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 .
Election/Restrictions
Based on the previously filed restriction requirement, the applicant has elected claims 6-11 for examination while claims 1-5 & 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 9/2/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/31/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “frame structure” and “cross members” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1” has been used to designate both vertical module and horizontal module as seen in fig. 14 & fig. 15.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1a” has been used to designate both first cross members and longitudinal members module as seen in fig. 9 & fig. 10.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a frame structure, a first docking station, a second docking station, and endplates of the splicing assembly are shown but are not labeled. The examiner requests to label the previously mentioned features or have the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
it appears “by the at least two fasteners” should be –by at least two fasteners--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-11 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.
Claim 6 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
Regards to claim 6, It is unclear to which the upper and lower support columns are being placed. Is the upper support column connected to the horizontal modules or to the ground?
Regards to claim 10, it is unclear on how a splicing assembly is connected. Is it connected to every two adjacent vertical module which comprising a longitudinal member or every vertical module has two adjacent longitudinal members and are connected by a slice assembly?
Regards to claim 6 recites the limitation "the support columns" in para. 2 line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regards to claim 6 recites the limitation “a ground” twice in para. 2 lines 4 & 12. Is the applicant referring to the second recitation of “a ground” as the same ground or a different ground? Antecedence should be reflected or the claim terms clearly be differentiated from each other.
Regards to claim 9, it is unclear if the limitation “a plurality of first vertical modules” and “a plurality of second vertical modules”. Are these vertical modules the same first and second vertical modules or are they different first and second vertical modules?
Regards to claim 7, it is unclear to which the “and/or” is referring to which limitation of the claim. Is it referring to the previous limitation or the entire scope of the claim? The examiner is interpretating the claim as wherein the horizontal module comprises a frame structure and at least two connecting cross members, two of the connecting cross members are connected to the frame structure and provided on two opposite sides of the frame structure, and the horizontal module is connected to the first vertical module and the second vertical module by the connecting cross members or a passage space is reserved between every two adjacent horizontal modules.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 6 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tipping et al. (US 20030089050).
In regards to claim 6, as best understood, Tipping discloses a process device module, comprising:
at least two horizontal modules (as seen in annotated fig. 1, reference element H);
at least one first vertical module (as seen in annotated fig. 1, reference element A) and at least one second vertical module (as seen in annotated fig. 1, reference element B), the first vertical module A and the second vertical module B each being provided with at least two layers of workspace (as seen in annotated fig. 1, reference element W), a number of the horizontal modules H being the same as a number of layers of the first vertical module and a number of layers of the second vertical module (as seen in annotated fig. 1), the first vertical module A and the second vertical module B on each layer being communicated by one of the horizontal modules H, and the horizontal modules being detachably connected to the first vertical module A and the second vertical module B (as seen in fig. 7A);
a plurality of support columns (as seen in annotated fig. 1, reference element S), each of which comprising a first column segment (as seen in fig. 2, reference element 32a) and a second column segment (as seen in fig. 2, reference element 32b), the first column segment 32a and the second column segment 32b being configured to provide support between a horizontal module of a process device module and a ground (as seen in annotated fig. 1, para. [0043]); one end of the first column segment 32a and one end of the second column segment 32b being arranged in sliding contact (as seen in fig. 2, para. [0042]) and detachably connected (para. [0042]);
a sum of a length of the first column segment 32a, a length of the second column segment 32b, and a sliding contact distance between the first column segment 32a and the second column segment 32b in a longitudinal direction being greater than a distance between the two adjacent horizontal modules in a longitudinal direction of the support column (as seen in annotated fig. 1), the plurality of the support columns S being configured to provide support between a horizontal module H of a process device module and a ground when the process device module is assembled, the first column segment 32a and the second column segment 32b of the support column S being detachably connected to two adjacent horizontal modules, respectively (as seen in annotated fig. 1). and the first column segment of one of the plurality of the support columns being detachably connected to the ground (as seen in annotated fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
841
893
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 9, as best understood, Tipping discloses the claimed invention, wherein when a plurality of first vertical modules A and a plurality of second vertical modules B are provided, the plurality of first vertical modules A are arranged side by side along a first direction and connected in sequence, and the plurality of second vertical modules B are arranged side by side along the first direction and connected in sequence; a length of the horizontal module in the first direction is greater than or equal to a sum of lengths of the plurality of first vertical modules arranged side by side in the first direction (as seen in annotated fig. 1); and two opposite sides of each horizontal module are connected to the first vertical module and the second vertical module on each layer, respectively (as seen in annotated fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 7 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tipping et al. (US 20030089050) in view of Ohata et al. (US 20090223166).
In regards to claim 7, as best understood, Tipping discloses the claimed invention, wherein the horizontal module H comprises a frame structure (as seen in annotated fig. 1), a passage space is reserved between every two adjacent horizontal modules (as seen in annotated fig. 1).
However, Tipping does not disclose at least two connecting cross members, two of the connecting cross members are connected to the frame structure and provided on two opposite sides of the frame structure, and the horizontal module is connected to the first vertical module and the second vertical module by the connecting cross members.
Ohata teaches of having at least two cross members (as seen in fig. 1, reference element 30), cross members 30 being connected to the frame structure (as seen in fig. 1), provided on two opposite sides of the frame structure (as seen in fig. 1). Although Ohata only displays a first vertical module A, Ohamata teaches that this type of connection can be applied to multiple columns and rows (para. [0009] & [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ohata’s connection structure into Tippings overall design to further support the horizontal and vertical modules by adding additional members to reinforce the yield strength, tensile and compressive forces of the vertical and horizontal modules.
In regards to claim 8, as best understood, Tipping in view of Ohata discloses the claimed invention, wherein the process device module further comprises a connecting structure (as seen in Ohata’s fig. 6), the first vertical module A is provided with a first docking portion (as seen in Ohata’s fig. 1, reference element 17), the second vertical module B being provided with a second docking portion, and the first docking portion and the second docking portion both are detachably connected to the connecting cross members of the horizontal module by the connecting structure (as seen in Ohamata’s fig. 1).
Claims 10 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tipping et al. (US 20030089050) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20220098446).
In regards to claim 10, as best understood, Tipping discloses a claimed invention, Tipping discloses of a first vertical module A and a second vertical module B, however, Tipping does not disclose wherein the process device module further comprises a splicing assembly, the first vertical module comprises a plurality of first cross members and a plurality of first longitudinal members which are connected to each other, and the first longitudinal members of every two adjacent first vertical modules A are in a bolted connection by the splicing assembly or the second vertical module comprises a plurality of second cross members and a plurality of second longitudinal members which are connected to each other, and the second longitudinal members of every two adjacent second vertical modules are in a bolted connection by the splicing assembly..
Lee teaches a splicing assembly (as seen in fig. 7 & 8), a first vertical module (as seen in fig. 4, reference element 11), first cross members (as seen in fig. 4, reference element 100), first longitudinal members (as seen in fig. 18, reference element 11B), and the first longitudinal members of every two adjacent two adjacent first vertical modules are in a bolted connection by the splicing assembly (as seen in fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lee splicing assembly into Tipping design to further reinforce the vertical modules A for any additional structural support that may affect stress state and performance of the beam.
In regards to claim 11, as best understood, Tipping in view of Lee discloses the claimed invention, wherein the splicing assembly comprises an end plate (as seen in Lee’s fig. 6, reference element 220) and at least two fasteners (as seen in Lee’s fig. 8, reference element 330), the end plate 220 is arranged between every two adjacent first longitudinal members 11B (as seen in Lee’s fig. 4), and every two adjacent first longitudinal members 11B are connected by the at least two fasteners 330 (as seen in Lee’s fig. 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARRETT C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7.30am-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.
/GARRETT CHRISTOPHER PATTERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRENT W HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
