Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-17, as originally filed 30 JUL. 2024, are pending and have been considered as follows:
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12049757 B2 and claim 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. US 11142906 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features defined by the non-identical claim language would each be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when constructing the invention disclosed in US 12049757 B2 and US 11142906 B2.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2024 and 09/05/2025 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Due to the large submission, although the Examiner has identified the statement as having been considered and placed the statement in the file, Applicant is encouraged to identify any particularly relevant references and their relation to the instant invention for specific consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 1 ln. 3: replace “aches” with --arches--
Cl. 4 ln. 2:repalce “the arch” with --each of the arches--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Cl. 4 ln. 1: the recitation(s) of ”each of the plurality of frames” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as only on “frame” —specifically “a frame” Cl. 1 ln. 3— has been heretofore introduced. It is suggested to use this line to define that --the frame is a plurality of frames and-- and the claim has been interpreted as such.
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 1, 3, 7-10, 14 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE LASTELLE US 0491288 A (de Lastelle)
As per claim 1 de Lastelle teaches a method for constructing a semi-permanent relocatable structure, the method comprising:
assembling a center section (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3) of the semi-permanent relocatable structure,
the center section (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3) comprising a frame (skeleton structure, title) including a plurality of [[aches]] --arches-- (trusses C, D, E FIG. 1-3) connected by purlins (intermediate bars H, FIG. 1-3) and covered with fabric (see “skeleton structure… may be covered with canvas” 2:51-59) and
having a first open end and a second open end (see open left and right ends between members B, E, and H, FIG. 3); and
connecting, to the first open end (see open left and right ends between members B, E, and H, FIG. 3),
at least one of:
a full width door unit, a gable end unit (hip-trusses E FIG. 1-3), a fabric vertical door unit, and an open end (see open left and right ends between members B, E, and H, FIG. 3) of an additional center section (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3).
As per claim 3 de Lastelle teaches the limitations according to claim 1, further comprising connecting, to the second open end (see open left and right ends between members B, E, and H, FIG. 3), at least one of: a full width door unit, a gable end unit (hip-trusses E FIG. 1-3), a fabric vertical door unit, and an open end (see open left and right ends between members B, E, and H, FIG. 3) of an additional center section (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3).
As per claim 7 de Lastelle teaches a semi-permanent relocatable structure system, the system comprising:
a frame (skeleton structure, title) comprising one or more center sections (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3) formed from a plurality of arches (trusses C, D, E FIG. 1-3) connected by purlins (intermediate bars H, FIG. 1-3) and covered with fabric (see “skeleton structure… may be covered with canvas” 2:51-59);
wherein each of the plurality arches (trusses C, D, E FIG. 1-3) comprises a pair of leg beams (soles A, FIG. 1-3),
a pair of eave beams (transition plates or bars G, FIG. 1-3),
a plurality of straight roof beams (left and right vertical fork members a’, a’ FIG. 4), and
an apex beam (plate a, FIG. 4) connected to form the arch;
wherein each of the one or more center sections (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3) comprises a first open end and a second end (see open left and right ends between members B, E, and H, FIG. 3); and
at least one of a full width door unit (opening at B, D, E, H, left side, FIG. 1; this is considered a “full width door unit” as broadly claimed), a gable end unit (hip-trusses E FIG. 1-3), a fabric vertical door unit, and an open end (see open left and right ends between members B, E, and H, FIG. 3) of an additional center section (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3) connected to the first open end (see open left and right ends between members B, E, and H, FIG. 3) of one of the center sections (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3);
wherein the at least one gable end unit (hip-trusses E FIG. 1-3), fabric vertical door unit, and additional center section (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3) connected to the first end is configured to be removed and replaced (“readily taken apart and put together” 2:51-52) with at least one other one gable end unit (hip-trusses E FIG. 1-3), fabric vertical door unit, or an additional center section (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3).
As per claim 8 de Lastelle teaches the limitations according to claim 7, wherein each arch is configured such that at least some of the plurality of straight roof beams (left and right vertical fork members a’, a’ FIG. 4) are configured to be removed and replaced (“readily taken apart and put together” 2:51-52) with different straight roof beams (left and right vertical fork members a’, a’ FIG. 4) to adjust a width of the structure.
As per claim 9 de Lastelle teaches the limitations according to claim 7, wherein one or more center sections (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3) are connectable end to end to adjust a length of the structure (see FIG. 1-3; these define —i.e. adjust— a length of the assembly when connected).
As per claim 10 de Lastelle teaches the limitations according to claim 7, further comprising: at least one of a full width door unit (opening at B, D, E, H, left side, FIG. 1; this is considered a “full width door unit” as broadly claimed), a gable end unit (hip-trusses E FIG. 1-3), a fabric vertical door unit, and an open end (see open left and right ends between members B, E, and H, FIG. 3) of an additional center section (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3) connected to the second open end (see open left and right ends between members B, E, and H, FIG. 3) of one of the center sections (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3); wherein the at least one gable end unit (hip-trusses E FIG. 1-3), fabric vertical door unit, and an additional center section (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3) connected to the second end is configured to be removed and replaced (“readily taken apart and put together” 2:51-52) with at least one other one gable end unit (hip-trusses E FIG. 1-3), fabric vertical door unit, and an additional center section (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3).
As per claim 14 de Lastelle teaches the limitations according to claim 7, wherein the system is configured to ship and store in standard 20 foot ISO containers having an 8 foot width, a 20 foot length, and an 8 foot 6 inches height (“pack closely for shipment” 2:57).
As per claim 17 de Lastelle teaches the limitations according to claim 7, wherein the semi-permanent relocatable structure can be assembled in the field without welding (see “assembled… held in place by a key” 2:30-34).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2, 6, and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Lastelle.
As per claim 2 the primary reference of de Lastelle teaches the limitations according to claim 1, further comprising removing and replacing (“adapted to be readily taken apart and put together” 2:51-52) the at least one full width door unit, gable end unit (hip-trusses E FIG. 1-3), fabric vertical door unit, and additional center section (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3) connected to the first end with at least one other full width door unit, gable end unit (hip-trusses E FIG. 1-3), fabric vertical door unit, or additional center section (center members C, C, C, FIG. 1-3).
In other words, the examiner's position is that de Lastelle inherently has the method step of removing and replacing a member of the skeleton structure.
However, in the alternative, if de Lastelle does not disclose removing and replacing a member as claimed, then it certainly would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of de Lastelle by including the step of replacing a member in order to provide a structure of desired dimensions, such as one with a larger attic space.
As per claim 6 the primary reference of de Lastelle teaches the limitations according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
adding additional center sections to adjust a length of the semi-permanent relocatable structure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date to duplicate the center of the assembly to create a larger structure to allow for a greater assembly hall since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As per claim 15 the primary reference of de Lastelle teaches the limitations according to claim 7, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein each of the one or more center sections is 12 feet long.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of de Lastelle by making the center sections be any length, including 12 feet long, in order to provide the end user with a larger span and because changes in size/proportion do not constitute a patentable difference.
Claim 5 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Lastelle in view of Migurski et al. US 5964065 A (Migurski).
As per claims 5 and 11, the primary reference of de Lastelle teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and 7, respectively, but fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 5) attaching at least one ventilation or HVAC system, insulating liner, power distribution system, relocatable flooring system, or solar power system to the semi-permanent relocatable structure; and
(Cl. 11) at least one ventilation or HVAC systems, insulating liner, power distribution system, relocatable flooring system, or solar power system attached to the semi-permanent relocatable structure.
Migurski teaches such a solution for a modular structure, capable of use with the assembly of de Lastelle , specifically:
(Cl. 5) attaching at least one ventilation or HVAC system (see “system which is climatically controlled through use of a modular and flexible HVAC unit which is configured for various size operations” 2:22), insulating liner, power distribution system, relocatable flooring system, or solar power system to the semi-permanent relocatable structure; and
(Cl. 11) at least one ventilation or HVAC systems (see “system which is climatically controlled through use of a modular and flexible HVAC unit which is configured for various size operations” 2:22), insulating liner, power distribution system, relocatable flooring system, or solar power system attached to the semi-permanent relocatable structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of de Lastelle by including the climate control assembly as taught by Migurski in order to improve the hospitability and therefore the value of the assembled structure.
Claim 12 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Lastelle in view of Brockman et al. US 7254922 B2 (Brockman).
As per claims 12 and 16, the primary reference of de Lastelle teaches the limitations according to claim 7, but fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 12) the pair of leg beams, the pair of eave beams, the plurality of straight roof beams , and the apex beam are configured to be connected with snap button connections to form the arches; and
(Cl. 16) the arches are assembled with snap connections.
Brockman teaches such a solution for a Brockman teaches such a connection for a cover and fame assembly, specifically:
(Cl. 12) the pair of leg beams, the pair of eave beams, the plurality of straight roof beams, and the apex beam are configured to be connected with snap button connections to form the arches (“curtain 214 may be secured to the side pad 209 by any means such as snap and buttons, hook and loop, dual locks or any other means for securing“ 5:8); and
(Cl. 16) the arches are assembled with snap connections (“curtain 214 may be secured to the side pad 209 by any means such as snap and buttons, hook and loop, dual locks or any other means for securing“ 5:8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of de Lastelle by including the snap and buttons as taught by Brockman in order to enable easier disassembly because doing so would allow the assembly to be deconstructed more expeditiously.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Lastelle in view of ARNDT et al. US 20180352921 A1 (Arndt).
As per claims 13, the primary reference of de Lastelle teaches the limitations according to claim 7, but fails to explicitly disclose:
the pair of leg beams, the pair of eave beams, the plurality of straight roof beams, and the apex beam are formed with an extruded hollow oval cross section.
Arndt teaches such an obvious frame member, specifically:
the pair of leg beams, the pair of eave beams, the plurality of straight roof beams, and the apex beam are formed with an extruded hollow oval cross section (“hollow extruded aluminum tubes having, for example, square, oval” [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of de Lastelle by substituting such an obvious extruded hollow oval tube member as taught by Arndt in order to provide a specifically resilient support member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the Examiner notes that a thorough search was performed and the prior art of record has been cited; the Examiner did not find a reference or combination of references that distinctly disclosed or fairly suggested a modification to arrive at the method step of removing an integral roof element and replacing the same with an element of different length to adjust the width of the end product.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN D MATTEI can be reached on (571)270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635