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
Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities: Pile is misspelled in line 3. 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.
Claims 8, 10, 13-17, 35 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 second ground beam" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "each X-shaped support" in two instances. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as only one X-shaped support has been established. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, a front side of the building has previously been established in the claims. The examiner will examine as best understood with the front side being the same side of the building previously established in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, a rear side of the building has previously been established in the claims. The examiner will examine as best understood with the rear side being the same side of the building previously established in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear if the at least one ground beam comprises the ground beam previously established in the claims. The examiner will examine as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear if the at least one ground beam comprises the ground beam previously established in the claims. The examiner will examine as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear if the at least one ground beam comprises the ground beam previously established in the claims. The examiner will examine as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 35, it is unclear if the support is the support previously established in the claims or in addition to the previously established support. The examiner will examine as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 35, the term and/or renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear how a component extension can be in in multiple directions. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-14, 18, 27, 32, 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlagel, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0362550 in view of Lippert, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0115976.
Regarding claim 1, Schlagel discloses a building structure including: a platform (50); at least one habitable structure (components 48 and 52) located on the platform, the habitable structure comprising at least one wall (48) and a roof (52); and a platform support assembly (components 102, see Fig. 2A), including a footing (paragraph 39) and a first support (one of 102) arranged to at least partly support the platform above the ground and to transfer loads from the platform to the first ground beam (when a ground beam is utilized), but does not disclose the footing including a first ground beam arranged to sit on the ground. Lippert teaches a footing in the form of a grade beam (15; 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 utilize such a footing for soft or uneven grade at the site where the structure supports are to be placed. The grade beam can then be arranged on a ground surface and will be capable of accepting loads transferred from the support structure above. The phrases “arranged to sit on the ground” and “arranged to at least partly support the platform above the ground and to transfer loads from the platform to the first ground beam” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Schlagel discloses a building structure wherein the first support comprises a first X- shaped support (38).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art as modified discloses a building structure wherein the platform support assembly includes a second ground beam arranged to sit on the ground (as modified, beneath a second support 102 as shown in Fig. 2A of Schlagel), and a second support (Schlagel 102; see Fig. 2A) arranged to at least partly support the platform above a car park surface and to transfer loads from the platform to the second ground beam. The phrases “arranged to sit on the ground” and “arranged to at least partly support the platform above the ground and to transfer loads from the platform to the second ground beam” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Schlagel discloses a building structure wherein the second support comprises a second X-shaped support (see Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art as modified discloses a building structure, but, in the embodiment, does not specifically disclose wherein the platform support assembly includes a third ground beam arranged to sit on the ground, and a third support mounted arranged to at least partly support the platform above a car park surface and to transfer loads from the platform to the third ground beam. Schlagel does teach, in a separate embodiment, at least a third support (see Fig. 11B). it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize at least a third support depending on the specific structure desired by a user and the design loads, and 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. As modified prior, the third support will be placed above a third ground beam. The phrases “arranged to sit on the ground” and “arranged to at least partly support the platform above the ground and to transfer loads from the platform to the third ground beam” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art as modified discloses a building structure wherein the third support comprises a third X- shaped support (see Schlagel Fig. 11B).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art as modified discloses a building structure having a support above a ground beam but does not specifically disclose wherein the platform support assembly includes a further X-shaped support arranged to at least partly support the platform above a car park surface and to transfer loads from the platform to the first ground beam. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize adjacent cross brace supports when the design loads require, 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. The first ground beam will then support two X-shaped supports. The phrase “arranged to at least partly support the platform above a car park surface and to transfer loads from the platform to the first ground beam” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art as modified discloses a building structure wherein the platform support assembly includes a further X-shaped support (Schlagel 102; see Fig. 2A) arranged to at least partly support the platform above a car park surface and to transfer loads from the platform to a second ground beam (as modified, the further support will be above a grade beam). The phrase “arranged to at least partly support the platform above a car park surface and to transfer loads from the platform to a second ground beam” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art as modified discloses a building structure but does not specifically disclose wherein the platform support assembly includes a further X-shaped support arranged to at least partly support the platform above a car park surface and to transfer loads from the platform to the third ground beam. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize adjacent cross brace supports when the design loads require, 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. The third ground beam will then support two X-shaped supports. The phrase “arranged to at least partly support the platform above a car park surface and to transfer loads from the platform to the third ground beam” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art as modified discloses a building structure wherein each X-shaped support includes first and second diagonal members, wherein each X-shaped support is mounted on its respective ground beam in a manner such that lower ends of each of the first and second diagonal members are mounted on to the respective ground beam (as modified, the support will be placed above (mounted on) a grade beam.
Regarding claim 11, Schlagel discloses a building structure including a first opening on a front side of the building, which is sufficiently large to enable at least one car to drive under the platform (as shown in Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 12, Schlagel discloses a building structure including a second opening (opposite the first opening, see Fig. 2A) on a rear side of the building, which is sufficiently large to enable at least one car to drive under the platform.
Regarding claim 13, Schlagel discloses a building structure but does not specifically disclose a further opening located on a front side of the building, which is sufficiently large to enable at least one car to drive under the platform. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include columns or partitions between the bays (paragraph 57 teaches space for at least five automobiles), resulting in multiple openings on a façade, for additional support to the structure above when excessive design loads are required.
Regarding claim 14, Schlagel discloses a building structure but does not specifically disclose a further opening located on a rear side of the building, which is sufficiently large to enable at least one car to drive under the platform. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include columns or partitions between the bays (paragraph 57 teaches space for at least five automobiles), resulting in multiple openings on a façade, for additional support to the structure above when excessive design loads are required.
Regarding claim 18, Schlagel discloses a building structure having a parking bay (132) but does not specifically disclose a plurality of parking bays located on the ground beneath the platform. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include columns or partitions between the bays (paragraph 57 teaches space for at least five automobiles), resulting in multiple openings on a façade, for additional support to the structure above when excessive design loads are required.
Regarding claim 27, Schlagel discloses a building structure including a first stairway (16, see Fig. 1B), which is arranged to provide access to the platform from the ground; and a first fire-resistant barrier located adjacent the first stairway (adjacent wall beneath 48d as shown in Fig. 1B; a wall will provide some degree of fire-resistance as opposed to not having a wall in place), the first fire-resistant barrier is arranged to isolate the first stairway from the parking bays located beneath the platform (see Fig. 1B, generally). The phrases “arranged to provide access to the platform from the ground” and “arranged to isolate the first stairway from the parking bays located beneath the platform” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 32, Schlagel discloses a building structure wherein the at least one habitable structure comprises a prefabricated unit (paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 34, Schlagel discloses a building structure wherein at least one of the following is prefabricated off site: the supports; the ground beams; sub- assemblies comprising a ground beam and at least one support; the platform; and a platform frame (the platform, paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 35, Schlagel discloses a building structure wherein the platform overhangs at least one X-shaped support in a frontwards, rearwards and/or lateral direction (as shown in Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 36, Schlagel discloses a building structure including a bay (92) configured for parking, but does not specifically disclose including a plurality of parking bays located beneath the platform. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include columns or partitions between the bays (paragraph 57 teaches space for at least five automobiles), resulting in multiple bays, for additional support to the structure above when excessive design loads are required.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlagel, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0362550 in view of Lippert, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0115976 and Ingjaldsdottir et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0276553.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art discloses a building structure wherein at least one ground beam comprises a concrete beam, but does not disclose a steel beam mounted on top of the concrete beam. Ingjaldsdottir teaches abase structure for a building including a steel beam mounted to the top of a concrete beam (202 and 300, respectively; see Fig. 12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such a base structure for adequate tensile strength in addition to the compressive strength of the concrete, and 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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlagel, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0362550 in view of Lippert, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0115976 and Katz, U.S. Patent 1,652,443.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art discloses a building structure but does not disclose wherein at least one ground beam comprises a concrete beam having a steel beam encased within the concrete beam. Katz teaches a composite beam comprised of a steel section encased in concrete (see Figures). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such a base structure for added tensile strength in the grade beam depending on soil conditions, and 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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlagel, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0362550 in view of Lippert, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0115976 and Rogers, U.S. Patent 9,347,233.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art discloses a building structure but does not disclose wherein at least one ground beam comprises a steel beam. Rogers teaches a building supported by a steel beam (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 a steel beam to support the structure depending on soil conditions and material availability, and 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.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlagel, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0362550 in view of Lippert, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0115976 and Kandrashou, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0332396.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art discloses a building structure but does not specifically disclose foundations arranged to transfer loads from at least one ground beam into the ground. Kandrashou teaches foundations (1) below the base structure of a building. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such a foundation as an additional means of structure support depending on the soil conditions at a building site. The phrase “arranged to transfer loads from at least one ground beam into the ground” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art as modified discloses a building structure wherein the foundations include at least one pile foundation (Kandrashou paragraph 13).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlagel, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0362550 in view of Lippert, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0115976, Kandrashou, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0332396, and Salisbury et al., U.S. Patent 8,511,021.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art as modified discloses a building structure having a pile foundation but does not disclose wherein the pile foundations include at least one pile assembly that includes a hub and a plurality of pile members that are each connected to the hub at a proximal end, the pile members being distributed about the hub, wherein each pile member is inclined to a vertical axis in the ground such that distal ends of the pile members flare outwards from the hub. Salisbury teaches a pile foundation comprising a hub and a plurality of pile members connected to and distributed about the hub (as shown in Fig. 18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such a pile configuration when the ground conditions call for such, for example in swamp land.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlagel, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0362550 in view of Lippert, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0115976, Kandrashou, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0332396, and Lim, U.S. Patent 11,598,066.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art discloses a building structure having a pile foundation but does not disclose wherein the foundations include at least one helical pile foundation. Lim teaches a helical pile foundation for a structure (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 utilize such a pile configuration when the ground conditions call for such, for example in swamp land.
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