DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 6/17/2024. Claims 1-9 are pending and are under consideration.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on applications filed in Russia on 6/19/2023 and 11/17/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the RU 2023115942 or RU 2023129857 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figs. 1-19, the poor line quality and shading (shading in Fig. 10) renders part or all of the drawing illegible when reproduced. 37 CFR 1.84(l) (m) and (p)(1). 37 CFR 1.84(l) recites, “[a]ll drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.” Applicant is requested to submit replacement drawings that have darker, black lines.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“5” and “13” (Figs. 1, 3 and 4).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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:
“conveyor line system 20” (as filed, paragraph [0057]);
“pumps 32” and “mortar applicator 16” (as filed, paragraph [0072]).
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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“are provided” (line 1) is objected to because the phrase is implied. This objection can be overcome by deleting the phrase.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “building block installer” in claims 1 and 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 5-9 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.
Claim 5, “the other” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to one of the vertical tower conveyor, horizontal boom conveyor or vertical trolley conveyor? See also claim 7.
Claim 8, “its axis” is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires. It is unclear what “its” is referring to in the claim. Does applicant intend for “its” to refer to the tower? The tower is an inanimate object that is incapable of ownership. Applicant is requested to write out the actual claim element and avoid recitation of such pronouns.
Claim 8, the phrase "and/or" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The Office’s preferred verbiage of elements A and B is “at least one of A and B” and not “A and/or B”. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811 at Footnote 1 (PTAB 2014).
Claim 9, “the trolley conveyor” (line 10) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the previously recited vertical trolley conveyor or a different/additional trolley conveyor? This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the vertical trolley conveyor”.
The remainder of claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected base claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac et al. (US 20090038258) (‘Pivac ‘258’) in view of Kremer et al. (US 5419669) (‘Kramer’) and further in view of Pivac (US 10635758) (‘Pivac ‘758’).
Claim 1, Pivac ‘258 teaches a device for erecting structures using building blocks, comprising:
a tower crane (“tower crane” [0071]; comprising a tower (“tower” see annotated Fig. 5 of Pivac ‘258 shown below in Examiner’s Notes), a boom (“boom” annotated Fig. 5) mounted on the tower (annotated Fig. 5), and a trolley (“trolley” annotated Fig. 5) mounted on the boom (annotated Fig. 5);
a building block installer (“building block installer” annotated Fig. 5) coupled to a lower portion of the trolley conveyor body (annotated Fig. 5);
wherein the trolley is configured to perform a horizontal movement along the boom (it is understood that the trolley can move horizontally along the boom; annotated Fig. 5);
wherein the building block installer is configured to grip the building block and install the building block on a structure to be erected (annotated Fig. 5).
Although, Pivac ‘258 teaches a conveyor system 40 that delivers building blocks to a known position at the trolly (at 18; [0044]) using a vertical tower conveyor (vertical elevator 40d) mounted on the tower (Fig. 5) and a horizontal boom conveyor (42, 44, 46), but Pivac ‘258 does not teach in the embodiment of Fig. 5, the boom being configured to perform a vertical movement along the tower, and does not teach a trolley conveyor body configured to perform a vertical movement relative to the trolley, the vertical tower conveyor being mounted within the tower, the horizontal boom conveyor mounted within the boom, and a vertical trolley conveyor mounted within the trolley conveyor body.
However, the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Pivac ‘258 teaches the boom being configured to perform a vertical movement along the tower (the boom can be moved along 38; [0042]-[0043]; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the embodiment of Fig. 5 of Pivac ‘258 such that the boom is configured to perform a vertical movement along the tower, with the reasonable expectation of success of increasing the flexibility of reaching an intended working location by enabling the trolley to reach a larger range of heights, and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Further, Kremer teaches a device for erecting structures using building blocks, comprising a conveyor line system comprising a vertical tower conveyor 32 mounted within a tower (27; Fig. 1), wherein the conveyor line system is configured to move a building block from an inlet at a base of the tower (at 26 in Fig. 1) to an outlet at the building block installer (to a position near bricklaying robot 38 in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the conveyor line system of Pivac ‘258 such that the vertical tower conveyor is mounted within the tower, wherein the conveyor line system is configured to move a building block from an inlet at a base of the tower to an outlet at the building block installer, with the reasonable expectation of success of protecting the building blocks from environmental elements such as wind, rain, snow or ice.
Further, Pivac ‘146 teaches a device for erecting structures using building blocks, comprising a boom (12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20; Figs. 76C-76E), and a conveyor line system, comprising a horizontal boom conveyor mounted within the boom (Figs. 77A-79D). Pivac ‘146 further teaches a trolley 40 mounted on the boom (40 is mounted on boom portion 20), a trolley conveyor body 32 coupled to the trolley (32 is coupled to 40; Figs. 80A-80Q), a conveyor line system comprising a vertical tower conveyor on the tower (vertical conveyor on 10; Fig. 24), a horizontal boom conveyor mounted within the boom (conveying means mounted in boom elements 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20; col. 41, lines 25-42; Figs. 78A-79C), and a vertical trolley conveyor 687 mounted within the trolley conveyor body (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, 687 is mounted within 32; Figs. 80A-83), and a building block installer 36 coupled to a lower portion of the trolley conveyor body (36 is attached to 32; Figs. 80A-80Q), wherein the trolley conveyor body is configured to perform a vertical movement relative to the trolley (32 is suitable to rotate via 33, adjustable by hydraulic ram 35, and thus is suitable to perform a vertical movement relative to the trolley, as exceedingly broadly claimed; col. 12, lines 44-53; Fig. 1), wherein the conveyor line system is configured to move a building block from an inlet (at the base of 10; Fig. 24) to an outlet (at 36; Figs 80A-80Q), and wherein the building block installer is configured to grip the building block (with gripper 44) at the outlet of the conveyor line system and install the building block on a structure to be erected (Figs. 80A-80Q). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Pivac ‘258 to comprise a trolley conveyor body coupled to the trolley, to form the conveyor line system comprising a vertical tower conveyor mounted within the tower, a horizontal boom conveyor mounted within the boom, and a vertical trolley conveyor mounted within the trolley conveyor body, to couple the building block installer at a lower portion of the trolley conveyor body, wherein the trolley conveyor body is configured to perform a vertical movement relative to the trolley, wherein the conveyor line system is configured to move a building block from an inlet at a base of the tower to an outlet at the building block installer, and wherein the building block installer is configured to grip the building block at the outlet of the conveyor line system and install the building block on a structure to be erected, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to move building blocks from a first location such as a delivery location to a second location such as an installation location, thereby receiving packs of building blocks and processing them to in effect 3D print a full size structure of walls (Pivac ‘758 col. 40, lines 63-67 and col. 41, lines 1-4).
Claim 2, as modified above, the combination of Pivac ‘258, Kremer and Pivac ‘758 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches a mortar delivery system comprising pipelines (Pivac ‘758; 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125; col. 35, lines 46-52; Fig. 13) installed along the conveyor line system (Pivac ‘758; it is understood that the pipelines are installed along the boom and thus along the conveyor line system; Fig. 13); and a mortar applicator 777 coupled to the trolley conveyor body (Figs. 80A-80Q) and configured to apply mortar received through the mortar delivery system to the building block before the building block is installed on the structure to be erected (col. 11, lines 59-62).
Claim 3, as modified above, the combination of Pivac ‘258, Kremer and Pivac ‘758 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the trolley is mounted on a side portion of the boom (Pivac ‘258 Fig. 5) and is configured to move laterally from the boom (Pivac ‘258 under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the boom is suitable to move along the side in a lateral horizontal movement along the boom, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 5), and the trolley conveyor body is movably attached to a frame of the trolley and is configured to vertically move laterally from the boom (Pivac ‘758 trolley conveyor body 32 is movably attached to a frame of the trolley 40 and is configured to vertically move laterally from the boom, for example when the boom is folded as in Figs. 76C-76D, or alternatively via 38 or 39, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 1).
Claim 8, as modified above, the combination of Pivac ‘258, Kremer, and Pivac ‘758 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the tower is configured to rotate about its axis on a pivoting platform and/or the platform on which the tower is mounted is configured to move along a ground surface (Pivac ‘758 the tower is suitable to rotate about 11 col. 23, lines 35-45).
Claim 9, Pivac ‘258 teaches a method for erecting structures using building blocks, comprising:
feeding a building block 16 in a base area of a tower of a tower crane into a vertical tower conveyor (40d; Fig. 5) on the tower (see annotated Fig. 5 of Pivac ‘258 shown below in Examiner’s Notes);
moving the building block vertically using the tower conveyor (the building block is moved vertically using the tower conveyor; Fig. 5);
transferring the building block from the tower conveyor to a horizontal boom (“boom” has a trolley and a building block installer that grabs the building block for placement in a building structure; annotated Fig. 5);
moving the building block horizontally (it is understood that the trolley is grabs the building block and moves horizontally; annotated Fig. 5);
gripping the building block and installing the building block on a structure to be erected by using a building block installer attached to the trolley conveyor body (annotated Fig. 5).
Pivac ‘258 does not teach the vertical tower conveyor being mounted inside the tower, the horizontal boom having a horizontal boom conveyor mounted inside the horizontal boom, moving the building block horizontally with the boom conveyor, transferring the building block from the boom conveyor to a vertical trolley conveyor mounted inside a trolley conveyor body attached to a trolley mounted on the boom, moving the building block vertically with the trolley conveyor, and gripping the building block from the trolley conveyor.
However, Kremer teaches a method for erecting structures using building block, comprising a conveyor line system comprising a vertical tower conveyor 32 mounted within a tower (27; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the conveyor line system of Pivac ‘258 such that the vertical tower conveyor is mounted within the tower, with the reasonable expectation of success of protecting the building blocks from environmental elements such as wind, rain, snow or ice.
Further, Pivac ‘146 teaches a method for erecting structures using building blocks, comprising a tower 10 and a boom (12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20; Figs. 76C-76E), and a conveyor line system, comprising a horizontal boom conveyor mounted within the boom (Figs. 77A-79D). Pivac ‘146 further teaches transferring a building block from a tower conveyor to a horizontal boom conveyor mounted inside the boom (Fig. 24), moving the building block horizontally with the boom conveyor (the building block is moved horizontally through the boom conveyor; Figs. 77A-79D), transferring the building block from the boom conveyor to a vertical trolley conveyor 687 mounted inside a trolley conveyor body (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, 687 is mounted within 32; Figs. 80A-83) attached to a trolley 40 mounted on the boom (40 is mounted on boom portion 20 via 32), moving the building block vertically with the [vertical] trolley conveyor (the building block is moved at least partially in a vertical direction with the vertical trolly conveyor; Figs. 80A-80Q); and gripping the building block from the trolley conveyor (gripping the building block with gripper 44 from the trolley conveyor; Figs. 80M-80N) and installing the building block on a structure to be erected by using a building block installer 36 attached to the trolley conveyor body (36 is attached to 32; Figs. 80A-80Q). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Pivac ‘258 by transferring the building block from the tower conveyor to a horizontal boom conveyor mounted inside a boom of the tower crane, moving the building block horizontally with the boom conveyor; transferring the building block from the boom conveyor to a vertical trolley conveyor mounted inside a trolley conveyor body attached to a trolley mounted on the boom, moving the building block vertically with the trolley conveyor, and gripping the building block from the trolley conveyor and installing the building block on a structure to be erected by using a building block installer attached to the trolley conveyor body, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to move building blocks from a first location such as a delivery location to a second location such as an installation location, thereby receiving packs of building blocks and processing them to in effect 3D print a full size structure of walls (Pivac ‘758 col. 40, lines 63-67 and col. 41, lines 1-4).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac et al. (US 20090038258) (‘Pivac ‘258’) in view of Kremer et al. (US 5419669) (‘Kramer’) and Pivac (US 10635758) (‘Pivac ‘758’) as above and further in view of Ortiz et al. (US 20030160016) (‘Ortiz’).
Claim 4, as modified above, the combination of Pivac ‘258, Kremer and Pivac ‘758 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the tower crane is a foldable crane (Pivac ‘258 [0043]), the boom is configured to be foldable relative to the tower (Pivac ‘258 Fig. 1), the boom comprises two sections (Pivac ‘258; 32, 34) which are configured to be foldable relative to each other (Pivac ‘258 Fig. 1), and the boom conveyor comprises two conveyors (Pivac ‘258; 42, 44) each mounted within respective one of the sections of the boom (Pivac ‘758; 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20). Pivac ‘258 does not teach the tower being configured to be foldable relative to a platform. However, Ortiz teaches a device for erecting structures using building blocks, comprising a tower 82 that is configured to be foldable relative to a platform 36 [0033]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the tower to be configured to be foldable relative to a platform, with the reasonable expectation of success of increasing the portability of the device.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac et al. (US 20090038258) (‘Pivac ‘258’) in view of Kremer et al. (US 5419669) (‘Kramer’) and Pivac (US 10635758) (‘Pivac ‘758’) as above and further in view of Hadrian X Completes First Commercial Build FBR (https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=0uAzSYL5RSI) (‘FBR’).
Claim 5, Pivac ‘258 further teaches wherein the tower and the boom comprise windows (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the open space in between the truss-like frame members constitute windows, as exceedingly broadly claimed). Pivac ‘258 does not teach wherein the tower, the boom, and the trolley conveyor body comprise windows for transferring the building block from one of the conveyors to the other. However, FBR teaches a device for erecting structures using building blocks, wherein a tower, a boom and a trolley conveyor body comprise windows for transferring the building block from one of the conveyors to the other (see annotated screenshot of FBR shown below in Examiner’s Notes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try modifying the device of Pivac ‘258 by incorporating windows into the tower, the boom and a trolley conveyor body for transferring the building block from one of the conveyors to the other, with the reasonable expectation of success of permitting the building blocks to be protected from environmental elements, while also permitting visual inspection of the inside of the respective components of the device.
Claim 6, as modified above, the combination of Pivac ‘258, Kremer, Pivac ‘758 and FBR teaches all the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches wherein the windows are arranged on a side of the tower facing the boom (Pivac ‘258 Fig. 5), a side of the boom facing the trolley conveyor (Pivac ‘258; Fig. 5), and a side of the trolley conveyor body facing the boom (FBR; note that any of the holes, apertures or openings in the trolley conveyor could be considered a window, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated screenshot of FBR).
Claim 7, as modified above, the combination of Pivac ‘258, Kremer, Pivac ‘758 and FBR teaches all the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches wherein the building block is transferred from one of the conveyors to the other using an L-shaped gripper (Pivac ‘758 various L-shaped grippers shown throughout the drawings, including two L-shaped grippers 677, 668; Fig. 57).
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
424
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of over Pivac et al. (US 20090038258) (‘Pivac ‘258’)
PNG
media_image2.png
603
883
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated screenshot of Hadrian X Completes First Commercial Build FBR (‘FBR’)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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 571-270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635