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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-7, 6 (second instance, renumbered --21-- herein), 7 (second instance, renumbered --22-- herein), and 8-20, as originally 10 JUN. 2024, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The numbering of the claims includes two instances, each of claims 6 and 7. One instance of each must be renumbered to 21 and 22 respectively. For the purposes of examination and clarity, the second instance of claim 6 will be referred to as claim 21 (and is assumed dependent on the first instance of claim 7), and the second instance of claim 7 will be referred to claim 22. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of: “…claims directed to the invention identified by the Examiner as Product I (Group I), corresponding to claims 1-17, drawn to a connection system. The Applicant further elects the species of FIG. 1, described as a cross-section of a modular fiberglass wall wherein the wall comprises a raised middle portion, and identifies claims 1-17 as encompassing the elected species. This election is made with traverse” in the reply filed on 29 JUN. 26 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
“The Applicant submits that the restriction is improper”;
“First, Examiner's assertion that the panels of Product I "can be made by another and materially different process such as hand lay-up" is conclusory and does not demonstrate that the product as claimed can in fact be made by a materially different process that would require a different field of search”;
“The method claims (claims 18-20) recite making and assembling the same modular fiberglass wall components and connection system claimed in Product I, using the same fiber reinforced plastic components, the same connectors (mortise and tenon joint, lap joint, epoxy), and the same overall connection system structure. A search for the claimed product would necessarily encompass the prior art relevant to the claimed method of making and connecting that same product.”
“Second, the Examiner's assertion of serious search and/or examination burden is stated only in general terms and does not identify a materially different field of search, materially different prior art, or materially different examination issue that would be required for claims 18-20 beyond the search already required for claims 1-17. The product and method claims share the same field of art (modular fiberglass building components and connection systems, E04B), the same relevant prior art considerations, and substantially overlapping search queries. The Office has not shown that searching the method claims would require a different field of search or different prior art from what would already be searched for the product claims.”
“The Applicant also respectfully traverses the species election requirement between FIG. 1 (a cross-section of a modular fiberglass wall wherein the wall comprises a raised middle portion) and FIGS. 8-9 (a roof-to-wall connection wherein the wall comprises a singularly offset tongue portion).”
“the Office has not established that FIG. 1 and FIGS. 8-9 are patentably distinct embodiments of the claimed invention, or that examining them together would impose a serious search and/or examination burden”
“The application describes the invention as a modular fiberglass wall components and connection system in which roof components, wall components, and floor components are assembled using multiple connection types, including roof-to-wall, wall-to-wall, floor-to-floor, and roof-to-roof connections. In that context, FIG. 1 is a cross-section of a modular fiberglass wall, while FIGS. 8-9 show roof-to-wall connection details within the same disclosed modular fiberglass wall system, not separate and unrelated inventions. Nor does the Office's statement that the figures have "mutually exclusive characteristics" demonstrate patentable distinctness or serious burden”
“The asserted distinction is that FIG. 1 has a raised middle portion and FIGS. 8-9 have a singularly offset tongue portion, but the Office has not explained why those disclosed structural details would require materially different prior art searches or why they represent patentably distinct embodiments rather than different disclosed aspects of the same modular fiberglass wall connection system. Further, although claims 2 and 12 recite roof-to-wall connector language, those claims recite a mortise and tenon joint, a self- locking implanted cotter pin, and epoxy, and do not require the singularly offset tongue portion identified by the Office for FIGS. 8-9.”
This is not found persuasive because, regarding the method claims, the Examiner notes the claimed process of “molding” could be reasonably broadly interpreted to encompass various excessive requirements which would not necessarily be present in a single reference anticipating the product claims.
The requirement between process of making and product made is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Further, regarding the product claims, the Examiner notes the claimed feature of “connected” has not been so redefined as to include the distinct embodiments as shown in FIG. 1 and FIGs. 8-9 in a way which could be reasonably broadly interpreted from a single reference. FIG. 9 has a relatively “rearward” positioned recess while FIG. 1 teaches a “centrally” positioned recess. A single reference would not necessarily read upon both of these embodiments.
The requirement between species is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 18-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 29 JUN. 26.
Regarding the election of species, Applicant's election with traverse of “species of FIG. 1… claims 1-17 as encompassing the elected species” in the reply filed 29 JUN. 26 is acknowledged.
The Examiner disagrees with this listing of claims which read upon the elected species. Specifically, the Examiner finds claims 4 and 13 do not read upon the elected species: “species of FIG. 1”. In claims 4 and 13, reference is drawn to a feature(s) that is only disclosed with reference to the non-elected species “FIG. 8-9 a roof to wall connection… comprises a singularly offset tongue portion.”
The first and second wall components of claims 1 and 3 are claimed as being “connected” with a “wall-to-wall connector” in claim 3. The elected species of “species of FIG. 1” clearly has a mortise and tenon joint as disclosed which is different from that required by claims 4 and 13, which recite (Cl. 4) “the wall-to-wall connector includes a lap joint” and (Cl. 13) “the wall-to-wall connector includes a lap joint”.
Therefore, claims 4 and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.83 or 1.84 because of the following informalities:
FIG(s) 1-11 contain(s) excessive text, as elements in drawings should be denoted by numbers (see 37 CFR 1.84 (o))(Applicant is encouraged to provide reference characters for the claimed elements to prevent confusion);
FIG(s) 1-11: the plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line (see 37 CFR 1.84 (h));
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, therefore the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Cl. 5: “roof-to-roof connector” has not been explicitly pointed out
Cl. 6: “roof-to-roof connector includes a lap joint” has not been explicitly pointed out
Cl. 7: “floor-to-floor connector” has not been explicitly pointed out
Cl. [[6]] --21--: “the floor-to-floor connector includes a lap joint” has not been explicitly pointed out
Cl. 10 ln. 1: “the first wall component includes a conduit” has not been explicitly pointed out
Cl. 11 ln. 4-5: “floor-to-floor connector” has not been explicitly pointed out
Cl. 11 ln. 6: “roof-to-roof connector” has not been explicitly pointed out
Cl. 14: “roof-to-roof connector includes a lap joint” has not been explicitly pointed out
Cl. 15 ln. 1-2: “floor-to-floor connector includes a lap joint” has not been explicitly pointed out
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morrow US 10865560 B1
As per claim 1 Morrow teaches a modular fiberglass wall connection system (“CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM“ title), the system comprising:
a first wall component (panel 100, FIG. 1-3, 6);
a first floor component (floor panels 204, FIG. 11); and
a first roof component (roof panels 100, FIG. 9, 11) connected to the first wall component (panel 100, FIG. 1-3, 6) with a roof-to-wall connector (see FIG. 12A), wherein
the first wall component (panel 100, FIG. 1-3, 6), first floor component (floor panels 204, FIG. 11), and first roof component (roof panels 100, FIG. 9, 11) primarily comprise fiber reinforced plastic (see “Body 102 may comprise or otherwise be formed from a foam material, such as expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam. Such material may be rigid” 9:19).
As per claim 3 Morrow teaches the limitations according to claim 1, further including a second wall component (see second panels 100, FIG. 1-3, 11) connected to the first wall component (panel 100, FIG. 1-3, 6) with a wall-to-wall connector (see “channels are configured to receive splines therein” Abstract ln. 4; also FIG. 11, 12A, 12B).
As per claim 5 Morrow teaches the limitations according to claim 1, further including a second roof component (roof panels 100, FIG. 9, 11) connected to the first roof component (roof panels 100, FIG. 9, 11) with a roof-to-roof connector (see “channels are configured to receive splines therein” Abstract ln. 4; also FIG. 11, 12A).
As per claim 6 Morrow teaches the limitations according to claim 5, wherein the roof-to-roof connector (see “channels are configured to receive splines therein” Abstract ln. 4; also FIG. 11, 12A) includes a lap joint (see joint at 117, FIG. 9) and epoxy adhesive (see “urethane and epoxy adhesives (e.g., foaming adhesives) may also be used, where desired” 15:53).
As per claim 7 Morrow teaches the limitations according to claim 1, further including a second floor component (at least a second floor panel 204, FIG. 11) connected to the first floor component (floor panels 204, FIG. 11) with a floor-to-floor connector (see “channels are configured to receive splines therein” Abstract ln. 4; also FIG. 11, 12A, 12B).
As per claim 10 Morrow teaches the limitations according to claim 1, wherein the first wall component (panel 100, FIG. 1-3, 6) includes a conduit (electrical raceways 136 FIG. 3) for receiving an electrical system.
As per claim 11 Morrow teaches a modular fiberglass wall connection system (“CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM“ title), the system comprising:
a first wall component (panel 100, FIG. 1-3, 6) connected to a second wall component (see second panels 100, FIG. 1-3, 11) with a wall-to-wall connector (see “channels are configured to receive splines therein” Abstract ln. 4; also FIG. 11, 12A, 12B);
a first floor component (floor panels 204, FIG. 11) connected to a second floor component (at least a second floor panel 204, FIG. 11) with a floor-to-floor connector (see “channels are configured to receive splines therein” Abstract ln. 4; also FIG. 11, 12A, 12B); and
a first roof component (roof panels 100, FIG. 9, 11) connected to a second roof component (roof panels 100, FIG. 9, 11) with a roof-to-roof connector (see “channels are configured to receive splines therein” Abstract ln. 4; also FIG. 11, 12A) and connected to the first wall component (panel 100, FIG. 1-3, 6) with a roof-to-wall connector (see FIG. 12A), wherein the first wall component (panel 100, FIG. 1-3, 6), first floor component (floor panels 204, FIG. 11), and first roof component (roof panels 100, FIG. 9, 11) primarily comprise fiber reinforced plastic (see “Body 102 may comprise or otherwise be formed from a foam material, such as expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam. Such material may be rigid” 9:19).
As per claim 14 Morrow teaches the limitations according to claim 11, wherein the roof-to-roof connector (see “channels are configured to receive splines therein” Abstract ln. 4; also FIG. 11, 12A) includes a lap joint (see joint at 117, FIG. 9) and epoxy adhesive (see “urethane and epoxy adhesives (e.g., foaming adhesives) may also be used, where desired” 15:53).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2, [[6]] --21--, [[7.]] --22-- , 12, 15, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrow in view of Quinn et al. US 20150322668 A1 (Quinn).
As per claim 2 the primary reference of Morrow teaches the limitations according to claim 1, wherein the roof-to-wall connector (see FIG. 12A) includes a mortise and tenon joint (see “channels are configured to receive splines therein” Abstract ln. 4; also FIG. 12A), and an epoxy (see “urethane and epoxy adhesives (e.g., foaming adhesives) may also be used, where desired” 15:53), but fails to explicitly disclose:
a self-locking implanted cotter pin,
Quinn teaches such fasteners, specifically:
a self-locking implanted cotter pin (“adhesive… cotter pins, or another fastening device” [0087])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Morrow by including the cotter pins —or a “self-locking implanted cotter pin” as broadly claimed— as taught by Quinn in order to allow rapid fastening and release of panels when desired to assemble and reassemble.
As per claim [[6.]] --21-- the primary reference of Morrow teaches the limitations according to claim 7, wherein the floor-to-floor connector (see “channels are configured to receive splines therein” Abstract ln. 4; also FIG. 11, 12A, 12B) includes a joint (see joint at 204, 206, FIG. 12B) and epoxy adhesive (see “urethane and epoxy adhesives (e.g., foaming adhesives) may also be used, where desired” 15:53).
but fails to explicitly disclose:
the floor connector is a lap joint
Quinn teaches such joints between floor panels, specifically:
the floor connector is a lap joint (see “FIGS. 27A-B depict embodiments of devices to couple floor … panels together… FIG. 27B, on the other hand, depicts a shiplap panel joint. [0077]; see also FIG. 27B)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Morrow by including shiplap joints as taught by Quinn in order to provide a shadow line between panels, promoting a unique rustic or farmhouse appearance.
As per claim [[7.]] --22-- Morrow teaches the limitations according to claim 1, wherein the first wall component (panel 100, FIG. 1-3, 6), first floor component (floor panels 204, FIG. 11), and first roof component (roof panels 100, FIG. 9, 11) further comprise internal plastic members (see “Body 102 may comprise or otherwise be formed from a foam material, such as expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam. Such material may be rigid” 9:19), but fails to explicitly disclose:
the internal plastic members are internal structural fiberglass members.
Quinn teaches fire rated wall panels comprising the insulative materials as claimed, specifically:
the internal plastic members are structural fiberglass (“core 4305… not limited to, fiberglass” and “may additionally have one or more steel studs 4310 formed therein” [0048]; also FIG. 43) members.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Morrow by substituting the fiberglass and steel as taught by Quinn in order to provide stronger panels.
As per claim 12 the primary reference of Morrow teaches the limitations according to claim 11, wherein the roof-to-wall connector (see FIG. 12A) includes a mortise and tenon joint (see “channels are configured to receive splines therein” Abstract ln. 4; also FIG. 12A) and an epoxy (see “urethane and epoxy adhesives (e.g., foaming adhesives) may also be used, where desired” 15:53) but fails to explicitly disclose:
a self-locking implanted cotter pin,
Quinn teaches such fasteners, specifically:
a self-locking implanted cotter pin (“adhesive… cotter pins, or another fastening device” [0087])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Morrow by including the cotter pins —or a “self-locking implanted cotter pin” as broadly claimed— as taught by Quinn in order to allow rapid fastening and release of panels when desired to assemble and reassemble.
As per claim 15 the primary reference of Morrow teaches the limitations according to claim 11, wherein the floor-to-floor connector (see “channels are configured to receive splines therein” Abstract ln. 4; also FIG. 11, 12A, 12B) includes a joint (see joint at 117, FIG. 9) and epoxy adhesive (see “urethane and epoxy adhesives (e.g., foaming adhesives) may also be used, where desired” 15:53) but fails to explicitly disclose:
the floor connector is a lap joint
Quinn teaches such joints between floor panels, specifically:
the floor connector is a lap joint (see “FIGS. 27A-B depict embodiments of devices to couple floor … panels together… FIG. 27B, on the other hand, depicts a shiplap panel joint. [0077]; see also FIG. 27B)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Morrow by including shiplap joints as taught by Quinn in order to provide a shadow line between panels, promoting a unique rustic or farmhouse appearance.
As per claim 16 the primary reference of Morrow teaches the limitations according to claim 11, wherein the first wall component (panel 100, FIG. 1-3, 6), first floor component (floor panels 204, FIG. 11), and first roof component (roof panels 100, FIG. 9, 11) further comprise internal plastic members (see “Body 102 may comprise or otherwise be formed from a foam material, such as expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam. Such material may be rigid” 9:19), but fails to explicitly disclose:
the internal plastic members are internal structural fiberglass members.
Quinn teaches fire rated wall panels comprising the insulative materials as claimed, specifically:
the internal plastic members are internal structural fiberglass (“core 4305… not limited to, fiberglass” and “may additionally have one or more steel studs 4310 formed therein” [0048]; also FIG. 43) members.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Morrow by substituting the fiberglass and steel as taught by Quinn in order to provide stronger panels.
Claim 8 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrow in view of Mason et al. US 6170201 B1 (Mason).
As per claim 8 the primary reference of Morrow teaches the limitations according to claim 1, wherein the first wall component (panel 100, FIG. 1-3, 6), first floor component (floor panels 204, FIG. 11), and first roof component (roof panels 100, FIG. 9, 11) further comprise foam (see “expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam” 9:19) but fails to explicitly disclose:
open cell foam insulation between and inner layer of fiberglass and an exterior layer of fiberglass.
Mason teaches a panelized structure made of well-known materials as claimed, specifically:
open cell foam insulation (“insulation material may be formed from any resin and/or other polymeric material such as a closed or open cell foam” 3:61) between and inner layer of fiberglass and an exterior layer of fiberglass (“Any or all of the inner and/or outer layers 21, 22, 23, 25 may be made of any polymeric material, for example, fiberglass or any well-known plastics” 4:12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the panels of Morrow by substituting the fiberglass layers and core as taught by Mason in order to form a reliably rigid construction from known materials.
As per claim 17 the primary reference of Morrow teaches the limitations according to claim 11, wherein the first wall component (panel 100, FIG. 1-3, 6), first floor component (floor panels 204, FIG. 11), and first roof component (roof panels 100, FIG. 9, 11) further comprise foam (see “expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam” 9:19) layer but fails to explicitly disclose:
open cell foam insulation between and inner layer of fiberglass and an exterior layer of fiberglass.
Mason teaches a panelized structure made of well-known materials as claimed, specifically:
open cell foam insulation (“insulation material may be formed from any resin and/or other polymeric material such as a closed or open cell foam” 3:61) between and inner layer of fiberglass and an exterior layer of fiberglass (“Any or all of the inner and/or outer layers 21, 22, 23, 25 may be made of any polymeric material, for example, fiberglass or any well-known plastics” 4:12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the panels of Morrow by substituting the fiberglass layers and core as taught by Mason in order to form a reliably rigid construction from known materials.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrow in view of Wickramasekera US 10985689 B2.
As per claim 9 the primary reference of Morrow teaches the limitations according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the first roof component and first wall component are configured to fold and unfold.
Wickramasekera teaches this well-known functional relationship between panels, specifically:
wherein the first roof component and first wall component are configured to fold and unfold (“unfold or fold the bi-fold side wall panels” 11:10; also FIGs. 3-5, 10, 18 and 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Morrow by including the ability of the panels to fold as taught by Wickramasekera in order to permit easier stowage and deployment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vogler; Michael R. et al. US 11199001 B2 teaches two panels at a first form of lap joint (FIG. 2): “the joint 20 is a lap joint that has overlapping mechanically interlocking flanges 27 and 28”
PNG
media_image1.png
475
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
VON PHILP. US 1157469 A teaches “to join the plates together, I use a lap-joint, best seen in Fig. 2”
PNG
media_image2.png
355
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
NORFORD; John Peter et al. US 20160312466 A1 teaches “[FIG. 2 teaches] rebates 8 and upstands 10 form lap joints” and “FIG. 8 is a sectional view of a fragment of two interfitting wall ends with a tenon and groove formation”
PNG
media_image3.png
435
323
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
306
337
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJS/
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights