DETAILED ACTION
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 27, 44, 46, and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin (U.S. 3,826,057).
In re Claim 27, Franklin teaches a built-up structural element, comprising a pair of hollow structural sections (12,13), each having a hollow and generally rectangular cross-sectional shape, a plurality of openings (19,21,31,32) and a plurality of bolt holes (26,27 distinct from the openings; a plurality of pins/bolts (28) extending through the plurality of bolt holes and securing the pair of steel hollow structural sections together; and infill framing (23), wherein a first one (12) of the pair of steel hollow structural sections is bolted to the infill framing and a second one (13) of the pair of steel hollow structural sections is bolted to the infill framing. Figure 5 shows how the infill framing is attached to an interior of the wide side of one of the hollow structures and may therefore be said to extend from an interior wide side. (Figures 1-20)
The examiner considers the pins (28) to be bolts. Figures 19 and 20 show that the pins have threads and could therefore be considered bolts. However, should the applicant dispute this, the examiner contends that the replacement of threaded bolts with nuts for pins would be obvious since replacement of one know fastener for another equivalent one would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention.
Franklin does not teach that the hollow structural sections are steel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to make the hollow structural sections with steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Steel is a strong and durable material that resist corrosion and the examiner takes official notice that the use of steel structural members is well known in the art for this reason.
In re Claims 44, 46, and 47, Franklin teaches a built-up structural element, comprising a pair of hollow structural sections (12,13). Figures 9 and 14 shows a pair of complimentary hollow structure sections (12,13) horizontally spaced from the pair of hollow structure systems (12,13). The hollow structural sections and complimentary hollow structure sections each have a hollow and generally rectangular cross-sectional shape, a plurality of openings (19,21,31,32) and a plurality of bolt holes (26,27 distinct from the openings; a plurality of bolts (28) extending through the plurality of bolt holes and securing the pair of steel hollow structural sections together.
Franklin teaches one or more spanning members (62,63,91,71) extending between the pair of steel hollow structural sections and the pair of complementary steel hollow structural sections.
Franklin teaches first and second sets of infill framing (23). A first one (12) of the pair of steel hollow structural sections is bolted to the first set of infill framing and a second one (13) of the pair of steel hollow structural sections is bolted to the first set of infill framing. A first one (12) of the complimentary pair of steel hollow structural sections is bolted to the second set of infill framing and a second one (13) of the complimentary pair of steel hollow structural sections is bolted to the second set of infill framing. Figure 5 shows how the infill framing is attached to an interior of the wide side of one of the hollow structures and may therefore be said to extend from an interior wide side. In this way they would extend from the complimentary steel hollow sections as well. (Figures 1-20)
The examiner considers the pins (28) to be bolts, however, should the applicant dispute this, the examiner contends that the replacement of threaded bolts with nuts for pins would be obvious since replacement of one know fastener for another equivalent one would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention.
Franklin does not teach that the hollow structural sections are steel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to make the hollow structural sections with steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Steel is a strong and durable material that resist corrosion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 39-42, 45, and 48-49 are allowed. The prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a buildup structural element with the combination of characteristics directed to the pair of steel hollow stacked and foldable structural sections and their complements, spanning members, and exterior panel portions coupled to the pair of exterior hollow structural spanning members and their complements specified in the claims. There is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant's invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the art of record does not teach spanning members extending from the interior wide side of the steel hollow structures. This has addressed in the above rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633