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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 30-33, 35, 38 and 39 are pending. Claims 1-3, 8, 10 and 11 are subject to examination in this Office action. Claims 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 30-33, 35, 38 and 39 are withdrawn (non-elected). Claims 4-7, 9, 12, 15-17, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 34, 36, 37 and 40-43 were previously canceled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-3, 8, 10 and 11) in the reply filed on 24 March 2026 is acknowledged. In traversing the restriction requirement, Applicant alleges that unity of invention is present with respect to the independent claims in light of the recent claim amendments. This argument is not found persuasive for the reasons set forth in the prior art rejection of independent claim 1 set forth below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because it does not end with a period. 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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1 (4th limitation), the phrase “a set of standard beam types” is recited without defining what constitutes a standard beam. Also, what is the word “standard” intended to mean? In this regard, the Examiner notes that the doctrine of claim differentiation precludes reading what is set forth in dependent claim 11 into claim 1. As such, it is unclear as to what constitutes a standard beam in the context of claim 1. Moreover, the relative term “types” is recited. This term renders the claim indefinite because “types” infers that the claim is additionally directed to beams other than the ones claimed. Accordingly, clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 1 (last limitation), the phrase “and/or” is recited, which renders the claim indefinite. In this regard, the Examiner suggests utilizing the Office’s preferred verbiage of “at least one of A or B” in lieu of “and/or”.
Regarding claim 2, the word “they” is recited. To what previously recited structure is this word referring?
Regarding claim 3, the word “they” is recited. To what previously recited structure is this word referring?
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “and/or” is recited, which renders the claim indefinite. In this regard, the Examiner suggests utilizing the Office’s preferred verbiage of “at least one of A or B” in lieu of “and/or”.
Regarding claim 10, the relative term “types” is recited. This term renders the claim indefinite because “types” infers that the claim is additionally directed to columns other than the ones claimed. Moreover, it is unclear as to what the word “standard” is intended to mean. Clarification is therefore requested.
Accordingly, the examined claims will be interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Bowron (U.S. Patent No. 9,845,595).
Regarding independent claim 1, as best understood, Bowron describes an accessible connector (102; Figs. 4-6) comprising:
a first arm (106) and a second arm (106) extending at an angle from the first arm;
a top plate (132) forming a top face of the first arm and the second arm;
a bottom plate (162) forming a bottom face of the first arm and the second arm;
two beam contact plates (120, 120) forming end faces of the first arm and the second arm, the beam contact plates being weldable to a beam selected from any of a set of standard beam types,
a cavity formed between the top plate and the bottom plate and having an open inner side configured to face inwardly when the accessible connector is installed in the building module (see, e.g., Figs. 4 and 5);
a plurality of fixing apertures (128) formed in either the top plate or the bottom plate and configured to receive a plurality of fasteners for engaging with a corresponding connector of a second building module, the fixing apertures being configured such that insertion of the fasteners is performed through the open inner side of the cavity (Figs. 4 and 5);
wherein the cavity has a height containable within a module floor and/or ceiling envelope and dimensioned to permit insertion and tightening of the fasteners through the open inner side of the cavity, upon access through a removable panel in a floor or ceiling of the building module (Figs. 4-6).
Regarding the limitations directed to “the fixing apertures being configured such that insertion of the fasteners is performed through the open inner side of the cavity” and “wherein the cavity [is] dimensioned to permit insertion and tightening of the fasteners through the open inner side of the cavity, upon access through a removable panel in a floor or ceiling of the building module”, 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 does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the fixing apertures are formed in the bottom plate such that they are configured to receive fasteners downwardly, the accessible connector is configured to be a lower connector of the building module, and the cavity is configured to be contained within the module floor envelope (see, e.g., Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the fixing apertures are formed in the top plate such that they are configured to receive fasteners upwardly, the accessible connector is configured to be an upper connector of the building module, and the cavity is configured to be contained within the module ceiling envelope (see, e.g., Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the second arm extends orthogonally from the first arm (see, e.g., Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 10, wherein one of the top plate or the bottom plate is weldable to a column and/or a diagonal brace each selected from any of a set of standard column types, including: Universal Column (UC) Welded Column (WC) Square Hollow Section (SHS) Rectangular Hollow Section (RHS) (see, e.g., Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the set of standard beam types includes the following: Universal Beam (UB) Square Hollow Section (SHS) Rectangular Hollow Section (RHS) Parallel Flange Channel (PFC) (see, e.g., Figs. 4-6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Refer to the attached Form PTO-892.
Authorization for Email Communication – In the event Applicant wishes to communicate with the Examiner via electronic mail, written authorization should be provided in Applicant’s next response. See MPEP § 502.03. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by Applicant:
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, we hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with any authorized representative concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. We understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY MINTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7327. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 0730 - 1630 EDT.
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 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 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.
/RODNEY MINTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights