DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/690,084. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 09/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-17 are pending.
Claims 5 and 7 are cancelled.
Claim 17 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-16 are examined.
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 1-4, 6, and 8-16 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 has been amended to define that the modular structural component is a beam or column comprising of at least three tension elements, each being arranged parallel and equidistantly from other tension elements symmetrically about a common longitudinal axis, which renders the claimed invention indefinite. Applicant appears to define the embodiment of figure 17; however, such definition of parallel within the disclosure appears to be different than what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand based on the common definition of “parallel.” Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to make such tension elements equidistant around a common axis with one another and parallel with one another when any number 3 and above of tension elements would require an angle of 120 degrees or less relative to such tension elements and thus not parallel with one another. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, such limitations are considered in view of figures 21 and 22A and the rest of the figures of the present specification, where a plurality of tension elements can be connected to one another in both parallel and perpendicular manners or angled to one another but where the top and bottom surfaces of such tension elements lie in a same, respective plane, where the at least three tension elements are equidistantly spaced relative to adjacent ones of such tension elements and are positioned about a respective common axis of the respective assembly. Moreover, claims 2-4, 6, and 8-16 are rendered indefinite for their dependencies upon claim 1.
Claim 8 defines the at least three tension elements comprise four tension elements that are non-coplanar with one another so as to form a pair of parallel and a pair of offset tension elements, which renders the claimed invention indefinite since claim 1, from which claim 8 depends from, defines that the tension elements need to be parallel with one another and equidistant from one another and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to meet both the limitations of claims 1 and 8 at the same time. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, as explained with respect to claim 1 above, the tension elements can be considered to comprise of a plurality of tension elements that can be connected to one another in both parallel and perpendicular manners and be offset equidistantly relative to adjacent ones of the tension elements. Moreover, claims 9 and 10 are rendered indefinite for their dependency upon claim 8.
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 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rachwitz et al. (WO 2020/125916) in view of Mellett et al. (WO 2018/107229).
Regarding claim 1, Rachwitz et al. disclose a modular structural component comprising:
an elongate tension element (the tension elements formed by limbs #2 and #3) comprising opposed faces (the left and right vertical faces of figure 5) and a mesh of through-apertures (#7); and
a pair of elongate compression elements (#5), each for securing to a respective face of the tension element (see figure 5),
wherein a face of each compression element comprises a pattern of studs (#11; see figure 6), and
wherein each pattern is formed and each stud thereof is shaped for engaging a respective through-aperture of the mesh (see figure 5);
the modular structural component is a beam or a column (the profile of figure 5 is configured for use as a beam or column).
However, Rachwitz et al. do not disclose the beam or the column comprises at least three tension elements, and wherein each tension element of the at least three tension elements is arranged parallel to and equidistantly from other tension elements of the at least three tension elements, symmetrically about a common longitudinal axis. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Mellett et al., that tension elements #1 can comprise of compression elements #104 that attach on opposite sides of the web #10 of the tension member and allow a plurality of tension members to be attached to one another to form a supporting frame with tension elements extending perpendicular and parallel to one another. See figure 8B. As depicted in figure 9, Mellett et al depicts the tension elements can be arranged parallel to one another and symmetrically positioned around a central vertical axis so that adjacent tension elements are spaced equidistant from one another to form a column or can be used as beams to form a floor/ceiling as depicted in figure 8B with the beams all parallel and symmetrical around a central horizontal axis so that the beams are each spaced equidistant to adjacent other ones. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used at least three tension elements of Rachwitz et al. to form a rectangular beam frame element with parallel tension elements, as taught in Mellett et al., in order to form a supporting structure as needed by the end user.
Regarding claim 8, Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. render obvious said at least three tension elements comprise four tension elements, where each tension element is non-coplanar relative to another to define two pairs of parallel and offset tension elements, with each pair being orthogonal to the other (figure 8B of Mellet et al. depicts such beams can extend so as to have two outer tension elements that run perpendicular to a pair of other beams so as to form a floor/ceiling assembly, where such features would be provided within Rachwitz et al. as explained above).
Regarding claim 9, Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. render obvious at least one end of each tension element is configured with a mounting section coplanar with the tension element, for securing to another modular structural component thereto, orthogonally to the common longitudinal axis (Figure 5 of Rachwitz et al. depicts the ends of the tension element comprise of recessed areas between elements #2 and #3, which is considered a mounting section that is coplanar with the vertical tension element and which is configured to receive an element to secure another modular structural component thereto, such as another clamping element which is configured to attach to a perpendicular modular structural component as taught in Mellett et al.).
Regarding claim 10, Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. render obvious an oblong portion of each tension element is cut off adjacent the common longitudinal axis by a first dimension corresponding to a height of the tension element and by a second dimension corresponding to a thickness of the tension element, thereby defining a box-shaped sectioned space in the component wherein the space is centered about the common longitudinal axis and tension element (Figure 5 of Rachwitz et al. depicts the ends of the tension element comprise of recessed areas between elements #2 and #3, which can be considered an oblong portion where no material is provided and thus considered “cut-off”, where such a portion has a height that is coplanar with the vertical dimension of the tension element and a thickness corresponding to the thickness of the tension element and which is considered box-shaped (rectangular) that is centered so as to be configured to receive an element to secure another modular structural component thereto, such as another clamping element which is configured to attach to a perpendicular modular structural component as taught in Mellett et al. As a note, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is 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 oblong portion, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the oblong portion is cut off. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).).
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. and Jensen et al. (U.S. Publication 2005/018382).
Regarding claim 2, Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. render obvious the claimed invention except for the through-hole apertures comprise at least two different geometrical shapes. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Jensen et al., that the apertures of a mesh part of a tension element #34/36 can comprise of round holes #56, oval holes #62, square holes #64, or triangular holes #66, where other holes and configurations are possible, and where material #39 is to flow within such apertures and hold the compression components #48 and #50 thereto. See figures 4-7 and paragraph 51. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the through holes of the tension element of Rachwitz et al. to comprise of at least two different geometrical shapes since Jensen et al. teach that all of such shapes are possible for such through holes and yield the same predictable result of holding such components of the tension element to one another and also since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed through holes was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. and Jensen et al. render obvious studs of a first compression element of the pair thereof comprise a first geometrical shape and studs of a second compression element of the pair thereof comprise a second geometrical shape (Rachwitz et al. depict the studs #11 are cylindrical in shape for both of the compression elements and thus comprise of first and second cylindrical shapes, where such limitations do not define that such geometrical shapes are to be different from one another. Alternatively, when Rachwitz et al. is modified in view of Jensen et al. to include different shaped through holes, it would have been obvious to also construct the studs of Rachwitz et al. to comprise of different geometrical shapes in order to properly align and engage the compression elements with similarly shaped holes and thus ensure proper placement of the compression elements along the tension element and also since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed studs was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).).
Regarding claim 4, Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. render obvious the claimed invention except for at least one through-aperture of the tension element and at least one stud of at least one compression element comprise an isosceles triangle having its apex coinciding with a main longitudinal axis of the element. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Jensen et al., that the apertures of a mesh part of a tension element #34/36 can comprise of round holes #56, oval holes #62, square holes #64, or triangular holes #66, where other holes and configurations are possible, and where material #39 is to flow within such apertures and hold the compression components #48 and #50 thereto. See figures 4-7 and paragraph 51. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the through holes of the tension element and studs of compression elements of Rachwitz et al. to comprise of isosceles triangles since Jensen et al. teach that all of such shapes for the holes are interchangeable with one another and still yield the same predictable result of holding such components of the tension element to one another and since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed through holes was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would also have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have oriented the through hole triangles of Rachwitz et al. in view of Jensen et al. so that apexes thereof coincide with a main longitudinal axis of the element since Jensen et al. teach that all of such shapes and orientations for the through holes are interchangeable with one another and yield the same predictable result of holding such components of the tension element to one another and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention, i.e. the orientation of the triangles, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 6, 11-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. and Zurheide (DE 19704019).
Regarding claim 6, Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. render obvious the claimed invention except for the tension element further comprises a pair of slots extending from a same longitudinal edge and orthogonally thereto, each slot located adjacent a respective end of the tension element. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Zurheide, that tension members #2 used to form a beam or column can comprise of reinforcing plates #16/23 attached at longitudinal edges thereof so that the tension member comprises of a slot #39/42 which extends transverse to the longitudinal axis of the tension member and is configured to engage a splice plate #14 to butt two tension elements with one another and connect them to one another. See figure 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the tension element of Rachwitz et al. to comprise of slots on the flange portions thereof, which slots extend transverse to the longitudinal axis of the tension element, as taught in Zurheide, in order to assist and strengthen butt connections of such tension elements to one another.
Regarding claim 11, Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. render obvious a modular structural system comprising at least one modular structural component according to claim 1 as explained above, except specifically for at least one substantially planar bridging member and/or at least one foot member as defined. Zurheide teaches that tension members #2 used to form a beam or column can comprise of reinforcing plates #16/23 attached at longitudinal edges thereof so that the tension member comprises of a slot #39/42 which extends transverse to the longitudinal axis of the tension member and is configured to engage a foot member #14 to butt two tension elements with one another and connect them to one another. See figure 4. Figure 4 of Zurheide depicts the foot members #14 comprise of a mounting section formed by protrusions #43/44 that extend vertically and orthogonally to the horizontal base plate #14 with apertures #37, where such a foot member is to be positioned on a bottom of the modular structural component #2 between the component #2 and an underlying surface, such as the ground. See figure 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the tension element of Rachwitz et al. to comprise of slots on the flange portions thereof, which slots are to receive a foot member comprising of a mounting section and base plate, as taught in Zurheide, in order to assist and strengthen butt connections of such tension elements to one another so as to form a longer modular structural component as needed.
Regarding claim 12, Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. and Zurheide render obvious the bridging member comprises a set of mounting faces, wherein either mounting face is securable to an end portion of the modular structural component in use (As explained above, Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. and Zurheide is considered to render obvious a foot member, where either or both a bridging member and foot member need be provided in order to meet the claimed invention as presently defined. Since a foot member is disclosed by the prior art and since claim 12 only further defines the structure of the bridging members and does not positively require the bridging members, Rachwitz et al. in view of Zurheide is considered to render such features obvious since the “or” portion of the limitations of claim 11 is still met.).
Regarding claim 13, Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. and Zurheide render obvious the bridging member comprises a pair of symmetrical mounting plates, each mounting plate comprising a respective mounting face (As explained above, Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. and Zurheide is considered to render obvious a foot member, where either or both a bridging member and foot member need be provided in order to meet each and every feature of the claimed invention as presently defined. Since a foot member is disclosed by the prior art and since claim 13 only further defines the structure of the bridging members without positively requiring such a bridging member, Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. and Zurheide is considered to render such features obvious since the “or” portion of the limitations of claim 11 is still met.).
Regarding claim 14, Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. and Zurheide render obvious opposed longitudinal edges of each mounting face of the bridging member are flanged, each flange extending outwardly of the member by a dimension corresponding to a thickness of the compression component (As explained above, Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. and Zurheide is considered to render obvious a foot member, where either or both a bridging member and foot member need be provided in order to meet each and every feature of the claimed invention as presently defined. Since a foot member is disclosed by the prior art and since claim 14 only further defines the structure of the bridging member(s) without positively requiring the bridging member(s), Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. and Zurheide is considered to render such features obvious since the “or” portion of the limitations of claim 11 are still met.).
Regarding claim 16, Rachwitz et al. in view of Mellett et al. and Zurheide render obvious the base plate comprises a plurality of through-holes (Zurheide; #37) for engaging fasteners into the underlying surface threrethrough (Fasteners are configured to extend through the apertures #36 of the tension member and apertures #37 of the base plate of Zurheide and into an underlying surface, where such a positioning of the fasteners into the underlying surface is not positively defined), and wherein each through-hole is configured to provide a constrained degree of freedom of horizontal translation to the base plate, relative to a fastener engaged therein (Again, such fasteners are not positively defined, where a smaller fastener than the through holes can be provided and thus the through hole can provide a constrained freedom of horizontal translation as broadly defined.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections were overcome and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 8-16 have been considered but are moot because Applicant’s amendments to the independent claim 1 required the use of a different rejection than previously used, where Applicant did not argue the modification used to modify Rachwitz in view of Mellett et al. and only argues how such a modification fails to meet the newly added limitations of claim 1 without further specifying how such prior art fail to meet each and every feature of the claimed invention. Since Rachwitz in view of Mellett et al. are considered to meet each and every feature of the claimed invention as explained above, thus such modifications are considered proper and are upheld.
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
