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 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
154 (par. [0039]); 178 (par. [0042]); and 200 (par. [0039]).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the vents including a motor driven ventilation device (claim 6); a utility device being one or more of a pipe, cable or bundle of cables (claims 1 and 8); one or more of fluid management system, a power management system, airflow management system; radio area network system and computer system (claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1: Line 2 of the clam, it appears the limitation “the system” should be –
the building frame system-- for consistency of the claim language. Lines 3-6 and 9, it appears each instance of the limitation “the columns” should be directed to --the upright columns-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 6 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the beams” should be --one or more horizontal beams-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 7 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the beam” should directed to --the one or more horizontal beams-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 6: Line 1 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the vent” should be --the vents-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 15: Line 3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the columns” should be –the upright columns-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 4 of the claim, it appears the limitation “beams” should be --the one or more horizontal beams-- 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 9-17 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.
With regard to claim 9: Line 2 of the claim, the limitation “the system” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Note the claims recite a building frame system and an attachment system. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the building frame system--.
Claims 9-17 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) 1-5 and 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charman (US 4,631,881) in view of Simonsen (US 2022/0251822 A1) and in further view of Stal et al. (US 2013/0187308 A1).
With regard to claim 1: Charman discloses a building frame system (figs. 1-22) capable of providing structural scaffolding of a building, the building frame system including:
a first and a second upright column (15, 16), the upright columns (15, 16) being spaced apart (fig. 1-3 and 22);
one or more horizontal beams (17, 18) extending between the upright columns (15, 16) (figs. 1-3 and 22);
an outer skin (panels 19, 21 on one side) and an inner skin (panels 19, 21 on another side) extending between the upright columns (15, 16) to define a cavity between the upright columns (15, 16), the skins (19, 21) being connected to the one or more horizontal beams (17, 18) (via a catch 41) so as to be supported thereby (figs. 1-3 and 7; col. 5, lines 18-30);
an attachment system (cable trays 80) connected (at least indirectly) to the one or more horizontal beams (17, 18), the attachment system (80) having a mounting point for receiving a utility device (cables) (figs. 1, 3 and 7).
Charman does not disclose that the columns include a composite structure having: a stainless steel profile; and a structural plastic profile having ribs formed of resiliently deformable plastic.
Simonsen disclose columns (B) comprising a steel profile (par. [0006]); and a structural plastic profile (isolators BC) having ribs formed of resiliently deformable plastic (snap-locks) (figs. 2-3; par. [0008], [0009] and [0077]).
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 building frame system of Charman to have the columns include a composite structure having: a steel profile; and a structural plastic profile having ribs formed of resiliently deformable plastic such as taught by Simonsen in order to provide a thermal break for interrupting thermal conductivity through the columns, therefore mitigating heat loss/gain through the building frame system.
Charman in view of Simonsen does not disclose that the steel profile is a stainless steel profile.
However, Stal et al. discloses columns (studs 10) that can be formed of a variety of metals including, but not limited to, steel, stainless steel, galvanized steel and aluminum (figs. 1-2; par. [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building frame system of Charman previously modified by Simonsen to have each steel profile be a stainless steel profile such as taught by Stal et al. in order to provide known properties such as strength, durability and corrosion resistance. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the steel profile disclosed by Chaman in view of Simonsen to comprise a stainless steel profile such as taught by Stal et al.
With regard to claim 2: The resiliently deformable plastic ribs being coextruded onto the structural plastic profile is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
“[E]ven 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 Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
With regard to claim 3: Simonsen discloses that the structural plastic profile is attached to the stainless steel profile using a structural adhesive (par. [0008]).
With regard to claim 4: The stainless steel profile being rolled is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
“[E]ven 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 Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
With regard to claim 5: Charman discloses that the upright columns (15, 16) includes vents (openings) (figs. 3-4 and 8) capable of allowing air movement between an exterior of the cavity and the cavity. Charman as modified by Simonsen and Stal et al. discloses that the upright columns comprise the composite structure.
With regard to claim 8: Charman disclose an attachment system (25, 80, 80a) includes a mounting rail (25 80), and the utility device is one or more of: a wire, cable, or bundle of cables capable of conveying power and/or information (figs. 1, 3 and 7).
With regard to claim 9: Charman discloses that the building frame system further includes: a utility pod (25 or 80a) received by the attachment system (cable trays 80) (fig. 1), the utility pod (25 or 80a) being adapted to interface with the utility device (cables) received by the attachment system (cable tray 80) (figs. 1 and 3; col. 7, lines 7-11).
With regard to claim 10: Charman discloses the utility pod (25) includes a power management system (surge protector comprising outlets) (fig. 1)
With regard to claim 11: The utility pod (25) of Charman is formed from a pod shell (figs. 1, 3 and 7).
Charman does not disclose that the pod shell being formed from a sheet metal blank.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available materials for forming the pod shell in order to provide desired strength and rigidity for supporting the surge protector and overlying cables. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the pod shell to be formed from a sheet metal blank. 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.
With regard to claim 12: The sheet metal blank being stamped, laser cut, and/or water jet cut is considered a product by process limitation (emphasis added).
“[E]ven 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 Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
With regard to claim 13: Charman does not disclose that the sheet metal blank has a thickness between 0.50 mm to 1.20 mm.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available sheet metal blank thicknesses for forming the pod shell in order to provide desired strength and rigidity for supporting the surge protector and overlying cables. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the sheet metal forming the pod shell to be within the claimed thickness range. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary
With regard to claim 14: Charman does not disclose that the utility pod has a depth between 110 mm to 200 mm, a height between 400 mm to 3200 mm, and a width between 400 mm to 3200 mm.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of dimensions for forming the utility pod for supporting and routing a predetermined amount of utilities. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the pod shell to have the claimed dimensions for supporting and routing a predetermined amount of utilities. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary
With regard to claim 15: Charman discloses the utility pod (80a) is attached to two or more mounting points (at opposing ends of 80a) of the attachment system (80) such that the utility pod (80a) acts capable of acting cross-brace to resist parallel motion of the columns and/or beams.
With regard to claim 16: Charman does not disclose that the utility pod is formed from thin glass, smart polymers, and/or carbon fiber composite.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modifying the elements of the building frame system including the utility pod to be made of carbon fiber composite in order to provide known properties such as strength and corrosion resistance. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the elements of the building frame system including the utility pod to be made of carbon fiber composite. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charman (US 4,631,881) in view of Simonsen (US 2022/0251822 A1), Stal et al. (US 2013/0187308 A1) and in further view of Lemons (US 2007/0137118 A1).
With regard to claim 17: Charman does not disclose a smart coating material is applied to the utility pod.
However, Lemons discloses a framing construction comprising a coating material considered functionally equivalent to a smart coating material, the coating material capable of reducing environment effects on the framing construction such as, but not limited to, moisture, heat, sunlight, etc. (par. [0035]).
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 building frame system of Charman previously modified by Simonsen and Stal et al. to include a smart coating material such as taught by Lemons in order reduce environment effects on the framing construction including, but not limited to, moisture, heat and sunlight. As modified, the utility pod would be coated with the smart coating material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 building frame system comprising columns including a composite structure having a stainless steel profile and a structural profile having ribs formed of resiliently deformable plastic, the composite structure including vents for allowing air movement between an exterior of the cavity and the cavity; in particular the vents including a motor-driven ventilation device to control and/or encourage air movement between the exterior of the cavity and the cavity is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited are directed to building frame systems.
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