DETAILED ACTION
This Office action follows the Restriction Requirement filed on 6/26/2026 and is responsive to applicant’s reply filed on 9/3/2026. Claims 1-12 and 23-32 are pending. Claims 13-22 have been cancelled. No claims have been withdrawn. New claims 23-32 have been added.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I, including claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 9/3/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 13-22 have been cancelled. New claims 23-32 have been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 8/27/2024 is being considered.
Drawings
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: “516” (Fig. 5B), “524” (Fig. 5C), “811” (Fig. 8C), “1005” (Fig. 10). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“olyethylene” (as filed [00106]) is objected to because the word appears to be a misspelling of “polyethylene”; and
“font panel” (as filed [00107]) is objected to because the word “font” appears to be a misspelling of “front panel”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 use of the term “smartglass”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“The present invention is” (line 1) is objected to because the language is unnecessary. This objection can be overcome by beginning the abstract with, “A secure work pod…”
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 Objections and Rejections Under 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 23-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 and several dependent claims are reproduced below with the examiner’s comments regarding claim objections and 112 rejections in bold italics. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 and 23-32 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 dependent claims are reproduced below with the examiner’s comments regarding claim objections and 112 rejections in bold italics. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1. A secure work pod comprising a moveable, personal office space comprising:
a channel framing structure having a plurality of construction connectors to support a plurality of panels for the secure work pod;
a plurality of exterior wall panels having one or more exterior wall connectors to couple said exterior wall panel (“said exterior wall panel” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the term is in singular form and the claim previously recites a plurality of exterior wall panels; it is unclear whether the limitation is referring to one of the previously recited plurality of exterior wall panels or a different/additional one; for examination purposes, the limitation was treated as referring to one of the plurality of exterior wall panels; the rejection also applies to claims 23 and 28, but is not repeated for brevity) to the channel framing structure and said plurality of exterior wall panels including a back exterior wall panel, a right side exterior wall panel, a left side exterior wall panel and a front exterior wall panel, said front exterior wall panel having a reduced length compared to a length of the back exterior wall panel to accommodate a doorway opening and having at least one window opening on the front exterior wall panel, said right side exterior wall panel being aligned substantially in parallel to the left side exterior wall panel, and said front exterior wall panel having the window opening not being aligned in parallel to the back exterior wall panel;
a plurality of interior wall panels having one or more interior wall connectors to couple said interior wall panel (“said interior wall panel” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the term is in singular form and the claim previously recites a plurality of interior wall panels; it is unclear whether the limitation is referring to one of the previously recited plurality of interior wall panels or a different/additional one; for examination purposes, the limitation was treated as referring to one of the plurality of interior wall panels; the rejection also applies to claims 23 and 28, but is not repeated for brevity) to the channel framing structure and said plurality of interior wall panels including a back interior wall panel, a right side interior wall panel, a left side interior wall panel and a front interior wall panel, said front interior wall panel having a reduced length compared to a length of the back wall panel and having a window opening corresponding the to the window opening in the exterior wall panel, said right side interior wall panel being aligned substantially in parallel to the left side interior wall panel, and said front interior wall panel having the window opening not being aligned in parallel to the back interior wall panel;
a horizontal floor panel having a left side edge, a right side edge, a back edge and a front edge, said left side edge and said right side edge corresponding the left side and right side interior panels, respectively (“corresponding the left side and right side interior panels” is objected to because the limitation appears to contain a typo; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “corresponding to the left side and right side interior panels” or equivalent; the claim objection also applies to claims 23 and 28, but is not repeated for brevity), and the left side and right side exterior panels, respectively, and said back edge corresponding to the back interior and exterior wall panels, respectively;
a horizontal ceiling frame having a left side edge, a right side edge, a back edge and a front edge, said left side edge and said right side edge corresponding the left side and right side interior panels, respectively (“corresponding the left side and right side interior panels” is objected to because the limitation appears to contain a typo; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “corresponding to the left side and right side interior panels” or equivalent; the claim objection also applies to claims 23 and 28, but is not repeated for brevity), and the left side and right side exterior panels, respectively, and, said back edge corresponding to the back interior and exterior wall panels, respectively;
said channel framing structure supports the plurality of exterior wall panels, the plurality of interior wall panels, and the horizontal floor panel, said channel framing structure having vertical support structures that are substantially the same height (“the same height” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite, as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; the claim does not previously define a height of the vertical support structures or a height of the interior and exterior walls; this rejection can be overcome by previously in the claim defining the vertical support structures as having a height, the interior and exterior walls as having a height, and reciting the height of the vertical support structures being substantially equal or identical to the height of the interior and exterior walls, or equivalent; the rejection also applies to claims 23 and 28, but is not repeated for brevity) as the interior and exterior walls (“the interior and exterior walls” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite, as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; the claim does not previously define an interior wall or an exterior wall, only interior wall panels and exterior wall panels; does applicant intend for the interior wall panels to form an interior wall, the for the exterior wall panels to form an exterior wall? the rejection also applies to claims 23 and 28, but is not repeated for brevity) and substantially align and support attachment of the interior and exterior wall panels to the secure work pod using reciprocal connectors (“reciprocal connectors” is rejected under 112a for being new matter and is rejected under 112b for being indefinite; regarding the 112a new matter rejection, applicant’s disclosure prior to the 9/3/2026 claim amendment did not recite or adequately disclose reciprocal connectors, as applicant’s disclosure did not appear in applicant’s specification or claims, and was not reasonably illustrated in applicant’s drawings, and while there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit or inherent disclosure as per MPEP 2163(B); regarding the 112b indefiniteness, applicant’s claims do not set forth the metes and bounds required to clearly set forth what the term “reciprocal connectors” requires or does not require, and thus the limitation is unclear; for examination purposes, the limitation was treated as “construction connectors that allow for 90-degree connections of the panels”, as recited in applicant’s specification; note that the 112a and 112b rejections also apply to claims 23 and 28, but are not repeated for brevity) that correspond to the one or more exterior and interior wall connectors, respectively, and said channel framing structure providing support for the horizontal floor panel;
a door positioned in the doorway opening of the front panel (“the front panel” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite, as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; the claim previously recites a front exterior wall panel and a front interior wall panel, but not a front panel; does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the exterior and interior front panels or to a front wall of the secure work pod or something else? the rejection also applies to claims 23 and 28, but is not repeated for brevity) and attached to the secure work pod,
a desk integrated into an interior of the work pod (“the work pod” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited secure work pod and thus the limitation lacks antecedent basis; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “the secure work pod”; the same rejection applies to claims 10, 23, 27-28 and 31-32, but is not repeated here for brevity)positioned between the front panel and the back panel proximate to the window opening (“the front panel” and “the back panel” are rejected under 112b for being indefinite, as the limitations lack antecedent basis; the claim previously recites front and back exterior wall panels and front and back interior wall panels, but not front and rear panels; does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the exterior and interior front panels and exterior and interior back panels or to a front wall or a back wall of the secure work pod or something else? the rejection also applies to claims 23 and 28, but is not repeated for brevity), said desk being substantially parallel to one of the side wall panels;
a chair secured to the horizontal floor panel, said chair having a stationary back member and a foldable seat member, said foldable seat member capable of being folded towards the stationary back member; and
a control panel attached to the back interior wall panel, said control panel housing controls for environmental conditions in the work pod (“the work pod” is objected to for the reason listed above).
Claim 2. The secure work pod of claim 1, wherein the exterior wall panels (“the exterior wall panels” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited plurality of exterior wall panels and thus the limitation lacks antecedent basis; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “the plurality of exterior wall panels” or equivalent; the same rejection applies to claims 11, 23 and 28 but is not repeated for brevity) are changeable and replaceable.
Claim 3. The secure work pod of claim 1 wherein one or more of the window openings have windowpanes made of glass, plastic, or smartglass (“smartglass” is rejected under 112b because the term is a trademark/trade name. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe switchable glass and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. The rejection also applies to claims 26 and 29, but is not repeated for brevity).
Claim 4. The secure work pod of claim 1, wherein the door in the doorway opening is moveable so that it (“it” is objected to because the term does not properly refer to the claim element the term is intended to represent; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “so that the door”; the same claim objection applies to claims 25 and 30 but is not repeated for brevity) opens and closes (“opens and closes” is objected to because the limitation implies a method step that requires opening and closing; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “so that the door is configured to open and close” or equivalent; the same claim objection applies to claims 25 and 30 but is not repeated for brevity).
Claim 6. The secure work pod of claim 1, wherein the ceiling (“the ceiling” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite, as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claims previously recite a horizontal ceiling frame but not a ceiling; this rejection can be overcome by previously in the claims defining the horizontal ceiling frame comprising a ceiling) is partially open with an acoustic panel secured to the horizontal ceiling frame.
Claim 9. The secure work pod of claim 1, wherein the secure work pod has drop in wiring connectors to provide power to the pod interior (“the pod interior” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite, as the claims do not previously recite an interior of the secure work pod; this rejection can be overcome by amending pod to recite “secure work pod” and previously in the claim defining the secure work pod as having an interior; the same rejection applies to claim 32, but is not repeated for brevity).
Claim 10. The secure work pod of claim 1, wherein the secure work pod has a plurality of locking casters located under the floor panel (“the floor panel” is objected to for not properly referring to the previously recited horizontal floor panel; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “the horizontal floor panel”; the same claim objection applies to claim 27 but is not repeated for brevity) of the work pod for moving the work pod with locking mechanisms to secure the work pod in a secure fixed position (“locking mechanisms” is rejected under 112a for being new matter, as the limitation was not adequately described in applicant’s disclosure; the term does not appear in applicant’s specification, and it is not readily apparent what constitutes such locking mechanisms in the drawings, and while there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit or inherent disclosure, as per MPEP 2163(B); the same rejection under 112a applies to claim 27 but is not repeated for brevity).
Claim 11. The secure work pod of claim 1, wherein one or more work pod connectors are positioned on the exterior wall panels, said work pod connectors are able to securely connect one or more work pods together in a multi-pod work layout (“work pods” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited secure work pod and thus the limitation lacks antecedent basis; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “secure work pod”).
Claim 12. The secure work pod of claim 1, wherein a triangular shaped compartment is removably secured to the exterior front panel underneath the window opening (“the exterior front panel” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite, as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; the claims previously recite a plurality of exterior front panels; for examination purposes, the limitation was treated as referring to one of the previously recited plurality of exterior front panels and is located underneath the window opening) to provide an integrated storage area and a removable top tray portion.
Claim 27. The secure work pod of claim 23, wherein the secure work pod has a has a (“has a has a” is objected to for containing a typo) plurality of locking casters located under the floor panel of the work pod for moving the work pod with locking mechanisms to secure the work pod in a secure fixed position.
Claim 28, “the bottom” (second-to-last line of the claim) is rejected under 112b for being indefinite, as the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claim does not previously recite a bottom. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to a bottom of the secure work pod, a bottom of the horizontal floor, or something else?
The remaining claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 23-32 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, specifically Chen et al. (US 20190119902) (‘Chen’) does not teach or disclose, alone or in combination, all the elements and features of the claimed invention as a whole, including the position, arrangement and orientation of the channel framing structure, the plurality of exterior wall panels, the plurality of interior wall panels, the interior and exterior wall panel connectors, the horizontal floor panel, the horizontal ceiling frame and the door, as recited in independent claims 1, 23 and 28. Chen discloses a secure word pod (see Chen Fig. 2 shown below), but does not teach exterior and interior panels being connected to a channel framing structure with interior and exterior connectors. Instead, Chen teaches panels comprising several layers that are adhered together. It would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify Chen with any other cited prior art reference of record to arrive at the claimed invention. The remaining claims depend from claims 1, 23 or 28.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Chen et al. (US 20190119902) (‘Chen’)
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
Prosecution Insights