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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/26/26. These drawings are not accepted.
Replacement figure 4: The structure of reinforcement 25 includes a configuration not previously presented.
Replacement figure 7: The structure of the assembled construction module includes a configuration not previously presented. Note that several intermediate members previously presented are absent.
Replacement figure 21: The structure of the assembly includes additional structure not previously presented.
The previously objections to the drawings have been reiterated below.
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figs. 6B, 11A-11B, 13C, 15D, 16B, 17A, 18-22 and 24-26: The shading of each figure is dark resulting in the elements of the figure being difficult to distinguish. Further, the lines of the figures should be dark and distinct for legibility purposes.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 3 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1: Line 13 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the hollow central element” should be --the straight hollow central element-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 5: Line 3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the beam or post” should be --the hollow beam or post-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 6: Line 5 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the beam or post” should be --the hollow beam or post-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 8: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the inner hollow projections” should be --the hollow inner projection-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 12: Line 6 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the hollow central element” should be --the straight hollow central element-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 7 of the claim, it appears the limitation “these four outer projections” should be –the four diametrically opposed outer projections--.
With regard to claim 13: Line 3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the outer projections” should be –the four diametrically opposed hollow outer projections” for consistency of the claim language. Line 4 of the claim, it appears the limitation “these outer projections” should be –the four diametrically opposed hollow outer projections” for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 17: Line 3 of the claim, it appears each instance of “posts” should be --hollow posts-- for consistency of the claim language.
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 1-17 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.
The claim language is replete with indefinite and inconsistent language. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting such language. Non-limiting examples are as follows:
With regard to claim 1: Line 8 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a straight hollow central element” is referencing the previously recited straight profiled hollow central element. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the straight hollow central element--.
With regard to claim 2: Lines 2 of the claim, the limitation “the narrowed inner end of the diametrically opposed hollow outer projection” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 4-5 of the claim, the limitation “said diametrically opposed hollow outer projection” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 3: Lines 2 of the claim, the limitation “the narrowed inner end of the diametrically opposed hollow outer projection” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 4-5 of the claim, the limitation “the diametrically opposed hollow outer projection” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 4: Line 4 of the claim, it’s unclear if each instance of the limitation “two adjacent surrounding elements” is referencing the previously recited straight surrounding elements. Line 5-6 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “two adjacent hollow outer projections” is referencing the previously recited four diametrically opposed hollow outer projections.
With regard to claim 6: Line 3 of the claim, it’s unclear as to how the one side and the other side of each straight surrounding element comprises more than one inclined flank. It appears “inclined flanks” should be singular (see fig. 5C). Line 4 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “one side” is referencing the previously recited one side. Lines 3-5 of the claim, it’s unclear as to how the projection on the inclined flank of said one side fits into the recess on the inclined flank of the other side when the hollow beam or post is assembled. Note that the projection of the one side each straight surrounding element would be only be capable of fitting in the recess of an adjacent one of the straight surrounding elements (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 11: Lines 2 and 5-6 of the claim, each instance of the limitation “each opposed end” lack sufficient antecedent basis. Line 4 of the claim, the limitation “the recess of the straight outer face of the straight surrounding element” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 7-8 of the claim, the limitation “the other recess of the straight outer face of the straight surrounding element” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 12: Line 2 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “two straight surrounding elements” is referencing the previously recites straight surrounding elements. Further, it’s unclear as to how two straight surrounding elements would form a square when assembled around the core element. Figure 1 of the instant application shows four straight surrounding elements (B) assembled with the core element forming a square. Line 4 of the claim, the limitation “the inner walls of these two straight two straight surrounding elements” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 13: Line 4 of the claim, the limitation “the segment” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 14: The scope of the claim is unclear. It’s not readily clear if the claimed “plurality of beams” and “plurality of posts” comprise the configuration of the hollow beam or post of claim 1. Note that claim 14 references “a construction system according to claim 14” when claim 1 is directed to a hollow beam or post.
With regard to claim 15: Line 4 of the claim, the limitation “the straight profile central element” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It’s unclear if the limitation “a core element” is referencing the previously recited core element. Note that it appears each hollow beam or post would include a respective said core element.
With regard to claim 16: The limitation “the opening ends” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 17: Line 4 of the claim, the limitation “the construction” lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 1-17 are examined as best understood.
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) 1-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rixen (DE 20 2015 006 861 U1) in view Broens (EP 3 517 710 A1).
With regard to claim 1: Rixen discloses a hollow beam or post for a construction system (fig. 1-2 and 4-5), the beam or post comprising:
a core element (12, supporting profile) formed by a profile of a straight hollow central element (12) (figs. 1-2 and 4-5), and
straight surrounding elements (14) which are assembled around the core element (12) in correspondence with the profile of the straight hollow central element (12) thereof (fig. 1-5), forming a shape surrounding the core element (12) (fig. 1), wherein,
the core element (12) formed of the straight profile hollow central element having a cross-section provided with four diametrically opposed hollow outer projections (A) in the shape of outwardly flaring dovetails, which are arranged crosswise, these four diametrically opposed hollow outer projections (A) having narrowed inner ends which are spaced apart from the narrowed inner ends of adjacent ones of the four diametrically opposed hollow outer projections (A) and are connected by segments (bottom walls of grooves 16) of the straight hollow central element (12), and
the straight surrounding elements (14) are hollow and each has an inner wall (B) whose internal shape is complementary to the four diametrically opposed hollow outer projections (A) of the core element (12) and its segments (bottom walls of grooves 16) when the straight surrounding elements (14) are assembled around the core element (12) (figs. 1-2).
Rixen does not disclose that the shape surrounding the core element is a square.
However, Broens discloses a hollow beam or post having straight surrounding element (11d) which are assembled around a core element (1c) in correspondence with a profile thereof, forming a square surrounding the core element (1c) (figs. 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hollow beam or post of Rixen to have the shape surrounding the core element be a square such as taught by Broens in order to provide a construction with a desired aesthetic. Absent some showing of criticality, the claimed shapes are nothing more than several of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of aesthetic appeal. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was 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 container was significant.). Further, no new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the shape surrounding the core element to be any desired shape including the claimed square. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
531
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2: Rixen (DE 20 2015 006 861 U1)
With regard to claims 2-3: RIxen discloses that the narrowed inner end of each of the diametrically opposed hollow outer projections (A) is connected, by an extension of at least one of the segments of the straight profiled hollow central element (12), to the opposite outer end of said respective diametrically opposed hollow outer projection (A) (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 12: Rixen discloses each core element (12) is associated with the straight surrounding elements (14) each of which are assembled around the core element (12) forming the shape, the inner walls (B) of the straight surrounding elements (14), when assembled around the core element (12), covers the four diametrically opposed hollow outer projections (A) of the straight hollow central element as well as the segments (bottom walls of each groove 16) connecting these four diametrically opposed outer projections (A) (figs. 1-2). Rixen as modified by Broens discloses that the shape surrounding the core element is a square.
With regard to claim 13: Rixen discloses that the inner wall (B) of each straight surrounding element (14) comprises a plurality of hollow outer profiles arranged outside the inner wall, these hollow outer profiles covering the two outer projections (A) as well as the segments (bottom wall of each groove 16) connecting these four diametrically opposed outer projections (A) (figs. 1-2).
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rixen (DE 20 2015 006 861 U1) in view Broens (EP 3 517 710 A1) and in Mehltretter (EP 4 397 447 A1).
With regard to claim 14: Rixen in view of Broens discloses an assembly of a hollow beam or post according to claim 1 for a construction system.
Rixen in view of Broens does not disclose that the hollow beam or post comprising a plurality of the hollow beams of all the same length and a plurality of the hollow posts of all the same length.
However, Mehltretter discloses an assembly of several hollow beams or posts for a construction system, comprising a plurality of beams (421, 423 or 422, 424) of all the same length and a plurality of posts (431-434) of all the same length forming a frame (figs. 1-2 and 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Rixen previously modified by Broens to include the hollow beam or post comprising a plurality of the hollow beams of all the same length and a plurality of the hollow posts of all the same length such as taught by Broens in order to create frame structure having substantially uniform length, width and height.
With regard to claim 15: Mehltretter discloses at least one of the hollow beams or at least of the hollow posts is reinforced by a cylindrical part (clamping element 249) inserted into the hollow of the straight hollow central element of the respective core element.
With regard to claim 16: Rixen as modified by Broens and Mehltretter discloses that the hollow beams and/or the hollow posts are assembled by a butt-joint by inserts (via clamping elements 249 of Mehltretter) inserted in ends of openings (of the core element) extending along the straight surrounding elements.
With regard to claim 17: Rixen as modified by Broens and Mehltretter discloses two adjacent sides of a central post of the plurality of hollow posts are each attached to another post from the plurality of hollow posts, the height of the construction system being determined by the length of the central post.
Response to Arguments
The previous objection of claims 1-17 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 3/26/26.
The previous rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 3/26/26. Note that rejections not addressed remain.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office Action tends to improperly analogize the concept of a core and surrounding elements to other systems having whole incompatible and different purposes. Applicant submits that firstly the alleged “dovetails” of the cited documents, particularly those described by Rixen and Broens, are not true dovetails in function. Applicant further argues that the architecture of the inventive subject matter’s surrounding element with its lateral locking system, its external connection interface for perpendicular profiles and it’s extension mechanism via an insert for parallel junctions, make it a multifunctional construction platform.
Examiner respectfully submits unclear as to what structure in the claims distinguishes the dovetails of Rixen from the dovetails as claimed. It noted that the secondary reference of Braun is relied on to teach the shape surrounding a core element being a square and it not relied on to teach dovetails.
Applicant argues that Rixen does not disclose a similar hollow core that includes hollow protrusions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the rejection clearly indicates that Rixen dioceses a core element (12) formed of the straight profile hollow central element having a cross-section provided with four diametrically opposed hollow outer projections (A) in the shape of outwardly flaring dovetails (fig. 2). Applicant argues how the systems of Rixen and the applicant’s invention are different, but has not pointed to language in the claims the prior art fails to disclose. Applicant argues the modification of the apparatus of Rixen would be wholly contrary to the principles of the Rixen apparatus, but it’s unclear as to what modification applicant is referring to. Similarly, applicant compares the teachings of Broens and Mehltretter to that of applicant’s invention. As previously noted, the secondary reference of Braun is relied on to teach the shape surrounding a core element being a square and it not relied on to teach dovetails. Further, the teaching reference of Mehltretter is relied on solely to teach a hollow beam or post comprising a plurality of the hollow beams of all the same length and a plurality of the hollow posts of all the same length. It’s unclear as to how the proposed modifications is contrary to the principles of Rixen. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The combination of all the elements of the claimed hollow beam or post for a construction system including each straight surrounding element comprising two inner projections which engage around the dovetail shape of one of the diametrically opposed outer projections of the core element, the inner projections of two adjacent surrounding elements of the straight surrounding elements filling the space around one of the segments of the central hollow element and between the two adjacent hollow projections of the core element, in particular the two inner projections being hollow are not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record. While hollow projections are known in the art, it would not been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each straight surrounding element of Rixen to have the inner projections to be hollow without compromising the structural integrity of the inner projections due to their configurations being narrow and tapered.
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 JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights