DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 51. 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. 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 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 12, and 15 utilizes the term “and/or” multiple times throughout the claim, thus rendering the claim as indefinite. The term “and/or” is used to claim alternative configurations and implies several possible configurations which renders the scope to be ambiguous. Moreover, some structure defined by “and/or” are mutually exclusive and cannot be claimed in the conjunctive. For example, the first seat cannot both protrude from the pillar and also be a hollow interior of the pillar (claim 4).
Claim 2 recites “wherein at least some collar reinforced portions (50), the collar reinforcement configuration further includes an annular stiffener.” It is unclear if the collar reinforced portions, the reinforcement configuration, or both, includes an annular stiffener.
Claim 6 recites “wherein at least some elongated reinforced portions (40), the elongated reinforcement configuration further includes an elongated stiffener.” It is unclear if the elongated reinforced portions, the elongated reinforcement configuration, or both, includes an elongated stiffener.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the elongated stiffener" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remainder of the claims are rejected as a result of their dependency from the claims discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 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:
None of the prior art, alone or in obvious combination absent hindsight, discloses applicant’s invention of a multi-floor building structure comprising inter alia collar reinforcement configuration which comprises: a gradual or stepped increase, with the proximity to the vertical through hole, in the thickness and/or in the load-resistance per square centimeter of the horizontal engineered wood board constitutive of the upper and/or lower horizontal layers, the horizontal engineered wood board of increased thickness and/or load-resistance completely surrounding one vertical through hole in a structurally continuous manner; and/or a gradual or stepped increase, with the proximity to the vertical through hole, in the thickness, in the load-resistance per square centimeter and/or in the proximity between successive longitudinal vertical ribs laterally adjacent to the vertical through holes in the transverse horizontal direction, and between successive transversal vertical ribs, laterally adjacent to the vertical through hole in the longitudinal horizontal direction, intersecting to each other forming an array around the vertical through hole completely surrounding one vertical through hole in a structurally continuous manner.
The closest prior art to Perez et al. (EP3919698) discloses an engineered wood structural system. However, unlike the claimed invention, horizontal engineered wood boards 40, 41 of increased thickness or load resistance, does not completely surround one vertical through hole in a continuous manner. Instead, Perez’s horizontal engineered wood boards are placed over a pillar 14 to cover any through hole and a subsequent pillar is placed over the horizontal engineered wood boards (Perez Fig. 6A). In the alternative, Perez also does not teach a vertical through hole. In Perez, upper and lower boards of 30c in Fig. 9A only include rebated portions at two of its corners. Moreover, its successive transversal ribs 31, 32 are uniformly spaced and are contained within separate panels 30a-30c place along the perimeter of the pillars. Therefore, its transversal ribs do not intersect each other forming an array around the vertical through hole completely surrounding one vertical through hole in a structurally continuous manner. Due to the particular arrangement of Perez’s components, there is absent motivation to substantially alter its structure without departing from the manner in which Perez’s engineered wood structural system is intended to operate and thus unobvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T CAJILIG whose telephone number is (571)272-8143. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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 Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/CHRISTINE T CAJILIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights