DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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(s) 15-21 is/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 15 recites the limitation "top of a first story" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16-21 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over West (US Pub. 3,653,165).
Regarding claim 1, West discloses a structure, comprising:
a horizontal top frame of a first story of the structure (Fig. 5, frame comprising support beam 118);
a first gable wall defining an upper portion of the structure, hingedly coupled to a first portion of the structure; a second gable wall also defining the upper portion of the structure, hingedly coupled to a second portion of the structure (Fig. 8, front and rear gable support panels 74, 76);
and a foldable roof (Fig. 8, roof panels 68, 70), comprising an apex (Fig. 8, peak 34), the apex defining a maximum height of the structure when the foldable roof is in a deployed position and a height less than the maximum height when the foldable roof is in a stowed position (Compare the height of peak 34 between figures 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 2, West discloses a first hinge that couples at least a portion of a lower edge of the first gable wall to the first portion of the structure; and a second hinge that couples at least a portion of a lower edge of the second gable wall to the second portion of the structure (Col. 3, line 75 – col. 4, line 5: “Cooperating with the partial roof construction consisting of 75 the panels 68 and 70 are front and rear gable support panels 74 and 76 which, like the other gable supports 56 and 58, are hingedly connected along front and rear edges 75 and which each fold inwardly through pivotal closing movements 80 and 82, all as clearly illustrated in FIG. 8”).
Regarding claim 3, West discloses wherein the foldable roof comprises:
a first roof panel; a second roof panel (Fig. 8, roof panels 68, 70);
and a ridge beam hinge that rotatably couples the first roof panel to the second roof panel (Fig. 14, hinge plates 184, 186).
Regarding claim 10, West discloses a first, first story wall (Fig. 8, wall below gable 74, most closely designated as housing section 46);
and a first end substructure lying on its side, positioned with a base of the first end substructure proximate to the first, first story wall (Fig. 5, floor 90).
Regarding claim 12, West discloses a second, first story wall opposite the first, first story wall (Fig. 8, wall below gable 74, most closely designated as housing section 46 has an opposing wall on the other side of the structure);
a second end substructure lying on its side, positioned with a base of the second end substructure proximate to the second, first story wall (Fig. 7, housing section 44).
Regarding claim 15, West discloses a method for stowing a foldable structure, comprising:
rotating a first gable wall inwards over the top of a first story of the structure via a first hinge that couples the first gable wall to the structure; rotating a second gable wall inwards over the first gable wall via a second hinge that couples the second gable wall to the structure (Fig. 8, front and rear gable support panels 74, 76 are configured to hinge and fold inwards);
and folding a roof of the structure, wherein folding the roof reduces a height of the structure from a first height to a second, lower height (Fig. 8, roof panels 68, 70 fold downwards).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West (US Pub. 3,653,165) in view of Napier (US Pub. 2003/0056446 A1).
Regarding claim 4, West discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Napier, similarly drawn to a transportable building module, a top horizontal frame (Fig. 3, bar that jack 100 connects to);
at least two pivot anchors each coupled to a first portion of the horizontal top frame (Fig. 3, jack 100), each of the pivot anchors comprising a longitudinal slide arm, each slide arm rotatably coupled to each pivot anchor (The jacks are capable of pivoting as the roof rotates), respectively;
wherein the first roof panel comprises at least two longitudinal channels substantially parallel to each other, each of the channels sized and shaped to accommodate at least a portion of each of the longitudinal slide arms, respectively (Fig. 3, jack 100 comprises a channel that a piston extends into);
and wherein the first roof panel is configured to slide along the longitudinal slide arms via the channels and rotate around an axis formed by the pivot anchors while an eave of the roof is lowered towards the ground (Pg. 3, [0044], lines 7-10: “FIG. 3 depicts how strategically disposed jacks such as 100 can be utilized to lower the roof sub-module under full control. Alternatively, a crane might be used where appropriate”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of West to comprise the slide arms of Napier for ease of lowering the roof.
Regarding claim 5, West as modified by Napier discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Napier, a stopper coupled to at least one of the longitudinal channels that limits the first roof panel from sliding past a predetermined position when the foldable roof is in the deployed position (Fig. 3, the end of the channel of jack 100 prevents further movement of the piston when fully compressed).
Regarding claim 7, West discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Napier, similarly drawn to a transportable building module, at least two additional pivot anchors coupled to a second, opposing portion of the horizontal top frame (Fig. 3, jack 100), each of the additional pivot anchors comprising an additional longitudinal slide arm, each rotatably coupled to the additional pivot anchors (The jacks are capable of pivoting as the roof rotates), respectively;
wherein the second roof panel comprises at least two additional, longitudinal channels substantially parallel to each other, each of the channels sized and shaped to accommodate at least a portion of each of the additional longitudinal slide arms, respectively (Fig. 3, jack 100 comprises a channel that a piston extends into);
wherein the second roof panel is configured to slide along the longitudinal slide arms via the additional, longitudinal channels and rotate around a second axis formed by the additional pivot anchors while the roof is being placed in the stowed position (Pg. 3, [0044], lines 7-10: “FIG. 3 depicts how strategically disposed jacks such as 100 can be utilized to lower the roof sub-module under full control. Alternatively, a crane might be used where appropriate”), allowing the second roof panel to lie substantially horizontally over the first story after the roof has been placed into the stowed position (See Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of West to comprise the slide arms of Napier for ease of lowering the roof.
Regarding claim 8, West as modified by Napier discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Napier, a second stopper coupled to at least one of the longitudinal channels of the second roof panel, for preventing the second roof panel from sliding past a second predetermined position while the foldable roof is in the deployed position (Fig. 3, the end of the channel of jack 100 prevents further movement of the piston when fully compressed).
Claim(s) 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West (US Pub. 3,653,165) in view of Lutz (US Pub. 2018/0162463 A1).
Regarding claim 11, West discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Lutz, drawn to a trailer, a trailer (Fig. 1, trailer 10) comprising:
a frame (Fig. 1, deck 20);
a first slidable section slidably coupled to a first end of the frame (Fig. 1, front extension 22);
wherein the first slidable section is configured to support the first end substructure lying on its side and to slide the first end substructure proximate to the first story wall (Pg. 2, [0035], lines 1-8: “With reference to FIGS. 1-5, the bed portion 18 may include a deck 20, a front extension 22, and a rear extension 24, the front extension 22 and the rear extension 24 slideably engaged with the deck 20. The deck 20 may have a larger thickness than the front extension 22 and rear extension 24 and may be able to support a higher stress (e.g., the deck 20 may be stronger than the front extension 22 and the rear extension 24)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transport the structure of West on the trailer with the slidable section of Lutz as mobile structures such as this are commonly transported. The slidable section would allow for accommodation of varying sizes of structure.
Regarding claim 13, West discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Lutz, drawn to a trailer, a trailer comprising:
a frame (Fig. 1, deck 20);
a first slidable section slidably coupled to a first end of the frame (Fig. 1, front extension 22);
a second slidable section slidably coupled to a second end of the frame (Fig. 1, rear extension 24);
wherein the first slidable section is configured to support the first end substructure lying on its side and to slide the first end substructure proximate to the first story wall during transport of the structure, and the second slidable section is configured to support the second end substructure lying on its side and to slide the second end substructure proximate to the second, first story wall during transport of the structure (Pg. 2, [0035], lines 1-8: “With reference to FIGS. 1-5, the bed portion 18 may include a deck 20, a front extension 22, and a rear extension 24, the front extension 22 and the rear extension 24 slideably engaged with the deck 20. The deck 20 may have a larger thickness than the front extension 22 and rear extension 24 and may be able to support a higher stress (e.g., the deck 20 may be stronger than the front extension 22 and the rear extension 24)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transport the structure of West on the trailer with the slidable section of Lutz as mobile structures such as this are commonly transported. The slidable section would allow for accommodation of varying sizes of structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6, 9, 14 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 16-21 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642