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 because:
It appears the separate drawings in each of the different Figures should be independently numbered and addressed within the specification (i.e. Figure 1 appears that it should be Fig.1A, 1B, 1C; etc.). This should be carried throughout the figures (Figure 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
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 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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 2, the recitation “and/or” renders the claim indefinite because both connections in the horizontal and the vertical are further defined throughout the claim but it is unclear if both the horizontal and vertical connections are required. If the recitation is taken as “or” then the “or” would be carried throughout the remainder of the claims since it is unclear when both connections would be required.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation “bar of the Dywidag type” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what this means. It appears “Dywidag” is the name of a technology group and is not a known descriptive term for a bar.
Regarding claims 9, 10, 12, and 13, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The remainder of the claims depend from claim 1 and are rejected herewith.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,493,996 B1 to Alexander et al. in view of KR 20190072334 A to Lee et al.
Regarding claim 1, Alexander discloses modular construction system for buildings, comprising a plurality of habitable modules (21), connected together along a horizontal (Fig.7 and 8) and/or vertical plane (Fig.10) of the building; the system being characterized by: the connection between adjacent modules along a horizontal plane, is carried out through connections of type L2 and type L5 (See below); and the connection between adjacent modules along a vertical plane is carried out through connections of type L4 (See below), wherein, the connection L2 is of male-female joint type (11, Fig.3), wherein one module comprises male-type joints (11) and the adjacent module comprises female-type joints (gaps between 11, Fig.3; Fig.7); the connection L5 is implemented through reinforcing bars (37, 41), installed along the horizontal plane, each interconnecting two adjacent modules (Fig.8); the connection L4 is implemented through reinforcing bars (45, 47, Fig.10), installed along the vertical plane (Fig.10), each interconnecting a module with the adjacent module (Fig.10).
Alexander does not specifically disclose a male-female joint type between adjacent modules along a vertical plane, wherein one module comprises male or female type joints, and the adjacent module comprises joints of a complementary type.
Lee et al. disclose a male-female joint type between adjacent modules along a vertical plane (Fig.4b), wherein one module comprises male or female type joints (10a), and the adjacent module comprises joints of a complementary type (groves into which 10a meshes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided male and female type connections between adjacent modules in the vertical plane so to allow the modules of Alexander to interlock with one another thereby strengthening the connection between modules and preventing the modules from separating or moving relative one another, allowing easy placement.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Alexander discloses wherein some of the reinforcing bars are threaded but does not disclose wherein the connection between adjacent modules along a horizontal plane is complemented with L3 type connections; wherein, each connection L3 is implemented by at least two threaded rods, installed one in each module and adapted to fix a metallic plate resting on a contact zone between the two modules; the length of the threaded rod is at least 2 cm and the thickness of the metallic plate is at least 0.5 mm.
Lee et al. disclose each connection L3 is implemented by at least two threaded rods (22), installed one in each module and adapted to fix a metallic plate (21) resting on a contact zone between the two modules (Fig.4b); the fixation of the metallic plate to the contact zone between the modules is carried out using a tightening nut, coupled to each threaded rod (Fig.4b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the modules of Alexander with the threaded rods and plates as taught by Lee et al. so to effectively secure the modules to one another while allowing the modules to be disconnected if needed. Complimenting the rebars and male/female connections will ensure the modules remain where intended and resist forces in all directions. Providing the desired lengths and thicknesses of the threaded rods and plates will ensure a sufficient connection and a desired strength of the connection between the modules. Choosing an effective length and thickness of the parts will not yield unexpected results.
Regarding claim 4, Anderson in view of Lee et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the male-type joint of connections L1 and L2 has a height ranging between 1 cm and 40 cm, and a minimum length of 3 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the male type joints having a desired height and length so to enable easily nested modules which form a secure male/female joint.
Regarding claim 5, Anderson in view of Lee et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the length of a reinforcing bar of the connection L4 is such that 2/3 of its length is projected to be inserted in the lower habitable module and 1/3 of its length is projected to be inserted in the upper module; and wherein the length of the reinforcing bar is at least 30 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided lengths of the rods within the modules as taught by Anderson to be sufficiently long to optimize the connection between the modules without wasting material or requiring additional work for installation.
Regarding claim 6, Anderson in view of Lee et al. do not specifically disclose wherein a reinforcing bar of the connection L5 has a minimum diameter of 0.6 cm and a minimum length of 10 cm; the reinforcing bar being an iron bar or a bar of the Dywidag type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided lengths and thicknesses of the rods within the modules as taught by Anderson to be sufficiently long and thick so to optimize the connection between the modules without wasting material or requiring additional work for installation.
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. disclose wherein all the connections between modules comprise a binder (23) for sealing the respective connections.
It would have neem obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a binder between the module as taught by Lee et al. so to seal and secure the modules to one another in conjunction with the mechanical connection means.
Regarding claim 8, Although Anderson in view of Lee do no specifically disclose wherein the number of connections between modules, along the horizontal and vertical plane, is variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had the ability to provide variable connections throughout the modules, thereby efficiently securing the modules based on use, thereby efficiently securing the modules to one another while leaving the ability to max secure the modules to one another.
Regarding claim 9, Anderson discloses wherein a habitable module is comprised by: a parallelepiped support platform (2, Fig.3), arranged in a horizontal plane; and by at least two surrounding walls (3, 4, 7) installed in the platform; optionally each surrounding wall is installed at one end of the platform (3, 7).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson discloses wherein a habitable module is comprised by: a parallelepiped support platform (2), arranged in a horizontal plane; and by at least two surrounding walls (3, 4, 7) installed in the platform; optionally each surrounding wall is installed at one end of the platform (3 and 7); and wherein, the support platform comprises connections of the type L2 and L5 (See claim 1 above), embedded in it, for connection between adjacent modules along the horizontal plane, and connections of the type L1 and L4 (See claim 1 above) for installation of the surrounding walls; and the surrounding walls comprise connections of the type L1 and L4, embedded into the lower and/or upper end for attachment to the support platform (See claim 1 above); and L1 and L4 type connections embedded into the upper end for connection to the support platform of an adjacent module (See claim 1 above) or embedded into the lower end for connection to an adjacent module (See claim 1 above).
The connections between the platform, sidewalls, and adjacent modules are all capable of being the connections from claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to use the same types of connections between components of a module and adjacent modules so to make all connections the same and to increase efficiency of building the modules.
Regarding claim 11, Anderson in view of Lee et al. disclose the connection between adjacent modules along a horizontal plane is complemented with L3 the connections; wherein, each connection L3 is implemented by at least two threaded rods, installed one in each module and adapted to fix a metallic plate resting on a contact zone between the two modules (See claim 2 above); and wherein, the L3 connections are installed on the support platform of two adjacent modules (Fig.4b of Lee et al.).
Regarding claim 12, Anderson in view of Lee et al. disclose wherein, the connection between adjacent modules along a horizontal plane is complemented with L3 type connections; wherein, each connection L3 is implemented by at least two threaded rods, installed one in each module and adapted to fix a metallic plate resting on a contact zone between the two modules (See claim 2 above); and Anderson discloses wherein a habitable module is comprised by: a parallelepiped support platform (2, Fig.3), arranged in a horizontal plane; and by at least two surrounding walls (3, 4, 7) installed in the platform; optionally each surrounding wall is installed at one end of the platform (3, 7); and wherein, the support platform and the surrounding walls comprise an interior structural reinforcement (Anderson teaches reinforcing bar and loops, Fig.12; pods, 58, 62, etc.); said structural reinforcement being complemented with reinforcement elements in the areas where the L1, L2, L4 and L5 connections are embedded and where the L3 connections are installed (See claim 1 above), said reinforcement elements being implemented using steel rods (looped rods).
Although Anderson in view of Lee et al. do not specifically disclose rod diameters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a diameter rod to reinforce the interior of the modules by being strong enough to resist expected forces.
Regarding claim 13, Anderson discloses wherein a habitable module is comprised by: a parallelepiped support platform (2), arranged in a horizontal plane; and by at least two surrounding walls (3, 4, 7) installed in the platform; optionally each surrounding wall is installed at one end of the platform (3,7); and wherein the dimensions and thickness of the support platform and surrounding walls of a module are variable (Column 2, lines 48-67), and the supporting platform and surrounding walls of a module being made of concrete (Column 2, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 14, Anderson discloses wherein each module comprises a block for connecting the common infrastructure of the building; common infrastructures relating to water, sewage, electricity or communications networks (bathroom pods 58 and 62; Column 9, lines 17-25).
Regarding claim 15, Although Anderson discloses providing means for utility connections, Anderson does not specifically disclose wherein each module further comprises at least one watertight connection box.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the modules of Anderson with watertight utility boxes so to enable the utilities to be connected as well as protected from the elements, especially the electrical connections. Modules being provided with utility boxes is well known in the art and would not yield unexpected results, the connection box will make the installation neater and more efficient for the installer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights