DETAILED ACTION
This Office action follows the Restriction Requirement set forth on 4/29/2026 and is responsive to applicant’s reply filed on 6/26/2026. Currently, claims 1-7, 10-11, 13-15, 17-21, 23-24, 27-28, 31, 33-39, 42, 44-45, 49-50, 57, 59-60 and 62-63, 65-66, 69-71, 73, 76 78 and 80 are pending. Claims 8-9, 12, 16, 22, 25-26, 29-30, 32, 40-41, 43, 46-48, 51-56, 58, 61, 64, 67-68, 72, 74-75, 77, 79 and 81-84 have been cancelled. Claims 60, 62-63, 65-66, 69-71, 73, 76 78 and 80 have been withdrawn. No new claims 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 in the reply filed on 6/26/2026 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Claims 60, 62-63, 65-66, 69-71, 73, 76 78 and 80 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/26/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2024, 4/25/2025 and 3/25/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figs. 1-3, 11A-11D, 12A-12D, 13A-14G, 16E, 19A-20B, 21B-21C and 22A-23, the poor line quality and shading renders part or all of the drawing illegible when reproduced. 37 CFR 1.84(l) (m) and (p)(1). Note that in Fig. 3, the blackened portions 308 and 310 should be black lines with a white background, in a similar style as the rest of the drawing. 37 CFR 1.84(l) recites, “[a]ll drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.”
Figs. 12C-12D, the drawings appear to be missing from the figures. Only reference characters appear. There are no elements or features of the invention shown.
Fig. 21H, the drawing is blurry and difficult to distinguish elements and features.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: “first, second and third interface components” in claim 1, “male connection” and “female connection” in claim 13, “sealing method” in claim 36.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 14, 18, 33, 36 and 49-50 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 11, the phrase "and/or" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The Office’s preferred verbiage of elements A and B is “at least one of A and B” and not “A and/or B”. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811 at Footnote 1 (PTAB 2014). See also claims 14, 18 and 33.
Claim 14, “the first and second wall panel layers” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claims do not previously recite first and second wall panel layers.
Claim 36, “a sealing method is applied” is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires. The metes and bounds of “sealing method” are not defined to clearly define what the limitation requires and does not require. Does applicant intend for the sealing method to be a particular material?
Claim 49, “a ceiling system” is indefinite because a ceiling system is previously recited (claim 2), and it is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the previously recited ceiling system, or a different/additional ceiling system. As currently written, the claim appears to be drawn to a double inclusion. Applicant is requested to clarify.
Claim 50, “the length” and “the inner side of the at least one longitudinal support beam” are indefinite because the limitations lack antecedent basis. Note that the claims do not previously define a length of an inner side as claimed.
Any dependent claim that depends from a rejected base claim in this section, whether listed in the heading or not is rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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, 3, 5-6, 14-15, 17-18, 27-28, 31, 33-35, 57 and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frobosilo (US 7356970).
Claim 1, Frobosilo provides a custom enclosure comprising:
a multi-panel wall system (10; Figs. 1-2, 8-9 and 29) having at least one side wall (walls in 10; Fig. 1); and
at least one wall panel 12, for use with the multi-panel wall system (Fig. 1), the at least one wall panel comprising:
a panel section 19 having:
front and back surfaces (front and back surfaces of 19; Fig. 5), the back surface being opposite the front surface (Fig. 5); and
left and right side sections (20, 21, respectively; Fig. 5) that include side surfaces (side surfaces of 20, 21; Fig. 5) that are each extending away from the panel section (20 and 21 each have side surfaces that extend away from 19; Fig. 5) and having rear surfaces (rear surfaces 24, 25 of 20, 21; Fig. 5) extending laterally inward therefrom (Fig. 5), at least one first interface component at the right side surface (holes and screws 38; Fig. 2), at least one second interface component at the left side surface (holes and screws 38; Fig. 2) and at least one third interface component on each of the rear surfaces (holes and screws 38; Fig. 2),
wherein the at least one first interface component of the wall panel is adapted to connect in a lateral manner with at least one corresponding second interface component of an adjacent wall panel (Fig. 2), and
wherein the at least one third interface component of the wall panel is adapted to connect to at least one corresponding third interface component on an opposing panel in a horizontally offset manner (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the at least one third interface component of the wall panel is suitable to connect to at least one corresponding third interface component on an opposing panel in a horizontally offset manner, as exceedingly broadly claimed, as shown in Fig. 2).
Claim 3, Frobosilo further provides wherein the at least one first interface component comprises a male portion or a female portion and the at least one second interface component comprises a corresponding female or male portion (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, screws and holes constitute male and female portions, respectively, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 2).
Claim 5, Frobosilo further provides wherein the at least one second interface component comprises a male portion or a corresponding female portion (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, screws and holes constitute male and female portions, respectively, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 2).
Claim 6, Frobosilo further provides wherein the third interface component on each rear surface is a male portion or a corresponding female portion (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, screws and holes constitute male and female portions, respectively, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 2).
Claim 14, Frobosilo further provides wherein the first and second sides sections of the wall panel have a thickness such that the wall panels in the first and second wall panel layers are spaced apart in a horizontally offset manner providing a cavity therebetween that is large enough to accommodate placement of insulation, electrical wiring, water and/or gas piping, electrical boxes, electrical devices, at least one other infrastructure component or any combination thereof (a cavity between the first and second side sections is suitable to accommodate placement of insulation 114; Fig. 29).
Claim 15, Frobosilo further provides wherein the wall panel is an intermediate wall panel that further includes at least one intermediate interface component at a front surface near a first side surface and at least one other intermediate interface component at a second side of the front surface to allow for attachment in a horizontally or laterally offset manner to at least one corresponding third interface component of another wall panel (first and second intermediate interface components 35 and 36 at first and second side surfaces of the front surface that allow for attachment in a horizontally or laterally offset manner to at least one corresponding third interface component of another wall panel; Figs. 1 and 9).
Claim 17, Frobosilo further provides wherein the interface components on side surfaces of the wall panel are vertically aligned with one another or laterally offset with respect to one another (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the interface components on side surfaces of the wall panel are considered to be vertically aligned with one another or laterally offset with respect to one another, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1, 2 and 9).
Claim 18, Frobosilo further provides wherein the interface components on side surfaces of the wall panel are laterally offset with respect to one another (Fig. 2) and located in groups at upper and/or lower end portions of the side surfaces of the wall panels (Fig. 2).
Claim 27, Frobosilo further provides wherein the wall system comprises: a first layer of wall panels having at least one wall panel structured according to a first wall panel type (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the left layer of wall panels at the left wall of the structure 10 constitutes a first layer of wall panels of a first type, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 1); and a second layer of wall panels having at least one wall panel structured according to a second wall panel type (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the right layer of wall panels at the right wall of the structure 10 constitutes a second layer of wall panels of a second type, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 1).
Claim 28, Frobosilo further provides wherein the wall system comprises an intermediate wall panel layer (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, insulation layer 114 constitutes an intermediate layer that is located between outer and inner layers; Fig. 29) that is attachable in a horizontally offset manner to an interior wall panel layer, another intermediate wall panel layer or an exterior wall panel layer (insulation layer 114 is suitable to be attached in a horizontally offset manner to an interior wall panel layer 58).
Claim 31, Frobosilo further provides wherein the wall system comprises an interior wall panel layer 58 that is attached in a horizontally offset manner to an exterior wall panel layer (interior wall panel layer 58 is suitable to be attached in a horizontally offset manner to exterior wall panel layer 18; Figs. 2 and 7-8).
Claim 33, Frobosilo further provides wherein the wall system comprises an interior wall panel layer 58, one or more intermediate wall panel layers 114 and an exterior wall panel layer 18 and each wall panel layer is made using different materials and/or housing different materials (it is understood that the wall panel layers are made using different materials; Figs. 2, 7-8 and 29).
Claim 34, Frobosilo further provides wherein the wall panel is an insulation wall panel, a bullet resistant wall panel or an explosion absorbing wall panel (insulation panel with insulation 114).
Claim 35, Frobosilo further provides wherein the wall panels in one wall panel layer have a different depth compared to the wall panels in another wall panel layer (depth treated as thickness; Figs. 2, 7-8 and 29).
Claim 57, Frobosilo further provides wherein the custom enclosure comprises corner support members including an outer corner support member 37 that is attached at an external corner to external surfaces of two side walls that abut one another (Figs. 7-8) and an inner corner support member 46 that is attached at an internal corner to internal surfaces of the two side walls (Figs. 7-8).
Claim 59, Frobosilo further provides wherein the custom enclosure is a mobile, semi-permanent or permanent structure (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is understood that 10 constitutes a mobile, semi-permanent or permanent structure, as exceedingly broadly claimed) and is built for use as cladding, a partition wall, a multi-wall assembly, an exterior structural wall, a shipping container, a storage container, an educational structure, a classroom, a portable classroom, a school structure, a military structure, a command centre, a correctional facility, a penitentiary structure, a hospital structure, a medical clinic structure, a patient room, a nursing station, an operating room unit, an intensive care unit, a pharmacy structure, a testing centre, a vaccination centre, a quarantine facility, a laboratory structure, a cleanroom, a long-term care facility, a natural disaster safe shelter, a biocontainment room (in case of chemical or biological attack or outbreak), a safe room, an indigenous community housing structure, a vertical farming structure, a housing structure, a social housing structure, a remote community structure, a grow room, a multi- story housing structure, a cottage, a restaurant structure, a bar structure, a retail structure, a shop, a mining structure or a specialty enclosure (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, 10 is suitable for use as such structures; Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 1, 11, 13, 19, 57 and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watson (US 5083410).
Claim 1, Watson provides a custom enclosure comprising:
a multi-panel wall system (see system generically shown in Fig. 1) having at least one side wall (one wall of the system shown in Fig. 1); and
at least one wall panel (one wall panel of the system shown in Fig. 1), for use with the multi-panel wall system (wall panels of the system are for use with the multi-panel wall system; Figs. 1-2), the at least one wall panel comprising:
a panel section 14 having:
front and back surfaces (front and back surfaces of 14), the back surface being opposite the front surface (the back surface of 14 is opposite the front surface); and
left and right side sections (each 47; Figs. 7-12) that include side surfaces that are each extending away from the panel section (side surfaces of 47) and having rear surfaces (rear surfaces at 13) extending laterally inward therefrom (Figs. 7-12), at least one first interface component at the right side surface (slots 4 in the flanges 47; Fig. 9), at least one second interface component at the left side surface (slots 4 in the flanges 47; Fig. 9) and at least one third interface component on each of the rear surfaces (protruding portion 13; Fig. 9),
wherein the at least one first interface component of the wall panel is adapted to connect in a lateral manner with at least one corresponding second interface component of an adjacent wall panel (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, such connection occurs via element 6, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 9), and
wherein the at least one third interface component of the wall panel is adapted to connect to at least one corresponding third interface component on an opposing panel in a horizontally offset manner (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, such connection occurs via element 46, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 9).
Claim 11, Watson further provides wherein the wall panel is an interior wall panel or a wall panel for an internal wall (see 23 on the interior; Fig. 1) and a lower portion of the side surfaces of the wall panel comprises a slot for receiving a connection component of the floor system (Fig. 2), and/or the wall panel is an exterior wall panel that comprises a lower extension portion for connection to a connection component of the floor system (not required by the claim, but Watson nonetheless provides exterior wall panels comprising a lower extension portion for connection to a connection component of the floor system; Figs. 1-2).
Claim 13, Watson further provides wherein the at least one first interface component is a female connection having a width that is larger than a corresponding male connection on an adjacent exterior wall panel to allow a male connection on an adjacent exterior wall panel to engage the female connection and then be moved forward so that a third interface connector that is a male connection is moved towards a corresponding female connection on an opposing panel (see slots 4 that are wider than flange 50 of beam 6; Fig. 9).
Claim 19, Watson further provides wherein the wall panel is used in an internal wall (see Watson internal wall Fig. 1) and the wall panel comprises a bottom tab that is directed inwardly from a side surface for connection to a portion of the floor system and for holding contents within the wall panel (note that several tabs could be reasonably construed as bottom tabs directed inwardly from a side surface for connection to a portion of the floor system and for holding contents within the wall panel, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 9).
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) 2, 37 and 49-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frobosilo (US 7356970) in view of Hall et al. (US 10196809) (‘Hall’).
Claim 2, Frobosilo further teaches wherein the custom enclosure further comprises: a floor system (“underlying slab” claim 10), the multi-panel wall system being connected to the floor system (claim 1); and a releasably connectable roof system (17; roof shown in Fig. 1) connected to the multi-panel wall system (Fig. 1). Watson does not teach a ceiling system. However, Hall teaches a modular custom enclosure comprising a multi-panel wall system and a ceiling system connected to the multi-panel wall system and connected to a roof system (Fig. 5B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the custom enclosure by incorporating a ceiling system connected to the multi-panel wall system and the roof system, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to form a ceiling in the custom enclosure such that the custom enclosure can have an additional level above the ceiling.
Claim 37, Frobosilo further teaches at least one set of upper longitudinal support beams 37 for the at least one side wall (Fig. 1), where each upper longitudinal support beam has a first portion (downwardly extending flanges; Fig. 1) for connecting to a portion of the side wall of the wall system (Fig. 1) and a second portion (web portion; Fig. 1) for receiving a portion of the roof system to form a portion of the custom enclosure (Fig. 1).
Claim 49, as modified above, the combination of Frobosilo and Hall teaches all the limitations of claim 37, and further teaches wherein the custom enclosure comprises a ceiling system having a plurality of ceiling panels and a portion of the ceiling system is placed on an upper edge of the lateral shelf of the at least one longitudinal support beam (see rejection of claim 2 as above; Hall Fig. 5B).
Claim 50, as modified above, the combination of Frobosilo and Hall teaches all the limitations of claim 49, and further teaches wherein the length of the inner side of the at least one longitudinal support beam is predefined to provide space for a cavity between the roof system and the ceiling system (Hall Fig. 5B).
Claim(s) 2, 37-39, 44-45 and 49-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 5083410) in view of Hall et al. (US 10196809) (‘Hall’).
Claim 2, Watson further teaches wherein the custom enclosure further comprises: a floor system 21, the multi-panel wall system being connected to the floor system (Fig. 1); and a releasably connectable roof system (6; roof shown in Fig. 1) connected to the multi-panel wall system (Fig. 1). Watson does not teach a ceiling system. However, Hall teaches a modular custom enclosure comprising a multi-panel wall system and a ceiling system connected to the multi-panel wall system and connected to a roof system (Fig. 5B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the custom enclosure by incorporating a ceiling system connected to the multi-panel wall system and the roof system, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to form a ceiling in the custom enclosure such that the custom enclosure can have an additional level above the ceiling.
Claim 37, Watson further teaches at least one set of upper longitudinal support beams 6 for the at least one side wall (Figs. 1-2), where each upper longitudinal support beam has a first portion (downwardly extending flanges; Fig. 2) for connecting to a portion of the side wall of the wall system (Figs. 1-2) and a second portion (web portion; Figs. 1-2) for receiving a portion of the roof system to form a portion of the custom enclosure (Figs. 1-2).
Claim 38, Watson further teaches wherein the at least one upper longitudinal support beam comprises a top section (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a top portion of 6 was treated as the top section, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 9), an outer side (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an outer portion of 6 was treated as the outer side, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 9), an inner side (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an inner portion of 6 was treated as the inner side, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 9), and a lateral shelf extending from the inner side (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, portion of 6 comprising 55 was treated as the lateral shelf, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 9), the outer side having a first length that is smaller than a second length of the inner side (under the broad, arbitrary definitions of outer side and inner side as exceedingly broadly claimed, an outer portion of 6 has a first length that is smaller than a second length of an inner portion; Fig. 9) and the first and second sides being spaced apart to form a channel therebetween (channel shape of 9; Fig. 9).
Claim 39, Watson further teaches wherein the at least one upper longitudinal support beam comprises a wall adjacent to the lateral shelf that is vertical or angled (note that there are several walls adjacent to the lateral shelf that are vertical or angled relative to the at least one upper longitudinal support beam, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1, 2 and 9) and a ledge at the upper edge of the wall where the wall is spaced apart from the inner side to form a tray (the upper edge of the wall defines a ledge where the wall is spaced apart from the inner side to form a tray, along the top of the wall including at least space above 20; Fig. 2).
Claim 44, Watson further teaches wherein the at least one upper longitudinal support beam comprises a downward angled edge at a bottom of the outer side to deflect water or snow from an exterior surface of the at least one side wall (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, 6 defines a downward angled edge 50 that is suitable to deflect water or snow from an exterior surface of the at least one side wall, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 9).
Claim 45, Watson further teaches wherein an upper portion of the at least one side wall of the wall system is slidably received within the channel of the at least one upper longitudinal support beam (Figs. 2 and 9).
Claim 49, as modified above, the combination of Watson and Hall teaches all the limitations of claim 37, and further teaches wherein the custom enclosure comprises a ceiling system having a plurality of ceiling panels and a portion of the ceiling system is placed on an upper edge of the lateral shelf of the at least one longitudinal support beam (see rejection of claim 2 as above; Hall Fig. 5B).
Claim 50, as modified above, the combination of Watson and Hall teaches all the limitations of claim 49, and further teaches wherein the length of the inner side of the at least one longitudinal support beam is predefined to provide space for a cavity between the roof system and the ceiling system (Hall Fig. 5B).
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frobosilo (US 7356970) in view of Moran et al. (US 10072411) (‘Moran’).
Claim 4, Frobosilo teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Frobosilo does not teach wherein the male portion is a hook, and a corresponding female portion is a slot, the hook extending away from a side surface, and the slot being dimensioned to receive the hook of an adjacent wall panel. However, such hook and slot connections are known in the art. Moran teaches a custom enclosure, wherein a male portion is a hook 152, and the corresponding female portion is a slot 1414, the hook extending away from a side surface, and the slot being dimensioned to receive the hook of an adjacent wall panel (Figs. 8A-9C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connection such that the male portion is a hook, and the corresponding female portion is a slot, the hook extending away from the side surface, and the slot being dimensioned to receive the hook of an adjacent wall panel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to connect adjacent panels.
Claim 7, Frobosilo teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as above. Frobosilo does not teach wherein the male portion is a hook, and the corresponding female portion is a slot, the hook extending away from the rear surface, wherein the slot is dimensioned to receive the hook of another wall panel.. However, such hook and slot connections are known in the art. Moran teaches a custom enclosure, wherein a male portion is a hook 152, and the corresponding female portion is a slot 1414, the hook extending away from a surface, and the slot being dimensioned to receive the hook of an adjacent wall panel (Figs. 8A-9C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connection such that the male portion is a hook, and the corresponding female portion is a slot, the hook extending away from the rear surface, wherein the slot is dimensioned to receive the hook of another wall panel., with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to connect adjacent panels.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frobosilo (US 7356970) in view of Moran et al. (US 10072411) (‘Moran’).
Claim 10, Frobosilo teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Frobosilo further teaches slots. Frobosilo does not teach wherein the at least one first, second or third interface component is a slot that includes slits at a lower portion to allow for manufacturing tolerances. However, Radek teaches a wall panel structure that has interface components 326 comprising a slot that includes slits at a lower portion to allow for manufacturing tolerances (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the vertical slot in 326 has two slits extending from a lower portion thereof, such slits could be reasonably construed to serve as allowing for manufacturing tolerances, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 13). 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 at least one of the interface components to be a slot that includes slits at a lower portion to allow for manufacturing tolerances, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known shape of an opening to attach the panels, 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.).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frobosilo (US 7356970) in view of Satchell (US 4809476).
Claim 10, Frobosilo teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Frobosilo further teaches slots. Frobosilo does not teach wherein the at least one first, second or third interface component is a slot that includes slits at a lower portion to allow for manufacturing tolerances. However, Satchell teaches a metal framed wall structure that has interface components comprising a slot (45; Fig. 5) that includes slits 47 at a lower portion to allow for manufacturing tolerances (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the slot 45 has two slits 47 extending from a lower portion thereof, such slits could be reasonably construed to serve as allowing for manufacturing tolerances, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 5). 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 at least one of the interface components to be a slot that includes slits at a lower portion to allow for manufacturing tolerances, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known shape of an opening to attach things via the interface components in a known manner, 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.).
Claim(s) 20-21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frobosilo (US 7356970) in view of Williams (US 8677708).
Claim 20, Frobosilo further teaches a wall panel system for use as in an exterior wall section (Fig. 1), the wall panel system comprising: an exterior wall panel layer (exterior layer; Figs. 1-2 and 8-10) having a plurality of laterally connected exterior wall panels (Figs. 1 and 9). Frobosilo does not teach an exterior plate layer having a plurality of exterior plates that are horizontally offset and attached to the exterior wall panels; a wood structure that is connected to the exterior plate layer, the wood structure comprising wood studs; and a drywall layer having a plurality of drywall sheets that are attached to the wood structure. However, Williams teaches a custom enclosure (see Figs. 1-14), comprising a wall panel system for use as in an exterior wall section, the wall panel system comprising: an exterior wall panel layer an exterior plate layer having a plurality of exterior plates that are horizontally offset and attached to the exterior wall panels; a structure that is connected to the exterior plate layer, the structure comprising studs; and a drywall layer having a plurality of drywall sheets that are attached to the wood structure (Fig. 12). Williams does not specify that the structure comprises wood studs, but wood studs, along with other building construction features are notoriously well known and considered to be a design choice which would be expected to be within the scope of customary practice of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to incorporate such additional building construction features into the custom enclosure, with the reasonable expectation of success of providing a desired exterior and interior finish, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim 21, as modified above, the combination of Frobosilo and Williams teaches all the limitations of claim 20, and further teaches wherein the wall panel system further comprises: a steel stud layer having a plurality of steel studs (Williams Fig. 12 col. 1, lines 15-26); and at least one additional drywall layer attached to the steel stud layer (Williams Fig. 12).
Claim 24, as modified above, the combination of Frobosilo and Williams teaches all the limitations of claim 20, and further teaches wherein the wall panel system further comprises a rain cap member that is above and extends longitudinally along the exterior wall panel layer (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Frobosilo element 35 constitutes such a rain cap member Fig. 2, or alternatively Williams element 40, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 20-21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 5083410) in view of Williams (US 8677708).
Claim 20, Watson further teaches a wall panel system for use as in an exterior wall section (Fig. 1), the wall panel system comprising: an exterior wall panel layer (exterior layer; Figs. 1-2 and 8-10) having a plurality of laterally connected exterior wall panels (Figs. 1 and 9). Watson does not teach an exterior plate layer having a plurality of exterior plates that are horizontally offset and attached to the exterior wall panels; a wood structure that is connected to the exterior plate layer, the wood structure comprising wood studs; and a drywall layer having a plurality of drywall sheets that are attached to the wood structure. However, Williams teaches a custom enclosure (see Figs. 1-14), comprising a wall panel system for use as in an exterior wall section, the wall panel system comprising: an exterior wall panel layer an exterior plate layer having a plurality of exterior plates that are horizontally offset and attached to the exterior wall panels; a structure that is connected to the exterior plate layer, the structure comprising studs; and a drywall layer having a plurality of drywall sheets that are attached to the wood structure (Fig. 12). Williams does not specify that the structure comprises wood studs, but wood studs, along with other building construction features are notoriously well known and considered to be a design choice which would be expected to be within the scope of customary practice of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to incorporate such additional building construction features into the custom enclosure, with the reasonable expectation of success of providing a desired exterior and interior finish, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim 21, as modified above, the combination of Watson and Williams teaches all the limitations of claim 20, and further teaches wherein the wall panel system further comprises: a steel stud layer having a plurality of steel studs (Williams Fig. 12 col. 1, lines 15-26); and at least one additional drywall layer attached to the steel stud layer (Williams Fig. 12).
Claim 24, as modified above, the combination of Watson and Williams teaches all the limitations of claim 20, and further teaches wherein the wall panel system further comprises a rain cap member that is above and extends longitudinally along the exterior wall panel layer (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Watson element 6 constitutes such a rain cap member Fig. 1, or alternatively Williams element 40, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frobosilo (US 7356970) in view of Williams (US 8677708).
Claim 36, Frobosilo teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Frobosilo is silent as to a sealing method. However, Williams teaches a custom enclosure comprising a sealing method applied between at least two adjacent laterally offset structural elements (“caulk or other sealants can be applied as desired to various locations where the panels meet and/or fasteners are utilized to weatherproof the structure” specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention, to modify the custom enclosure to include a sealing method applied between at least two adjacent laterally offset structural elements, with the reasonable expectation of success of further weatherproofing the custom enclosure using known means.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 5083410) in view of Williams (US 8677708).
Claim 36, Watson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Watson is silent as to a sealing method. However, Williams teaches a custom enclosure comprising a sealing method applied between at least two adjacent laterally offset structural elements (“caulk or other sealants can be applied as desired to various locations where the panels meet and/or fasteners are utilized to weatherproof the structure” specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention, to modify the custom enclosure to include a sealing method applied between at least two adjacent laterally offset structural elements, with the reasonable expectation of success of further weatherproofing the custom enclosure using known means.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frobosilo (US 7356970) in view of Hall et al. (US 10196809) (‘Hall’) and further in view of JP 2008144554 (as provided by applicant) (‘JP ‘554’).
Claim 42, Frobosilo and Hall teach all the limitations of claim 2 as above. Frobosilo does not teach wherein the roof system comprises at least one roof panel including a lower basket with a plurality of apertures to provide sound attenuation for sounds generated within the custom enclosure. However, JP ‘554 teaches a roof system comprising at least one roof panel including a lower basket with a plurality of apertures to provide sound attenuation for sounds generated within a custom enclosure (Figs. 7-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the custom enclosure by forming the roof system comprising at least one roof panel including a lower basket with a plurality of apertures to provide sound attenuation for sounds generated within the custom enclosure, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to further provide sound attenuation.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 5083410) in view of Hall et al. (US 10196809) (‘Hall’) and further in view of JP 2008144554 (as provided by applicant) (‘JP ‘554’).
Claim 42, Watson and Hall teach all the limitations of claim 2 as above. Watson does not teach wherein the roof system comprises at least one roof panel including a lower basket with a plurality of apertures to provide sound attenuation for sounds generated within the custom enclosure. However, JP ‘554 teaches a roof system comprising at least one roof panel including a lower basket with a plurality of apertures to provide sound attenuation for sounds generated within a custom enclosure (Figs. 7-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the custom enclosure by forming the roof system comprising at least one roof panel including a lower basket with a plurality of apertures to provide sound attenuation for sounds generated within the custom enclosure, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to further provide sound attenuation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is 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 prior art of record, particularly Frobosilo (US 7356970), Watson (US 5083410) and Williams (US 8677708) do not teach, alone or in combination, all the elements and features of the claimed invention, including inter alia wherein the exterior wall panel layer has a first height and the wood structure has a second height shorter than the first height, the wood structure having a top surface for receiving an upper longitudinal support beam that is adapted for receiving cross beams that form part of a roof support structure and the longitudinal support beam is adjacent an inner surface of the exterior plate layer, as recited in claim 23. None of the above references teaches the height difference as claimed, and it would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill to modify or combine any of the above references without destroying the intended purpose or function of the base reference.
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