DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is 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.
Re claim 17, claim 17 recites, “the connection members ”in line 4 and in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the connection member” and will be intpereted as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Pinney (US 5,066,161).
Re claim 1, Pinney discloses a connection member (40) for a demountable frame (10) and for connecting two elongate frame members (12, 16) thereof, the connection member (40) comprising:
an attachment portion (46) for attachment to a first (12) of the elongate frame members (12, 16) and a receiving portion (42) extending from the attachment portion (46) for sliding engagement with (Fig. 2) a hollow end portion (end of 16) of a second (16) of the elongate frame members (12, 16), the receiving portion (42) having at least one screw-threaded passage (50; Col 4 line 36) therein for receiving a locking member (56, 64) to secure the receiving portion (42) in the hollow end portion (end of 16) of the second elongate frame member (16);
wherein the attachment portion (46) and receiving portion (42) are integrally formed (Fig. 2) from a single piece of material (Col 4 lines 25-27) and have respective rectangular cross-sections (Fig. 2; notably, the specification identifies 62/64 as being rectangular, but are shown chamfered in Fig. 5a for example, much the same as 42/46 of Pinney), the cross section (of 42) of the receiving portion (42) being smaller than and offset relative to (Fig. 2) that of the attachment portion (46) to define a shoulder (44) around the receiving portion (42) on the attachment portion (46) the shoulder (44) having a shoulder portion (corners thereof; see examiner comments) that is of greater width along (Fig. 2) on at least one side (corners of 42) of the receiving portion (42); and
wherein the at least one screw-threaded passage (50) opens for receipt of (Fig. 2) the locking member (56, 64) on an opposite side (as no point of reference is provided) of the receiving portion (42) to said at least one side (Fig. 2),
Re claim 2, Pinney discloses the connection member according to claim 1, wherein the connection member (40) is machined from a single billet or piece of plate of engineering material (Fig. 2).
It should further be noted that the language “machined from a single billet or piece of plate of engineering material” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 4, Pinney discloses the connection member according to claim 1, wherein the shoulder (44) around the receiving portion (42) on the attachment portion (46) is of greater width along the one side (one corner thereof) of the receiving portion (42) and on an adjacent side thereof (another corner of the receiving portion).
Re claim 5, Pinney discloses the connection member according to claim 4, wherein the adjacent side (of 42) of the receiving portion (42) on which the shoulder (corner thereof) has a greater width (see examiner comments) is opposite to the side (Fig. 2; such as the far corner from 50) on which the at least one further screw-threaded passage (50) opens (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 3, 6-7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinney (US 5,066,161).
Re claim 3, Pinney discloses the connection member according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the receiving portion has at least one further screw-threaded passage for receiving a corresponding locking member in a side thereof adjacent to said opposite side.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection member of Pinney wherein the receiving portion has at least one further screw-threaded passage for receiving a corresponding locking member in a side thereof adjacent to said opposite side in order to increase strength and rigidity of the connection through use of additional fastening means. It has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 6, Pinney discloses the connection member according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein there are three screw-threaded passages spaced along the receiving portion in said opposite side of the receiving portion or in each of said opposite side and adjacent side of the receiving portion.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection member of Pinney wherein there are three screw-threaded passages spaced along the receiving portion in said opposite side of the receiving portion or in each of said opposite side and adjacent side of the receiving portion in order to increase strength and rigidity of the connection through use of additional fastening means. It has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 7, Pinney discloses the connection member according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the receiving portion of the connection member has a length that is at least about 1.5 times the length of the attachment portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection member of Pinney wherein the receiving portion of the connection member has a length that is at least about 1.5 times the length of the attachment portion in order to increase strength and rigidity of the connection on the connection member side, relative to the attachment portion. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 11, Pinney discloses the connection member according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the shoulder portion that is of greater width has a width that is about 2 to 3 times the width of the remainder of the shoulder.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection member of Pinney wherein the shoulder portion that is of greater width has a width that is about 2 to 3 times the width of the remainder of the shoulder in order to provide additional mounting surfaces for additional seals, as needed. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Claim(s) 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinney (US 5,066,161) in view of Kern (US 5,820,289).
Re claim 8, Pinney discloses the connection member according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the connection member has a longitudinal passage for drainage purposes through the attachment and receiving portions from one end to the other.
However, Kern discloses wherein the connection member (1) has a longitudinal passage (9, and the interior to 1) for drainage purposes (9 is capable of draining) through the attachment and receiving portions (2, 3, 5) from one end to the other (Fig. 1, through 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection member of Pinney wherein the connection member has a longitudinal passage for drainage purposes through the attachment and receiving portions from one end to the other as disclosed by Kern in order to provide ventilation, or to reduce weight thereof.
Re claim 10, Pinney as modified discloses the connection member according to claim 8, Kern discloses wherein a side port (the smaller 9) opens into the drainage passage (interior to 2, 3, 5) from a side face (top of 5) of the attachment portion (3, 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection member of Pinney wherein a side port opens into the drainage passage from a side face of the attachment portion as disclosed by Kern in order to provide further ventilation, or to further reduce weight thereof.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinney (US 5,066,161) in view of Berkowitz (US 4,027,987).
Re claim 12, Pinney discloses the connection member according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a shim is provided adjacent the shoulder on each side face of the receiving portion of the connection member associated with the shoulder portion of greater width.
However, Berkowitz discloses wherein a shim (Fig. 1, protrusions on face 14) is provided adjacent the shoulder (12) on each side face (14) of the receiving portion (14) of the connection member (10) associated with the shoulder portion (per the above) of greater width (per the above, it is noted that the claim recites that the protrusions are on each side face associated with the shoulder portion, and if the shoulder portion is considered 44 of Pinney, than only one side face need the shim).
It would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before Pinney effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection member of Pinney wherein a shim is provided adjacent the shoulder on each side face of the receiving portion of the connection member associated with the shoulder portion of greater width as disclosed by Berkowitz in order to provide a tighter fit into the frame members, strengthening the connection thereto.
Re claim 13, Pinney as modified discloses the connection member according to claim 12, wherein each shim (Fig. 1, protrusions on face 14) is longitudinally spaced from (Fig. 1) the shoulder (12).
Re claim 14, Pinney as modified discloses the connection member according to claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein each shim has a maximum width that is in the range of about 40% to about 55% of the width of the associated shoulder portion of greater width.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection member of Pinney wherein each shim has a maximum width that is in the range of about 40% to about 55% of the width of the associated shoulder portion of greater width in order to provide a tighter fit into the frame members, strengthening the connection thereto, while not creating so large a shim that insertion is made impossible or too difficult. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 15, Pinney as modified discloses the connection member according to claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein each shim is tapered towards the distal end of the receiving portion to provide a ramp surface.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection member of Pinney wherein each shim is tapered towards the distal end of the receiving portion to provide a ramp surface in order to facilitate sliding engagement of the connection member with the additional structure. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacetti et al (“Pacetti”) (US 2013/0036702) in view of Pinney (US 5,066,161).
Re claim 16, Pacetti discloses a demountable frame building (1) comprising:
a plurality of elongate column members (21) and a plurality of elongate beam members (20) connected together (Fig. 1) by respective connection members (Fig. 4),
wherein a first elongate column member (21) of the plurality of elongate column members (21) has a hollow end portion ([0033]) of rectangular cross-section (Fig. 2) and said first elongate column member (21) and a first and second elongate beam member (20) of the elongate beam members (20) are connected together by a connection member (Fig. 4) of the respective connection members (Fig. 4), the connection member (Fig. 4) comprising;
an attachment portion (24, 25) attached to the first and second elongate beam members (20) and a receiving portion (bottom 25) extending from the attachment portion (24, 25) and slidably engaged within (Fig. 5) the hollow end portion ([0033]) of the first elongate column member (21),
wherein the attachment portion (24, 25) and receiving portion (bottom 25) of the connection member (Fig. 4) are integrally formed from a single piece of material (Fig. 4) and have respective rectangular cross-sections (Fig. 4), the cross section (Fig. 4) of the receiving portion (bottom 25) being smaller than (Fig. 4) the internal cross-section (Fig. 5) of the hollow end portion ([0033]) of the first elongate column member (21) and being smaller than and offset relative to (Fig. 4) the cross- section (Fig. 4) of the attachment portion (portion 24 of 24 and 25) to define a shoulder (at the intersection of 24 and 25) around the receiving portion (bottom 25) on the attachment portion (24, 25) for abutment with the hollow end portion ([0033]) of the first elongate column member (21),
but fails to disclose the receiving portion having at least one screw-threaded passage therein aligned with a cooperating opening through the hollow end portion of the first elongate column member and receiving a screw-threaded locking member to secure the receiving portion in the hollow end portion of the first elongate column member, the shoulder having a shoulder portion that is of greater width along at least one side of the receiving portion, and wherein the at least one screw-threaded passage opens for receipt of the screw-threaded locking member on an opposite side of the receiving portion to said at least one side whereby screwing the screw-threaded locking member through the screw-threaded opening and into the at least one screw-threaded passage acts to secure the hollow end portion of the first elongate column member against said opposite side of the receiving portion.
However, Pinney discloses the receiving portion (42) having at least one screw-threaded passage (50) therein aligned with a cooperating opening (60) through the hollow end portion (of 12) of the first elongate column member (24) and receiving a screw-threaded locking member (56/64) to secure the receiving portion (42) in the hollow end portion (of 12) of the first elongate column member (12), and wherein the at least one screw-threaded passage (50) opens for receipt of the locking member (56/64) on an opposite side (24) of the receiving portion (42) to said at least one side (62) whereby screwing the screw-threaded locking member (56/64) through the screw-threaded opening (60) and into the at least one screw-threaded passage (50) acts to secure the hollow end portion (of 12) of the first elongate column member (12) against said opposite side (24) of the receiving portion (42).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the demountable frame building of Pacetti with the receiving portion having at least one screw-threaded passage therein aligned with a cooperating opening through the hollow end portion of the first elongate column member and receiving a screw-threaded locking member to secure the receiving portion in the hollow end portion of the first elongate column member, and wherein the at least one passage opens for receipt of the locking member on an opposite side of the receiving portion to said at least one side whereby screwing the locking member through the opening and into the passage acts to secure the hollow end portion of the first elongate column member against said opposite side of the receiving portion as disclosed by Pinney in order to increase rigidity of the connection between the column and connection member while allowing for use of threaded fasteners such as screws or bolts, such that the assembly may be connected in a secure, yet easily removable manner.
In addition, Pinney discloses the shoulder (44) being of greater width on (Fig. 2 at the corners; see examiner comments) at least one side of the receiving portion (42).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the demountable frame building of Pacetti with the shoulder being of greater width on at least one side of the receiving portion as disclosed by Pinney in order to increase strength along corners thereof through use of additional material and/or increased thickness thereon.
Re claim 17, Pacetti as modified discloses the demountable frame building according to claim 16 wherein the demountable frame building (1) comprises a pre-assembled base structure (15, 20a, 22a, 8, 9) comprising plural elongate beam members (22a, 20a, 8, 9) with two of the beam members (20a, 22a) attached at each corner (Fig. 2) of the base structure (15, 20a, 22a, 8, 9) to a respective one of the connection members (23), a pre-assembled roof structure (16, 8, 8, 9, 20b, 22b) of corresponding shape to the pre-assembled base structure (15, 20a, 22a, 8, 9) and comprising plural elongate beam members (8, 9, 20b, 22b) with two of the beam members (20b, 22b) attached at each corner (Fig. 2) of the pre-assembled roof structure (16, 8, 8, 9, 20b, 22b) to a respective one of the connection members (23), and a respective column member (21a, 21b) at each corner slidingly engaged at (Fig. 2) each end (Fig. 2) with two opposed connection members (23) of the pre-assembled base structure (15, 20a, 22a, 8, 9) and the pre-assembled roof structure (16, 8, 8, 9, 20b, 22b).
Re claim 18, Pacetti as modified discloses the demountable frame building according to claim 16, but fails to disclose wherein for the connection member: the receiving portion has at least one further screw-threaded passage for receiving a corresponding locking member in a side thereof adjacent to said opposite side: the shoulder around the receiving portion on the attachment portion is of greater width along the one side of the receiving portion and on an adjacent side thereof; and the adjacent side of the receiving portion on which the shoulder has a greater width is opposite to the side on which the at least one further screw-threaded passage open.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the demountable frame building of Pacetti disclose wherein for the connection member: the receiving portion has at least one further screw-threaded passage for receiving a corresponding locking member in a side thereof adjacent to said opposite side: the shoulder around the receiving portion on the attachment portion is of greater width along the one side of the receiving portion and on an adjacent side thereof; and the adjacent side of the receiving portion on which the shoulder has a greater width is opposite to the side on which the at least one further screw-threaded passage open in order to provide additional fasteners increasing strength and rigidity of the connection. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 19, Pacetti as modified discloses the demountable frame building according to claim 16, but fails to disclose wherein the receiving portion of the connection member extends into the associated column member by at least 10% of the length of the column member.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the demountable frame building of Pacetti wherein the receiving portion of the connection member extends into the associated column member by at least 10% of the length of the column member in order to increase strength and rigidity of the connection on the connection member by extending a longer distance within the column. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9 is/are 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.
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
554
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Specification: Applicant’s argument with respect to the specification objections is persuasive and objection to the specification is hereby withdrawn.
Objections to the Drawings: Applicant’s argument with respect to the drawings is persuasive and objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is partially persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby partially withdrawn. However, no comments or amendments were provided with respect to claim 17. Thus, rejection of claim 17 under 35 USC 112 is maintained.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102 and/or 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot as they do not apply to the combination of references relied upon in the above. In particular, amendment regarding the previous phrase “greater depth” to “greater width” necessitated new grounds of rejection.
With respect to claim 16, Pacetti is still relied upon as a primary reference. Applicant argues that Pacetti fails to disclose the amended language regarding the claimed width (instead of depth). Pacetti is not relied upon as disclosing this feature. Applicant further contends that Pacetti fails to disclose the cross-section of a receiving portion being smaller than and offset relative to that of the attachment portion. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, 25 is clearly a smaller cross-section than that of 24. Second, the language does not provide any point of reference for where the receiving portion is offset from, or how it is offset with respect to the attachment portion. The cross-section of the receiving portion is smaller than that of the attachment portion. When look at a cross-section view of both, the perimeter of the receiving portion is disposed within the perimeter of the attachment portion. This disposition makes the cross-section of the receiving portion offset inwardly from the perimeter of the attachment portion. Therefore, Pacetti discloses the cross-section of a receiving portion being smaller than and offset relative to that of the attachment portion.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are either rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection in the above, or are addressed by the above remarks and/or rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights