tetra-module defined as a regular tetrahedral-like framework or an Octa-module defined as a regular octahedral-like framework, and wherein the unit modules as the Tetra-module or the Octa-module are interconnected by joining mutually the elongated joining surfaces of the frames between the unit modules thereby to form the three-dimensional truss structure”, which is confusing. What are the elongated joining surfaces corner centers? What are the “perpendiculars drawn imaginarily” from the unit module center? What is the Tetra-module defined as a “tetrahedral-like” framework or an Octa-module defined as a regular “octahedral-like” framework?
Claim 3 recites the truss structure made of the “Tetra-modules has a complementary square pyramid-like framework, which is confusing. How is the module “like” a pyramid?
Claim 13 recites “the unit module is made of members, which correspond imaginarily to frames as ridgelines of a regular tetrahedron”, which is confusing. How do the unit modules actually correspond to frames, and how do they correspond as ridgelines of a tetrahedron?
Claim 13 recites that the members are connected at respective end portions thereof to form a Tetra-module as a regular “tetrahedral-like” framework. How is the framework “like” a tetrahedral?
Claim 13 recites that the elongated joining surfaces are “obtained as a result of imaginarily planarly truncating surfaces of edges of the members corresponding to ridgelines of the regular tetrahedron”, which is confusing. How does a description of how the surfaces are “obtained” equate to a description of actual surface structure?
Claim 13 recites the joining surfaces oriented orthogonally to perpendiculars drawn imaginarily from the unit module center to the “corner centers” of the joining surfaces, which is confusing. What are the joining surfaces “corner centers”?
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 6, and 13 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shino (JP11-061707) in view of Georgiev (3,665,882).
Claim 1
Shino, figs. 1-4, teaches, as best understood, a three-dimensional modularized framework truss structure, “civil-engineering structure”, made of interconnected three-dimensional unit modules, “blocks”, comprising the unit modules made of frame members, 2 and 3, having truncated elongated joining surfaces (the rectangular, flat, outside surface of members 2 and 3 where one unit module joins another), the frame members connected at respective frame member end portions (the corners formed at the ends of beams 2 and 3), the elongated joining surfaces forming plana surface edges corresponding to tetrahedron edges such that adjacent unit module elongated joining surfaces are configured to be joined, fig. 1, the framework interconnected by joining the elongated joining surfaces of adjacent unit modules to form the three-dimensional truss structure, figs. 1-3.
Shino does not expressly teach the tetrahedral-shaped module is a regular tetrahedral, the elongated joining surfaces being orthogonal to a perpendicular line drawn from the center of the unit module to the elongated joining surface center, to form the regular tetrahedral. Georgiev, fig. 1, teaches a tetrahedral-shaped module is a regular tetrahedral. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Shino trahedral-shaped module to be a regular tetrahedral (by forming a regular tetrahedral with the Shino beams instead of a non-regular tetrahedral) for truss structure strength, the Shino in view of Georgiev elongated joining surfaces orthogonal to a perpendicular line drawn from the center of the unit module to the elongated joining surface center to form the regular tetrahedral because all the Shino truncated elongated surfaces are angled to have surface-to-surface contact (the bolted surfaces) to form the non-regular tetrahedron, fig. 1, all the Shino in view of Georgiev elongated joining surfaces (see JS in Examiners rendering of the tetrahedron of the combination) that form the regular tetrahedron are orthogonal to a perpendicular line drawn from the center of the unit module to the elongated joining surface center, see Examiners Shino in view of Georgiev regular tetrahedron module.
PNG
media_image1.png
338
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiners Shino in view of Georgiev regular tetrahedron module
6. Shino in view of Georgiev teaches the modularized framework structure according to claim 1, Shino further teaching the unit modules interconnected by fixing (bolting) the respective frame members at elongated joining surfaces thereof.
13. Shino, figs. 1-4, teaches, as best understood, a unit module configured to form a modularized framework structure by assembling a plurality of the unit modules, comprising:
the unit module made of members 2 and 3 having elongated joining surfaces (the surfaces where the modules join, fig. 3), the members connected at respective end portions to form a tetrahedron module, fig. 4, the elongated joining surfaces being planar, truncating (truncated relative to the major face planes of the tetrahedral formed) surfaces corresponding to ridgelines of the tetrahedron such that adjacent unit module elongated joining surfaces are configured to be joined (bolted). Shino does not teach the members having identical length, the tetrahedron being a regular tetrahedron, and the elongated joining surfaces oriented orthogonally to a perpendicular drawn from the unit module center to the elongated joining surface centers. Georgiev, fig. 1, teaches a tetrahedral-shaped module is a regular tetrahedral. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Shino trahedral-shaped module to be a regular tetrahedral (by forming a regular tetrahedral with the Shino beams instead of a non-regular tetrahedral) for truss structure strength, the Shino in view of Georgiev elongated joining surfaces oriented orthogonally to a perpendicular drawn from the unit module center to the elongated joining surface centers or adjacent unit modules could not be universally and modularly joined.
Claim 3 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shino in view of Georgiev and in further view of Ramaska (9,834,325).
3. Shino in view of Georgiev does not teach, as best understood, the three-dimensional truss structure made of the tetrahedral modules forms a square pyramid-truss framework upon joining adjacent elongated joining surfaces of the frame members. Ramaska, fig. 3, teaches a three-dimensional truss structure made of tetrahedral modules forms a square pyramid-truss framework (see the squares in fig. 3) upon joining adjacent tetrahedral modules. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the three-dimensional truss structure made of the tetrahedral modules to form a square pyramid-truss framework upon joining adjacent elongated joining surfaces of the frame members for truss strength.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights