DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 7/8/2024. Claims 1-26 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 7/8/2024 (2) and 11/14/2025 are being considered.
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:
the abstract recites, “is provided” (line 2). This objection can be overcome by deleting, “is provided”.
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).
Drawings
The drawings filed on 7/8/2024 are being considered.
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: “undulating configuration features”, “detent features”, “snap-fit features”, “press fit features”, “interference fit features” in claims 12, 13, 23 and 24.
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 Objections and Claim Rejections under 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 1-26 are objected to or 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 1 and several other claims are reproduced below with the examiner’s comments in bold italics. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1. A system for interconnecting modular wall vertical frame members meeting at a corner junction, the system comprising:
a first vertical frame member;
a second vertical frame member;
each vertical frame member (“each vertical frame member” is objected to because the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim previously recites a first vertical frame member and a second vertical frame member; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the first and second vertical frame members” or equivalent; the limitation is repeated throughout the claims and the objection is not repeated for brevity) having a mount for mounting a wall panel;
each vertical frame member (“each vertical frame member”; see above) having a pair of interlocking members positioned inwardly of the mount, the interlocking members (“the interlocking members” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim previously recites a pair of interlocking members; is the limitation referring to the pair of interlocking members? this rejection can be overcome by reciting, the pair of interlocking members; note that the limitation is repeated throughout the claims and the same rejection applies, but is not repeated for brevity; further note that “pair” as recited throughout the claims was treated as two, in accordance with applicant’s specification and the plain meaning of “pair”) each having a laterally extending leg defining a laterally extending latch receiving space;
a connector member having a body structure with a pair of legs with latches thereon extending therefrom, the legs with the latches (“the legs” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim previously recites a pair of legs; is the limitation referring to the pair of legs? this rejection can be overcome by reciting, the pair of legs with the latches; note that the limitation is repeated throughout the claims and the same rejection applies, but is not repeated for brevity) extending to form a general V-shape;
wherein the legs with the latches are configured to be received in the latch receiving spaces of the vertical frame members in a latching engagement to secure the vertical frame members (“the vertical frame members” is objected to because the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim previously recites a first vertical frame member and a second vertical frame member; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the first and second vertical frame members” or equivalent) in a corner junction relationship;
wherein the body structure of the connector member includes a head configured to be received between portions of the vertical frame members to support the corner junction relationship.
Claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the laterally extending leg of each interlocking member (“each interlocking member” is rejected under 112b, as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim previously recites a first vertical frame member and a second vertical frame member each having a pair of interlocking members; does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the pair of interlocking members of each of the first and second vertical frame member?) is spaced from an inner wall of the vertical frame member (“the vertical frame member” is rejected under 112b, as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim previously recites first and second vertical frame members; which of the first and second vertical frame members is the limitation referring to in the claim?) to define the laterally extending latch receiving spaces, and wherein the head of the connector member connects the pair of legs such that the legs (“the legs” is objected to because the limitation lacks antecedent basis, as it appears that the limitation is referring to the previously recited pair of legs; applicant is requested to clarify) extend therefrom and the head is configured to be received between free ends of the inner walls as said portions (“said portions” is objected to because the limitation lacks antecedent basis, as it appears that the limitation is referring to the previously recited portions of the vertical frame members; applicant is requested to clarify; this limitation is repeated in the claims and the rejection is not repeated for brevity) support the corner junction relationship.
Claim 3. The system of claim 2, wherein said head includes a support bridge extending between said legs (“said legs” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim previously recites a pair of legs; is the limitation referring to the pair of legs with latches? this rejection can be overcome by reciting, said pair of legs, or equivalent) of the connector member.
Claim 6. The system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the mounts for mounting the wall panel is in the form (“the form” is rejected under 112b for lacking antecedent basis; this rejection can be overcome by deleting “in the form of” and replacing it with “comprises” or equivalent; note that the limitation is repeated throughout the claims and the same rejection applies, but is not repeated for brevity) of at least one channel configured to receive a glass panel wall section therein, and wherein the at least one channel includes smaller channels (“smaller channels” is rejected under 112b because the limitation lacks a point of reference, as it is unclear what the smaller channels are smaller than in in the claim, and it is unclear whether the limitation requires one or more channels; this rejection can be overcome by reciting “a plurality of small channels” or equivalent; note that the limitation is repeated throughout the claims and the same rejection applies, but is not repeated for brevity) that are configured to receive a gasket to seal the glass panel wall section.
Claim 7. The system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first vertical frame member and the second vertical frame member includes a central section with the mount in the form (“the form”; see above) of a channel for mounting a single pane glass panel wall section as its wall panel (“its wall panel” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as it is unclear what “its” is referring to in the claim; is “its” referring to one of the first and second vertical frame members? the limitation is written in possessive form, and the frame members are inanimate objects that are incapable of ownership; applicant is requested to write out the actual claim element represented by “its” and avoid reciting such pronouns; note that the limitation is repeated throughout the claims and the same objection applies, but is not repeated for brevity), and wherein the mount includes a gasket channel for receiving a gasket to seal the glass panel wall section.
Claim 8. The system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first vertical frame member and the second vertical frame member includes a central section with the mount in the form (“the form”; see above) of two channels, each channel (“each channel” is objected to because the limitation does not refer to the previously recited two channels; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the two channels” or equivalent; note that the limitation is repeated throughout the claims and the same objection applies, but is not repeated for brevity) for mounting a respective glass panel wall section to provide a double pane glass wall panel as its wall panel (“its wall panel”; see above), and wherein the mount includes two gasket channels each for receiving a gasket to seal the glass panel wall sections.
Claim 9. The system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first vertical frame member and the second vertical frame member is configured for a wall having its own (“its own” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite; see rejection with respect to “its wall panel” as above) internal frame with a vertical frame member and includes (“and includes” is indefinite under 112b for being indefinite as it is unclear what the limitation is further limiting; does applicant intend for one of the first and second vertical frame members or the wall to include the limitations that follow?) a main body with a member serving as the mount, and wherein the main body includes a longer supporting wall and a shorter supporting wall (“longer supporting wall” and “shorter supporting wall” are rejected under 112b for lacking a point of reference; it is unclear what the longer supporting wall is longer than in the claim, and it is unclear what the shorter supporting wall is shorter than in the claim; applicant is requested to clarify the claim language; these limitations are repeated in the claims and the rejection is not repeated for brevity) to support sections of the member.
Claim 10. The system of claim 2, wherein, for each vertical frame member (“each vertical frame member”; see above), the laterally extending legs are spaced from the inner walls of the respective vertical frame member (“the respective vertical frame member” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the claims do not previously recite a respective vertical frame member; this rejection can be overcome by reciting, “a respective vertical frame member of each of the first and second vertical frame members” or equivalent; note that the limitation is repeated in claim 10, but the rejection is not repeated for brevity) and are connected thereto at one end (“one end” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as it is unclear whether the one end is intended to be one end of the laterally extending leg, the inner wall of the respective vertical frame member or something else; applicant is requested to clarify the claim language) and have an opposing end free for enabling insertion of the leg with the latch of the connector member into the latch receiving space of the respective vertical frame member (“the respective vertical frame member”; see above).
Claim 11. The system of claim 10, wherein, for each vertical frame member (“each vertical frame member”; see above), the inner walls share a common wall extending laterally with respect to the frame member that is part of said mount.
Claim 12. The system of claim 1, wherein the laterally extending legs include undulating configuration features, detent features, snap-fit features, press fit features and/or interference fit features ("and/or" is rejected under 112b, as the limitation renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed – those encompassed by "or" – thereby rendering the scope of the claim 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); this limitation appears again in the claims and the rejection is not repeated for brevity) on the surface inside the latch receiving space of the vertical frame member, and wherein the features are used for the latching engagement to secure the vertical frame members in the corner junction relationship.
Claim 12. The system of claim 1, wherein the laterally extending legs include undulating configuration features, detent features, snap-fit features, press fit features and/or interference fit features on the surface inside the latch receiving space of the vertical frame member, and wherein the features (“the features” is indefinite under 112b, as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim previously recites several features and it is unclear which features the limitation is referring to in the claim) are used for the latching engagement to secure the vertical frame members (“the vertical frame members”; see above) in the corner junction relationship.
Claim 13. The system of claim 1, wherein the legs of the connector member each includes a free leg that has resiliency with (“has a resiliency with” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as it is unclear what the limitation requires; does applicant intend for one or both of the free leg and the outer surface to have a resilient surface? applicant is requested to clarify) an outer surface matching an inner surface of the laterally extending leg of the interlocking member to create the latching engagement, and wherein the latches of the connector member’s legs (“connector member’s legs” is objected to because the limitation is written in possessive form; the connector member is an inanimate object that is incapable of ownership; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “the legs of the connector member” or equivalent) each includes undulating configuration features, detent features, snap-fit features, press fit features and/or interference fit features ("and/or”; see above).
Claim 15. The system of claim 1 wherein each vertical frame member (“each vertical frame member”; see above) has a pair of lateral legs at the lateral edges (“the lateral edges” is rejected under 112b for lacking antecedent basis, as the limitation is not previously defined in the claims; this limitation is repeated and the rejection is not repeated for brevity) thereof and a pair of inner legs extending inwardly, the inner legs being spaced laterally away from the lateral edges, wherein the head of the body structure of the connector member is an outer head extending therefrom opposite the pair of legs with the latches, and wherein the outer head is configured to be received between the inner legs and lateral legs of the vertical frame members as said portions (“said portions”; see above) support the corner junction relationship.
Claim 16. The system of claim 2, wherein each vertical frame member (“each vertical frame member”; see above) has a pair of lateral legs at the lateral edges (“the lateral edges”; see above) thereof and a pair of inner legs extending inwardly, the inner legs being spaced laterally away from the lateral edges; wherein the head of the body structure of the connector member that connects the pair of legs is a central web, and the connector member further comprises an outer head extending therefrom opposite the pair of legs with the latches, and wherein the outer head is configured to be received between the inner legs and lateral legs of the vertical frame members as further said portions (“said portions”; see above) to additionally support the corner junction relationship.
Claim 17. The system of claim 16, wherein at least one of the mounts for mounting the wall panel is in the form (“the form”; see above) of at least one channel configured to receive a glass panel wall section therein, and wherein the at least one channel includes smaller channels (“smaller channels”; see above) that are configured to receive a gasket to seal the glass panel wall section.
Claim 18. The system of claim 16, wherein at least one of the first vertical frame member and the second vertical frame member includes a central section with the mount in the form (“the form”; see above) of a channel for mounting a single pane glass panel wall section as its wall panel (“its wall panel”; see above), and wherein the mount includes a gasket channel for receiving a gasket to seal the glass panel wall section.
Claim 19. The system of claim 16, wherein at least one of the first vertical frame member and the second vertical frame member includes a central section with the mount in the form (“the form”; see above) of two channels, each channel (“each channel”; see above) for mounting a respective glass panel wall section to provide a double pane glass wall panel as its wall panel (“its wall panel”; see above), and wherein the mount includes two gasket channels each for receiving a gasket to seal the glass panel wall sections.
Claim 20. The system of claim 16, wherein at least one of the first vertical frame member and the second vertical frame member is configured for a wall having its own (“its own”; see above) internal frame with a vertical frame member and includes a main body with a member serving as the mount, and wherein the main body includes a longer supporting wall and a shorter supporting wall (“longer supporting wall” and “shorter supporting wall”; see above) to support sections of the member.
Claim 21. The system of claim 16, wherein, for each vertical frame member (“each vertical frame member”; see above), the laterally extending legs are spaced from the inner walls of the respective vertical frame member (“the respective vertical frame member” see above) and are connected thereto at one end and have an opposing end free for enabling insertion of the leg with the latch of the connector member into the latch receiving space of the respective vertical frame member (“the respective vertical frame member” see above), and wherein, for each vertical frame member (“each vertical frame member”; see above), each laterally extending leg of the interlocking members is positioned inwardly of the associated inner leg (“the associated inner leg” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite, as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that an associated inner leg is not previously defined) so that the insertion of the leg with the latch of the connector member into the latch receiving space of the vertical frame member takes place without interference from the inner leg.
Claim 22. The system of claim 21, wherein, for each vertical frame member (“each vertical frame member”; see above), the inner walls share a common wall extending laterally with respect to the frame member that is part of said mount.
Claim 23. The system of claim 16, wherein the laterally extending legs include undulating configuration features, detent features, snap-fit features, press fit features and/or interference fit features ("and/or" see above) on the surface inside (“the surface inside” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite, as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that a surface inside is not previously defined; does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to a previously recited surface, or a different/additional surface?) the latch receiving space of the vertical frame member, and wherein the features (“the features”; see above) are used for the latching engagement to secure the vertical frame members (“the vertical frame members”; see above) in the corner junction relationship.
Claim 24. The system of claim 16, wherein the legs of the connector member each includes a free leg that has resiliency with (“has a resiliency with” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as it is unclear what the limitation requires; does applicant intend for one or both of the free leg and the outer surface to have a resilient surface? applicant is requested to clarify) an outer surface matching an inner surface of the laterally extending leg of the interlocking member to create the latching engagement, and wherein the latches of the connector member’s legs (“connector member’s legs” is objected to because the limitation is written in possessive form; the connector member is an inanimate object that is incapable of ownership; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “the legs of the connector member” or equivalent) each includes undulating configuration features, detent features, snap-fit features, press fit features and/or interference fit features ("and/or" see above).
Claim 26. The system of claim 16, wherein the outer head of the connector member helps support the corner junction relationship by maintaining proper distance (“proper distance” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite, as the term “proper” is a relative term of degree and the claim does not set forth the metes and bounds necessary to determine what constitutes a distance being proper; this rejection can be overcome by reciting, “by maintaining a distance” or equivalent) between the lateral leg of each vertical frame member (“each vertical frame member”; see above) and the opposing inner leg of the other vertical frame member (“the opposing inner leg” and “the other vertical frame member” are rejected under 112b for being indefinite, as the limitations lacks antecedent basis; is “the opposing inner leg” referring to one of the pair of opposing inner legs? is “the other vertical frame member” referring to one of the first or second vertical frame members? applicant is requested to clarify the claim language), which also helps prevent the lateral leg from being deformed inwardly in the event it receives force against it after modular wall is erected (“the event”, “it” recited twice, and “modular wall” are each rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the limitations lack antecedent basis; applicant is requested to clarify the claim language).
The remainder of the claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected base claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-24 of copending Application No. 18/127,617 (‘reference application’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference application are drawn to substantially the same subject matter, with minor differences in wording and/or phraseology, with the claims of the reference application generally being narrower than the claims of the instant application. Thus, the claims of the reference application encompass the scope of the claims of the instant application. With respect to certain claimed elements being particular shapes, such as the head being generally triangular (claim 4), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the head in the claims of the reference application to be generally triangular, with the reasonable expectation of success of engaging recesses that correspond to a generally triangular shape, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2042670 (‘GB ‘670’) (as cited by applicant).
Claim 1, GB ‘670 teaches a system for interconnecting modular wall vertical frame members meeting at a corner junction, the system comprising:
a first vertical frame member (see annotated Fig. 9 of GB ‘670 shown below in Examiner’s Notes);
a second vertical frame member (annotated Fig. 9);
each vertical frame member having a mount (annotated Fig. 9) for mounting a wall panel (note that the wall panel is not positively recited but that each of the mounts are suitable for mounting a wall panel P);
each vertical frame member having a pair of interlocking members (annotated Fig. 9) positioned inwardly of the mount (annotated Fig. 9), the interlocking members each having a laterally extending leg (annotated Fig. 9) defining a laterally extending latch receiving space (space that receives 415a, 415b; annotated Fig. 9);
a connector member 8 having a body structure (body structure of 8) with a pair of legs (each labeled 411) with latches 412 thereon extending therefrom (Fig. 9), the legs with the latches extending to form a general V-shape (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the angle of the inner portions of 412 nonetheless form a general V shape, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 9);
wherein the legs with the latches are configured to be received in the latch receiving spaces of the vertical frame members in a latching engagement to secure the vertical frame members in a corner junction relationship (each of the legs with latches are suitable to be received in the latch receiving spaces of the vertical frame members in a latching engagement, as shown in annotated Fig. 9, which secures the vertical frame members in a corner junction relationship; annotated Fig. 9);
wherein the body structure of the connector member includes a head (annotated Fig. 9) configured to be received between portions of the vertical frame members to support the corner junction relationship (annotated Fig. 9).
Claim 2, GB ‘670 further provides wherein the laterally extending leg of each interlocking member is spaced from an inner wall of the vertical frame member (annotated Fig. 9) to define the laterally extending latch receiving spaces (annotated Fig. 9), and wherein the head of the connector member connects the pair of legs (annotated Fig. 9) such that the legs extend therefrom (annotated Fig. 9) and the head is configured to be received between free ends of the inner walls as said portions (“said portions” treated as the previously recited “portions of the vertical frame members”) support the corner junction relationship (annotated Fig. 9).
Claim 3, GB ‘670 further provides wherein said head includes a support bridge (at reference character 8 in Fig. 9) extending between said legs of the connector member (Fig. 9 and annotated Fig. 9).
Claim 4, GB ‘670 further provides wherein said head has a generally triangular configuration (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the head is generally formed by the lower left quadrant of the generally square-shaped cross section of the body shown in annotated Fig. 9, thus the head has a generally triangular configuration, as exceedingly broadly claimed).
Claim 5, GB ‘670 further provides wherein the connector member consists of the body structure with the pair of legs with the latches and the head (annotated Fig. 9).
Claim 10, GB ‘670 further provides wherein, for each vertical frame member, the laterally extending legs are spaced from the inner walls of the respective vertical frame member (annotated Fig. 9) and are connected thereto at one end (annotated Fig. 9) and have an opposing end free for enabling insertion of the leg with the latch of the connector member into the latch receiving space of the respective vertical frame member (annotated Fig. 9).
Claim 11, GB ‘670 further provides wherein, for each vertical frame member, the inner walls share a common wall extending laterally with respect to the frame member that is part of said mount (annotated Fig. 9).
Claim 12, GB ‘670 further provides wherein the laterally extending legs include undulating configuration features, detent features, snap-fit features, press fit features and/or interference fit features on the surface inside the latch receiving space of the vertical frame member (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited features, GB ‘670 has on the laterally extending leg on the surface inside the latch receiving space of the vertical frame member, press fit features or interference fit features that press against or interfere with portions of the latches 412; annotated Fig. 9), and wherein the features are used for the latching engagement to secure the vertical frame members in the corner junction relationship (annotated Fig. 9).
Claim 13, GB ‘670 further provides wherein the legs of the connector member each includes a free leg (defined by 411, 412) that has resiliency (under the basic properties of materials, the free leg is formed of a material and thickness that is at least somewhat resilient) with an outer surface matching an inner surface of the laterally extending leg of the interlocking member to create the latching engagement (annotated Fig. 9), and wherein the latches of the connector member’s legs each includes undulating configuration features, detent features, snap-fit features, press fit features and/or interference fit features (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the latch of the connector member includes press fit features or interference fit features in the shape of 412, which enable 412 to interlock with the space; annotated Fig. 9).
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) 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2042670 (‘GB ‘670’) (as cited by applicant).
Claim 9, GB ‘670 further teaches wherein at least one of the first vertical frame member and the second vertical frame member is configured for a wall (“wall” as described throughout the specification; Figs. 9-10). The embodiment of Fig. 9 does not specifically show the at least one of the first vertical frame member and the second vertical frame member being configured for a wall having its own internal frame with a vertical frame member and including a main body with a member serving as the mount, and wherein the main body includes a longer supporting wall and a shorter supporting wall to support sections of the member. However, other embodiments of the invention depict at least one of the first vertical frame member and the second vertical frame member being configured for a wall having its own internal frame with a vertical frame member (note that the wall having its own internal frame with a vertical frame member is not positively recited and thus not required, but that GB ‘670 nonetheless teaches the first and second vertical frame member each being suitable for a wall having its own internal frame 27 with a vertical frame member; note that internal frame 27 comprises vertical frame members at each side of the panel P) and includes a main body 22 with a member serving as the mount (3, 4, 5, 19; shown throughout the figures, such as Figs. 11d and 13b), and wherein the main body includes a longer supporting wall (at the faces of 22) and a shorter supporting wall (at the sides of 22 at 2) to support sections of the member (as shown throughout the figures, such as Figs. 11d and 13b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the embodiment of Fig. 9 such that at least one of the first vertical frame member and the second vertical frame member is configured for a wall having its own internal frame with a vertical frame member and includes a main body with a member serving as the mount, and wherein the main body includes a longer supporting wall and a shorter supporting wall to support sections of the member, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known configuration to provide a panel to form a wall, since the embodiments of Figs. 9 and other embodiments disclosed throughout the specification and figures, such as Figs. 11d and 13b were treated as obvious variants of one another.
Claim 14, GB ‘670 further provides wherein the connector member is an integral piece including the body structure with the head and the pair of legs with latches (Figs. 3 and 9). The connector member appears to be molded, but it is not specified. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the connector member by molding, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known method to form the connector member. The claim is a product by process claim and the connector member does not depend on the process of making it. The product-by-process limitation molded would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to connector member. Therefore, the claimed system is not a different and unobvious system from GB ‘670.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 15-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, specifically GB 2042670 (‘GB ‘670’), alone or in combination with any other cited reference does not teach all the elements and features of the claimed invention, including inter alia:
wherein at least one of the mounts for mounting the wall panel is in the form of at least one channel configured to receive a glass panel wall section therein, and wherein the at least one channel includes smaller channels that are configured to receive a gasket to seal the glass panel wall section, as recited in claim 6;
wherein at least one of the first vertical frame member and the second vertical frame member includes a central section with the mount in the form of a channel for mounting a single pane glass panel wall section as its wall panel, and wherein the mount includes a gasket channel for receiving a gasket to seal the glass panel wall section, as recited in claim 7;
wherein at least one of the first vertical frame member and the second vertical frame member includes a central section with the mount in the form of two channels, each channel for mounting a respective glass panel wall section to provide a double pane glass wall panel as its wall panel, and wherein the mount includes two gasket channels each for receiving a gasket to seal the glass panel wall sections, as recited in claim 8;
wherein each vertical frame member has a pair of lateral legs at the lateral edges thereof and a pair of inner legs extending inwardly, the inner legs being spaced laterally away from the lateral edges, wherein the head of the body structure of the connector member is an outer head extending therefrom opposite the pair of legs with the latches, and wherein the outer head is configured to be received between the inner legs and lateral legs of the vertical frame members as said portions support the corner junction relationship, as recited in claim 15; and
wherein each vertical frame member has a pair of lateral legs at the lateral edges thereof and a pair of inner legs extending inwardly, the inner legs being spaced laterally away from the lateral edges; wherein the head of the body structure of the connector member that connects the pair of legs is a central web, and the connector member further comprises an outer head extending therefrom opposite the pair of legs with the latches, and wherein the outer head is configured to be received between the inner legs and lateral legs of the vertical frame members as further said portions to additionally support the corner junction relationship, as recited in claim 16.
Claims 17-26 each depend, directly or indirectly from claim 16. It would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify any of the cited prior art references of record to arrive at the claimed invention.
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
725
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 of GB 2042670 (‘GB ‘670’)
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